MetroMan
Senior Member
Good. Now let's see some shovels in the ground. Good on Miller for championing this. The Mel Lastman deal was embarassing and gave our station away for a lifetime.
Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Indeed, international design competition is a necessity. There is so much potential here, itd be a pity to waste such a great opportunity.
JasonParis
Moderator
City to test pension-fund interest in Union Station
Major questions remain as investors are asked about desire to participate in renovation of landmark transit hub
JENNIFER LEWINGTON AND LORI MCLEOD
January 14, 2008
The first big test of the city's sweeping $388-million proposal to renew Union Station is expected this week, with an invitation to pension-fund investors to get on board.
A call for "expressions of interest" is likely to take place this week, as the city looks to private and public partners to refresh the country's busiest transit hub.
"The advice we have is there will be significant private-sector interest in participating in this project," says Toronto Mayor David Miller, who won a 39-5 vote at council in December to move ahead on a facelift of the landmark owned by the city since 2000.
This week's call to pension funds "will be the first signal whether the advice is right and I am confident it is," he said.
Despite optimism from city officials, the unofficial response of potential investors has been more muted.
Last week, speaking on condition of anonymity, officials with two major groups indicated they are not interested. Recently, another fund official said his group plans to look at the city's proposal.
Only a small number of Canadian public-pension funds, all with real-estate companies, have the qualifications to lead a bid group.
In the next few months, the fate of the project rests on answers to three questions:
Will deep-pocketed pension funds (with real-estate arms) want to operate new office and retail space at the Beaux-Arts landmark? A deal collapsed in 2006.
Will it be feasible to excavate a new underground retail concourse in the basement of Union Station, at an estimated cost of $81-million? Engineering experts hope to have a firm answer in two months.
Will the provincial and federal governments (supportive in principle but silent on their financial role) put up major funds needed to modernize the station for transit users?
City officials need answers to all three questions to stick to a September, 2008, deadline to approve the next phase (selection of the private partner).
City Councillor Karen Stintz voted with the mayor on the renewal, but remains uneasy that a potentially risky excavation for the retail concourse could distract from the station's transit objectives.
The end result, she said, should be "a train station that meets the needs of commuters and enables the city to minimize its financial exposure."
Meanwhile, as city officials negotiate with a potential pension fund partner, they also need to nail down commitments from the provincial and federal governments.
This week, GO Transit chairman Peter Smith expects to meet with Mr. Miller "to further our discussions." Last Friday, eager to move ahead, the GO board invited the city to make a formal presentation on the future of Union Station.
"It is the key to our whole service," said Mr. Smith. "It is absolutely critical to our service delivery."
GO Transit's annual ridership of 48.3 million in 2006 is expected to grow by 50 per cent in 10 years.
Through VIA Rail, the federal government also has a big stake in Union Station, but wants answers of its own.
"Before the federal government will consider a contribution and move forward on this project however, it is imperative that the governance structure be clarified," said a spokeswoman for federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
For now, the city's preference is for a landlord-tenant relationship with transit users, but Mr. Miller said, "I am confident we will be able to accommodate everyone's interest.
"The strength of the partnership [with other governments] obviously depends on their financial commitment." In the meantime, all eyes are on which pension funds might step forward.
Cadillac Fairview Corp. is an arm of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan; Oxford Properties Group belongs to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System; and Ivanhoe Cambridge is owned by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, British Columbia Investment Management Corp., and Public Sector Pension Investment Board have significant real-estate holdings.
Potential investors will have about a month to respond to the city, which in turn will decide who qualifies to bid.
Typically, government contracts include unique restrictions. In the case of Union Station, the unusual requirement is that 51 per cent of the beneficial interest and equity funding must come from Canadian public pension funds.
This caveat has drawn some criticism from the real-estate industry. One prominent developer warns that shutting out other parties could limit the creativity that bidders can bring to the process.
Major questions remain as investors are asked about desire to participate in renovation of landmark transit hub
JENNIFER LEWINGTON AND LORI MCLEOD
January 14, 2008
The first big test of the city's sweeping $388-million proposal to renew Union Station is expected this week, with an invitation to pension-fund investors to get on board.
A call for "expressions of interest" is likely to take place this week, as the city looks to private and public partners to refresh the country's busiest transit hub.
"The advice we have is there will be significant private-sector interest in participating in this project," says Toronto Mayor David Miller, who won a 39-5 vote at council in December to move ahead on a facelift of the landmark owned by the city since 2000.
This week's call to pension funds "will be the first signal whether the advice is right and I am confident it is," he said.
Despite optimism from city officials, the unofficial response of potential investors has been more muted.
Last week, speaking on condition of anonymity, officials with two major groups indicated they are not interested. Recently, another fund official said his group plans to look at the city's proposal.
