cplchanb said:
i just hate it when they use the heritage excuse. just because it's heritage doesn't mean that it looks good or is worth keeping. hell this entire station should've been gutted and modernised instead of patched up like it is now
Click to expand...
So, in your view "heritage' means 'pretty" (and pretty to YOU?) You would have loved living here in the 1950s and 1960s when much of the City was demolished or 'improved'. Take a look at the Here and Now thread to see some of the buildings we lost and the crap that often replaced it.
 
Richard White said:
That may be the case but it is attitudes like that that gave Union the level of heritage protections causing you grief now.

In the 1970s efforts were underway as part of the Metro Centre development to tear down Union and build a more modern station given the state it was in at the time. People complained then that it was dated and run down.

After what happened at Penn Station in New York cooler heads prevailed and made it virtually impossible to change, demolish or substantially alter Union. Short of the station imploding, being nuked or engulfed in a 6+ alarm fire during Rush Hour there is no way that Union is going anywhere or being substantially altered.
Click to expand...

The main issue with Union is the lack of natural lighting (and the relative lack of ceiling or natural lighting in the Great Hall, giving it a dark and gloomy look). The GO concourses are otherwise fairly "pretty" and modern, so if parts of the VIA concourse could look a bit like that, it would be fine. We could have a mix of heritage and modern elements.
 
Sandpit said:
The main issue with Union is the lack of natural lighting (and the relative lack of ceiling or natural lighting in the Great Hall, giving it a dark and gloomy look). The GO concourses are otherwise fairly "pretty" and modern, so if parts of the VIA concourse could look a bit like that, it would be fine. We could have a mix of heritage and modern elements.
Click to expand...
There will, apparently, be a new chandelier in the Great Hall and some sort of accent lighting. It's not done yet.
 
sixrings said:
I just took the via to Montreal. Now that is objectively a ugly station.
Click to expand...

I have been to a few railway stations in Eastern Europe over the years and while they are run down, it brings them character. They are antiquated but they have that old world charm you don't get places like St Pancreas (London) or the updated Waterloo Station (also in London).

Sometimes the fact the station is collapsing around you is what makes it worth it.
 
sixrings said:
I just took the via to Montreal. Now that is objectively a ugly station.
Click to expand...

hhhnnnrrrrrggghh nope not touching that.

I am a heritage advocate, but my big beef is when it does not permit re-use, and significantly hampers use and enjoyment. So steering this back to Union, it's that damn bush shed. I don't know how many times we have to discuss it in this thread but I highly doubt I will be presented a well-reasoned argument that will change my mind. Even with lighting, it is not the open welcoming place that a major city's gateway should be. And it has the potential to hamper electrification (practically or financially), that will greatly improve the enjoyment and experience at platform level.

You bundle this with the fact that they have put so much effort into major usuable parts of Union, and it is just the one piece that does not stand up.
 
Sandpit said:
Yes, but only on the outside.
Click to expand...
Well, the outside is virtually invisible as it is primarily below other buildings and the main "Hall" is a modern(ish) version of the Great Hall @ Union.
gare.jpg


Nothing wrong with it but 'our' Great Hall really is far more impressive - you can actually hear people 'gasp' when they come up the ramp from the VIA area and see it.
 

Attachments

  • gare.jpg
    gare.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 586
Central has great natural light during the day, but after dark the lighting is dreadful. VIA has done a good job of keeping it pretty - moreso imho than in CN days, when the original charm of the 40s architecture was buried under a layer of 70s psychedelic paint and 'fat albert' graphics treatment. The original murals seem to have been downplayed which is a shame as they are quite attractive.

What defines Toronto Union is the separation of the Great Hall from the arrivals/departures area and the west side waiting hall. The high traffic areas are all downstairs. There is a serenity and grandeur about the Great Hall that Central, while larger, doesn't have. At Central, everything is in one big hall. It has a more vibrant urban feel, but kind of like a circus tent....chaotic and not calming.

- Paul
 
innsertnamehere said:
I was going to say. Montreal's station is disastrous on the outside and doesn't really have any clear entrances. Inside is meh at best. I prefer Ottawa's station over Montreal, for sure. Toronto has got the best train station in the country, hands down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Ottawa's is much nicer than Montreal, for me.
What about Vancouver? I've never been inside...or straight outside of it....I've only seen it from the SkyTrain. Looks like it could be alright inside.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top