News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 638     0 

Art/Architecture in Subway Stations: Are they worth it?

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
I've been browsing some news stories and photos of the recently-opened Canada Line in Vancouver. One thing that struck me about what I saw in the station photos is the lack of public art or stunning architecture there. The Canada Line doesn't seem to follow the traditions of the Montreal Metro and Toronto's subway (since the opening of the Spadina Subway) of building stations that are loaded with public artwork- artwork that is usually permanent and integrated with the design of the station. The Canada Line stations seem to take a no-frills approach towards design, and at best, uses the "glass and steel" style that is so typical of Vancouver. Even the signage is rather generic, unable to generate the same attachment that we Torontonians have for the "TTC Font".

I've run a Google search for "Canada Line Art" and found that except for one permanent piece at YVR-Airport, the rest are not permanent and will be rotated...

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/story.html?id=1890252

Seems like right now many of us here in Toronto are envious of Vancouver's new line, even though the line lacks the architecture of Canada's other heavy rail rapid transit systems. I haven't heard much complaints about the design of the stations (any latest word from Vancouver?).

In light of the Spadina Subway Extension being designed by starchitects, perhaps it's time to re-consider Toronto's approach towards subway art and architecture. Is the TTC overdoing its art/architecture program (perhaps in an attempt to catch up or to beat the Montreal Metro in this regard), or is it adequate? Should the TTC be spending less on design/art fees and more on creating more stations and routes that work?

Vancouver_City_Centre_Station.jpg


vs.

1153636754_15be7364ac_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well first of all, I'd rather have a real rapid transit line over some artwork!

And I guess that if artwork is demanded, it's quite easy to just hire some artists, or even get some local volunteer artists to pretty up a station. Once they've established themselves as stations, I'm sure local artists would be more than willing to decorate the stations either for free or at a low price.

Also, it may be an age thing, but I actually like Vancouver's "glass and steel" style a lot.
 
Yes to art and to architecture

I am very supportive of attractive, well designed stations. They don't necessarily have to have 'public art' as such, though I certainly see no reason they shouldn't.

But they must have design, and quality finishes with some flare.

Let's keep costs in perspective the public art budget so far as I recollect is 0.5% of total construction cost.

So if a station is 150M to build, we're talking $750,000 for an upgraded artistic component. That's a rounding error!

Of course there are many non art elements that go into go design and quality finishes, but still, the vast majority, barring a Calatrava atrium or such, are still the smallest part of the construction budget, which is overwhelmingly the basic box.

***

As to Vancouver's stations, they aren't terrible, by any means, and do have some art, check out some of interesting light fixtures used, in the photo thread over at SSP Vancouver.

But most of the stations all have the same neutral colour palate which I find quite unfortunate.

I hasten to add, if the TTC has recent propensity for over-building stations in capacity terms, I worry Vancouver has done the opposite on the Canada Line which may be severely over capacity in a short few years....but that's a different issue.

Its important to make stations look nice, its a statement of civic pride, and also an assurance to the middle class that it is not merely a service for the poor or those who have no choice but to ride.

Of course, if the choice is between a new line and art, better to have the new line.....

But that's a false dichotomy since canceling all public art would not come close to paying for even 1 new station, let alone 1 new line.
 
There isn't much art on the SRT either is there? The transit expansion in Vancouver was envisioned at a SkyTrain (our SRT) expansion but different technology ended up winning the bid. The look and feel of their stations is likely meant to be consistent with their existing SkyTrain system which is largely elevated with windows looking out at the backdrop of mountains.
 
^ No, there's no art in the SRT. I'd attribute that to the SRT being originally designed as a "demonstration line" which was meant to sell ICTS technology, therefore requiring little regard for station design.

Detroit adopted the same technology as Vancouver and Scarborough, but that did not stop the Detroit People Mover from putting prominent pieces of art in its stations.
 
And I guess that if artwork is demanded, it's quite easy to just hire some artists, or even get some local volunteer artists to pretty up a station. Once they've established themselves as stations, I'm sure local artists would be more than willing to decorate the stations either for free or at a low price.

Why would, or should, artists volunteer to "pretty up" a station for free or at a low price? And if it actually were so "easy to just hire some artists", why do we have as little art in the system as we do?

The answers are 1) that artists worth hiring are worth their hire, and 2) that significant works, able to stand the test of time in these high traffic situations and in these out-sized environs, must be carefully considered: generally they do not come cheaply.

What do you do, Second_in_pie? Maybe you'd like to do it for free, or at a low price, and do it in public, so that we can all undervalue it too? Meanwhile, consider taking an art tour of the subway system, after which you can get back to us concerning which pieces you think might be the cut-rate standouts.