Only a small number of Canadian public-pension funds, all with real-estate companies, have the qualifications to lead a bid group.
In the next few months, the fate of the project rests on answers to three questions:
Will deep-pocketed pension funds (with real-estate arms) want to operate new office and retail space at the Beaux-Arts landmark? A deal collapsed in 2006.
Will it be feasible to excavate a new underground retail concourse in the basement of Union Station, at an estimated cost of $81-million? Engineering experts hope to have a firm answer in two months.
Will the provincial and federal governments (supportive in principle but silent on their financial role) put up major funds needed to modernize the station for transit users?
City officials need answers to all three questions to stick to a September, 2008, deadline to approve the next phase (selection of the private partner).
City Councillor Karen Stintz voted with the mayor on the renewal, but remains uneasy that a potentially risky excavation for the retail concourse could distract from the station's transit objectives.
The end result, she said, should be "a train station that meets the needs of commuters and enables the city to minimize its financial exposure."
Meanwhile, as city officials negotiate with a potential pension fund partner, they also need to nail down commitments from the provincial and federal governments.
This week, GO Transit chairman Peter Smith expects to meet with Mr. Miller "to further our discussions." Last Friday, eager to move ahead, the GO board invited the city to make a formal presentation on the future of Union Station.
"It is the key to our whole service," said Mr. Smith. "It is absolutely critical to our service delivery."
GO Transit's annual ridership of 48.3 million in 2006 is expected to grow by 50 per cent in 10 years.
Through VIA Rail, the federal government also has a big stake in Union Station, but wants answers of its own.
"Before the federal government will consider a contribution and move forward on this project however, it is imperative that the governance structure be clarified," said a spokeswoman for federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
For now, the city's preference is for a landlord-tenant relationship with transit users, but Mr. Miller said, "I am confident we will be able to accommodate everyone's interest.
"The strength of the partnership [with other governments] obviously depends on their financial commitment." In the meantime, all eyes are on which pension funds might step forward.
Cadillac Fairview Corp. is an arm of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan; Oxford Properties Group belongs to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System; and Ivanhoe Cambridge is owned by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, British Columbia Investment Management Corp., and Public Sector Pension Investment Board have significant real-estate holdings.
Potential investors will have about a month to respond to the city, which in turn will decide who qualifies to bid.
Typically, government contracts include unique restrictions. In the case of Union Station, the unusual requirement is that 51 per cent of the beneficial interest and equity funding must come from Canadian public pension funds.
This caveat has drawn some criticism from the real-estate industry. One prominent developer warns that shutting out other parties could limit the creativity that bidders can bring to the process.
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Interesting. I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I want Union renovated to become the jewel that it should, and I think retail is necessary to a point, but do we need a whole mall under the station? Can we not come up with something more unique that just another mall?
JasonParis
Moderator
From this week's NOW Magazine...
Union Station's big save
Toronto’s greatest historical landmark is to be remade. The idea’s been tried before, with uninspiring results. Will David Miller’s vision restore Canada’s grandest example of beaux arts architecture to its former grandeur? We parse the city’s plan and offer a five-point proposal of our own. All aboard!
1. Make the Great Hall great again
There’s no delicate way to put it. The Great Hall, once hailed as the most magnificent room in Canada, is falling apart. The Tennessee marble floor is cracking. Plaster is crumbling from the walls. The lustre has come off the oak woodwork and bronze and copper finishes. Heritage repairs alone will cost more than $177 million over the next 25 years.
But an even bigger problem is that, outside morning and evening rush hours, the space itself is underutilized. The city is proposing improved pedestrian access, including a new underground PATH connection to the northwest and a tunnel to Union Plaza, the Air Canada Centre and Maple Leaf Square. Great for commuters who want to get to the Leafs game, but the station itself needs to become a destination. Plans prepared by architects in 1914 but never realized show a splendid dining room and kitchens on the main floor. Sounds like a place to start.
2. Give Union back its west wing
For Union to really fly, it needs its wings back. The west wing, which houses the station’s original waiting room and once boasted a view of the bay, is little-used today except by passengers on their way from the station to the Convention Centre via the Skywalk. It retains few of its historic elements. The skylight that was covered up during World War II has been restored, but the space, which features Zumbro stone walls and pillars, is now dominated by a confection stand.
We say bring back the quarter-cut oak benches, private telephone booths and writing tables that gave train travel a sense of occasion back in the day.
3. Putting feet back in the plaza
As a public space, the “plaza†out front of the station is little more than an extra-wide sidewalk – and ground zero for lung-busting smog when buses and cabbies are lining up in front to collect passengers. The plaza is supposed to announce the station. But you’ll generally find more pigeons congregating than people.
The few bike racks are a disgrace. And the hot dog stand out front adds more clutter than charm. The space needs an entire rethink. There’s nowhere to sit.
Adding some green and a bike lane along Front should be priorities. The most intriguing aspect of the front, the majestic “moat†behind the columns leading to the GO concourse, is a dead zone. It could use some benches for those hot, humid days when shade is hard to come by.
4. Beware the retail hell
By far the most controversial part of the city’s plan for Union is a proposal to dig underneath the existing Bay and York GO concourses to make room for some 12,500 square metres of retail.
We’re all for killing the kitsch and odd “grab and go†shops that disfigure every nook and cranny of this national historic site. But we certainly don’t want to go back to the 60s, when huge billboards adorned the Great Hall’s walls, cars were displayed on platforms and vending machines were everywhere.
The city’s proposal talks about giving some retail space to locally made goods and services – a good thing. For Union to survive, it must become economically self-sustaining – and that means retail. The key is ensuring that the heritage restoration makes Union an attraction on its own.
More commuters enter Union Station every day than Grand Central in New York. The difference is that another half-million people visit Grand Central simply to enjoy the space.
5. Staying on the right track
There are many fingers in this pie – maybe too many. The city owns the building, GO owns the rail corridor between the Don River and Strachan. And the feds aren’t willing to ante up any cash.
This project is too big and complex to be managed by a council vulnerable to development pressures or city bureaucracy. The Union Station Revitalization Public Advisory Group is recommending that council appoint a separate board that can respond to issues quickly as they arise. This is crucial, especially since council changes every four years and there is no assurance new members will share the historically rich vision that the current mayor’s crew is pushing.
The last thing we want to see – and the idea has been floated – is a clutter of new towers rising over the tracks.
news@nowtoronto.com
Union Station's big save
Toronto’s greatest historical landmark is to be remade. The idea’s been tried before, with uninspiring results. Will David Miller’s vision restore Canada’s grandest example of beaux arts architecture to its former grandeur? We parse the city’s plan and offer a five-point proposal of our own. All aboard!
1. Make the Great Hall great again
There’s no delicate way to put it. The Great Hall, once hailed as the most magnificent room in Canada, is falling apart. The Tennessee marble floor is cracking. Plaster is crumbling from the walls. The lustre has come off the oak woodwork and bronze and copper finishes. Heritage repairs alone will cost more than $177 million over the next 25 years.
But an even bigger problem is that, outside morning and evening rush hours, the space itself is underutilized. The city is proposing improved pedestrian access, including a new underground PATH connection to the northwest and a tunnel to Union Plaza, the Air Canada Centre and Maple Leaf Square. Great for commuters who want to get to the Leafs game, but the station itself needs to become a destination. Plans prepared by architects in 1914 but never realized show a splendid dining room and kitchens on the main floor. Sounds like a place to start.
2. Give Union back its west wing
For Union to really fly, it needs its wings back. The west wing, which houses the station’s original waiting room and once boasted a view of the bay, is little-used today except by passengers on their way from the station to the Convention Centre via the Skywalk. It retains few of its historic elements. The skylight that was covered up during World War II has been restored, but the space, which features Zumbro stone walls and pillars, is now dominated by a confection stand.
We say bring back the quarter-cut oak benches, private telephone booths and writing tables that gave train travel a sense of occasion back in the day.
3. Putting feet back in the plaza
As a public space, the “plaza†out front of the station is little more than an extra-wide sidewalk – and ground zero for lung-busting smog when buses and cabbies are lining up in front to collect passengers. The plaza is supposed to announce the station. But you’ll generally find more pigeons congregating than people.
The few bike racks are a disgrace. And the hot dog stand out front adds more clutter than charm. The space needs an entire rethink. There’s nowhere to sit.
Adding some green and a bike lane along Front should be priorities. The most intriguing aspect of the front, the majestic “moat†behind the columns leading to the GO concourse, is a dead zone. It could use some benches for those hot, humid days when shade is hard to come by.
4. Beware the retail hell
By far the most controversial part of the city’s plan for Union is a proposal to dig underneath the existing Bay and York GO concourses to make room for some 12,500 square metres of retail.
We’re all for killing the kitsch and odd “grab and go†shops that disfigure every nook and cranny of this national historic site. But we certainly don’t want to go back to the 60s, when huge billboards adorned the Great Hall’s walls, cars were displayed on platforms and vending machines were everywhere.
The city’s proposal talks about giving some retail space to locally made goods and services – a good thing. For Union to survive, it must become economically self-sustaining – and that means retail. The key is ensuring that the heritage restoration makes Union an attraction on its own.
More commuters enter Union Station every day than Grand Central in New York. The difference is that another half-million people visit Grand Central simply to enjoy the space.