42
 
If I was able to produce art on anything bigger than standard size paper, sure I'd be willing to take a day to contribute to my theoretical neighborhood subway station. I was merely hoping that some people with a shred of artistic talent and community spirit would be thinking less about the money and more of the benefits for their community. But maybe we're thinking on different lines, like two or three drawings or murals vs. Museum station?
 
...would be thinking less about the money and more of the benefits for their community.

Someone against their tax money being spent on art in a subway station is thinking more about money and less about the benefits for their community. Time is money. Expecting someone to donate their time so you can save money is hypocritical.
 
Here, it would make sense to repair the subway stations first, they are in terrible shape. Some even have holes in the walls and the ceilings. If the stations cannot be kept in a decent shape then there is no point in art.
 
I think the discussion is about putting art into a station when you are buidling it. If the discussion was about putting new art into a station whose roof is eating away then I would agree. The budget for a new station is not money that would automatically be available for maintenance.
 
In a way, you can use Vancouver now as a prism through which to view Toronto in the 50s and 60s, transit-design-wise...
 
Let's keep costs in perspective the public art budget so far as I recollect is 0.5% of total construction cost. So if a station is 150M to build, we're talking $750,000 for an upgraded artistic component. That's a rounding error!

Someone against their tax money being spent on art in a subway station is thinking more about money and less about the benefits for their community.

Perhaps someone against spending tax money on subway art might be considering the benefit to the community of lower taxes or perhaps the benefit that could be achieved by spending that money on something else.

Perhaps the hospital system could use $750,000. Is the benefit from subway art greater than the benefit a hospital could get for that money? Let's ask someone who is waiting for an operation.

$750,000 could buy a bunch of traffic humps which some might consider a great benefit (I'm not one of them, but I can see the point of those that do).

I'm not saying that art doesn't benefit the community. But the benefit is not an unlimited one and is achieved by reducing benefit elsewhere (the money comes from somewhere). People can disagree on which benefit is more important.
 
sjc, that comparison game can be played in many ways. Why fund public transit in Toronto at all, when the need for housing in Nunavut is so strong? The comparisons are meaningless, because money "saved" in one place doesn't go to another place in anything like the way you are suggesting.

For me, public art is certain enlivening. I never fail to appreciate the pieces that dot Pearson, for instance.
 
sjc, that comparison game can be played in many ways. Why fund public transit in Toronto at all, when the need for housing in Nunavut is so strong?

With respect to Toronto tax money that we would be saving, it would come from other potential Toronto expenditures (streets, homeless, etc) or (through reduced taxes) it would not be taken from the taxpayer in the first place (the less likely option). If the province and feds are kicking in dollars, then any money saved could be redirected to other provincial or federal initiatives (housing in Nunavut) or given back to the taxpayer through tax cuts.

Paying down existing debt would also be an option.

The comparisons are meaningless, because money "saved" in one place doesn't go to another place in anything like the way you are suggesting.

When the government spends money on a project, the money comes from somewhere -- almost always the taxpayer through direct taxes or borrowing from future tax revenues.

EDIT: Technically the federal government can spend money that doesn't come from anywhere by simply turning on the printer. In reality, though even that money comes from somewhere -- everyone with Canadian dollars through the devaluing existing currency.
 
Last edited:
The Canada Line hits a happy medium between pleasant enough to ride and reasonable costs. On a continuum, one end is the Queen's Quay LRT station (ugly to the point I prefer to walk to Union), but on the other hand there is Westminster Station in London. Obviously it is bloody impressive, but you wonder if the money wouldn't be better spent elsewhere. The DLR system struck me as a more balanced system in this respect, stations like Canary Wharf (the DLR one, not Jubilee) are impressive enough.

I am also more inclined to support subway art than architecture. From what I have seen, big time architects can't design a subway station. Maybe they were asked to do so by the system operator, I don't know, but "architect designed" often becomes a euphemism for massively oversized. Glencairn comes to mind as a an example. The Jubilee line another.

In sum, stations should be pleasant and interesting, but they don't have to be monuments for all future generations to behold with fear and wonder. The Canada Line shows that stations don't have to have massive vaulted ceilings and palatial mezzanines that feel like they came out of the head of a bureaucrat with an Albert Speer complex. I personally like our older smaller stations. Some were built with unfortunate color schemes, but the renovated Osgoode and St. Andrew's station are quite nice in my opinion. Examples like Pachter's Leafs/Habs mural in College or the mosaic in Dupont are more impressive and unique to Toronto than getting whoever the starchitect du jour is to design an underground cathedral and are a fraction of the price.
 

Back
Top