5. Staying on the right track
There are many fingers in this pie – maybe too many. The city owns the building, GO owns the rail corridor between the Don River and Strachan. And the feds aren’t willing to ante up any cash.
This project is too big and complex to be managed by a council vulnerable to development pressures or city bureaucracy. The Union Station Revitalization Public Advisory Group is recommending that council appoint a separate board that can respond to issues quickly as they arise. This is crucial, especially since council changes every four years and there is no assurance new members will share the historically rich vision that the current mayor’s crew is pushing.
The last thing we want to see – and the idea has been floated – is a clutter of new towers rising over the tracks.
news@nowtoronto.com
junctionist
Senior Member
Those are worthwhile suggestions, though I fear that wooden benches would be prone to vandalism. I can see a market for an upscale restaurant at Union when everything is restored. It can be a destination. The mall itself won't be that big of a draw.
If that clock hasn't been fixed yet than it's about time. That's a kind of "quick win" restoration project. Too bad we don't have those guerrillas from Paris to do it.
If that clock hasn't been fixed yet than it's about time. That's a kind of "quick win" restoration project. Too bad we don't have those guerrillas from Paris to do it.
JasonParis
Moderator
Could this really be true?
lordmandeep
Banned
according to wiki its true...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Terminal
However, they get 500k visitors and really they must commute there to get there and it has 67 tracks!!
It makes union 13 look like nothing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Terminal
However, they get 500k visitors and really they must commute there to get there and it has 67 tracks!!
It makes union 13 look like nothing...
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Think of all those tracks more as a yard. The terminal's also stub ended (I know, there's the loop track but it hasn't been used for years) so turnaround times are much longer. Grand Central isn't the main station for New York. It only serves passengers on Metro North trains. Most commuters (LIRR and New Jersey Transit) and all long-distance passengers use Pennsylvania Station.
lordmandeep
Banned
Yeah so really its a bad comparison.
Yeah we have greater ridership then NY 2nd railway station...
Yeah we have greater ridership then NY 2nd railway station...
unimaginative2
Senior Member
It's still a perfectly reasonable comparison. It's a massive railway station that's received a huge amount of heritage restoration attention. The point of the article was that it attracts fewer passengers than Union, but vastly more people because it's a destination in itself.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,403
- Reaction score
- 9,058
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
The other great comparison is Washington Union Station. It was dilapidated in the 1970s and early 1980s. I actually got a nice tour from a friendly security guard who had worked there for over 25 years who I talked to after he noticed my interest in the building. (Perhaps he was making sure I was only interested in the architecture, but it was a good conversation nonetheless).
It's a hub for Amtrak (with more Amtrak trains than VIA at Union - almost hourly Acela trains plus the frequent regionals north to Baltimore, Philly and New York and less frequently to Richmond/Newport News and the night trains to Chicago, New Orleans/San Antonio and Miami), and has several commuter lines to Virgina, Maryland and West Virginia, but is much less frequent than GO, except perhaps the MARC Penn Line to Baltimore.
It's mostly a stub station, but there are several through tracks to Virginia. Retail and passenger services are complementary, and neither seem to get in the way of each other.
And guess who did this renovation - LP Heritage, who should have won the Union Station deal originally, except Mel's buddies weren't backing that one.
It's a hub for Amtrak (with more Amtrak trains than VIA at Union - almost hourly Acela trains plus the frequent regionals north to Baltimore, Philly and New York and less frequently to Richmond/Newport News and the night trains to Chicago, New Orleans/San Antonio and Miami), and has several commuter lines to Virgina, Maryland and West Virginia, but is much less frequent than GO, except perhaps the MARC Penn Line to Baltimore.
It's mostly a stub station, but there are several through tracks to Virginia. Retail and passenger services are complementary, and neither seem to get in the way of each other.
And guess who did this renovation - LP Heritage, who should have won the Union Station deal originally, except Mel's buddies weren't backing that one.
drum118
Superstar
Since there more than one station in NYC, you are not comparing apples to apples.
If you add the riders of the other stations, then Union fall short.
Grand Central is a nice station as well Union and both must exist as heritage buildings.
nfitz
Superstar
I think your missing his point. This wasn't a game of "whose is bigger". The point was here is a station that is used X amount, and was heavily refurbished.
Though I have to ask - are the Grand Central estimates including the subway passengers? Don't the subway passengers in Grand Central use a lot more of the station, than they do at Union? That's my recollection last time I was there.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Exactly, nfitz. Thanks!
Those figures don't include subway passengers, but the subway station is as segregated from the rail station as at Union Station.
Those figures don't include subway passengers, but the subway station is as segregated from the rail station as at Union Station.