Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

Aside from the train shed and adding a second level of tracks/platforms, what other things do you think could be done to union in a "start from scratch scenario"?

I believe the concourse expansion, when complete, will be ample to serve the needs of the station. Being half constructed though is part of the problem from a passenger/pedestrian flow point of view.

Except for the inadequacy of access to the platform level - and the inadequacy of the platform level itself - the concourse/retail arrangement we have now will make any serious attempt to alter both exceedingly difficult and expensive.

AoD
 
What are our options to mitigate this. Could a giant cistern be built below ground to collect excess rainwater?

As part of the City's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, a large tunnel will begin construction this year from roughly Don Mills/DVP following the valley to around Queen/Lake Shore then shunting east to Ashbridges.

This will hold stormwater for that area (east of the Don, south of Taylor-Massey Creek and should be finished in the early 2020's.

Thereafter, another tunnel will be built along Taylor Creek to roughly Warden Avenue for a similar purpose.

The most recently discussed options for downtown, envision enhanced storm water collection in the Lake Shore/Queen's Quay area, before shunting east.

Even when built, however, this will only address portions of the issue.

Areas like the Simcoe underpass will require pumping solutions in all likelihood, as will some other low points where surface water accumulation alone can pose a serious risk of flooding.

Lower levels of parking/foundations, particularly where set below the water table are always at risk. Pumping is the most likely answer.

A more comprehensive set of options is also available, ranging from hideously expensive universal sewer separation, to green roof(s), grey water systems, building-level cisterns, to open water retention.

The latter is hard to do right downtown, but there are excellent nearby spaces which could still relieve the issue nearer the core.

But none are cheap, or without controversy

(ie. you could use the 'bowl' area at Trinity Belwoods to retain storm water, but that would eliminate other uses of that space. )

This project could be undertaken w/digging out the original ravine shape and buried bridge, but that would eliminate much needed table parkland. Replacing that space would be quite expensive, and if done adjacent to Trinity would also potentially impact heritage structures and/or homes.

Likewise the low-point in Bedford Park is also part of the former Garrison Creek corridor and offers similar opportunities and challenges; as does the baseball diamond at Riverdale Park West.

But replacing that space is no easy task.

All in all lots of trade-offs and lots of $$$ however you choose to tackle it.

There is one major opportunity in the budget now....which is the Yonge Street re-do. If it incorporated large, open-style trench tree planters at select locations, that would help (albeit in a small way).

That above project is, however, illustrative that we can, should and must incorporate solutions to this sort of thing (along w/urban heat island issues) into every project of significance the City under takes, if remotely practical.
 
What are our options to mitigate this. Could a giant cistern be built below ground to collect excess rainwater?

A more comprehensive set of options is also available, ranging from hideously expensive universal sewer separation, to green roof(s), grey water systems, building-level cisterns, to open water retention.

The latter is hard to do right downtown, but there are excellent nearby spaces which could still relieve the issue nearer the core.

But none are cheap, or without controversy

...

There is one major opportunity in the budget now....which is the Yonge Street re-do. If it incorporated large, open-style trench tree planters at select locations, that would help (albeit in a small way).

That above project is, however, illustrative that we can, should and must incorporate solutions to this sort of thing (along w/urban heat island issues) into every project of significance the City under takes, if remotely practical.

These types of low-impact developments (LIDs) are underrated. Green roofs were an easy tack-on solution, but I feel like there isn't enough thought given to other on-site controls; keeping water where it falls, vs. letting it run on hard surfaces and driving it off site using storm sewers. I think it also goes hand-in-hand with the fact that our urban forestry is piss poor. Notice I didn't say landscaping. Urban forestry is a holistic and macro scale approach, landscaping is just fine and unbeneficial detailing in terms of stormwater and air quality management.

The redevelopment of the public space in front of Union is a prime example. It looks great, but it's almost entirely hard surfaces. Why weren't the trees replaced in the middle of Front Street? Why aren't there grassy swales to replace the concrete curbs? Why is so much space dedicated to the road and taxis? Instead, we got a few bucket planters and just a few trees on the north side of the street. City engineers will point a million fingers towards pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as well as utility conflicts as reasons not to do more. But it ignores the fact that there's no internal forces to push the city to try and do it.
 
Alas, there appears to be water damage in the arch above the west end of the Great Hall. A bucket was placed on the floor, between the entrance from Front Street and the access to York Concourse. Visible discolouration in the curved ceiling.
 
Alas, there appears to be water damage in the arch above the west end of the Great Hall. A bucket was placed on the floor, between the entrance from Front Street and the access to York Concourse. Visible discolouration in the curved ceiling.

For all those wondering the damage does appear extensive. It makes me wonder where the water got in and how extensive it really is.

20180813_063241.jpg
20180813_063217.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20180813_063241.jpg
    20180813_063241.jpg
    211.5 KB · Views: 336
  • 20180813_063217.jpg
    20180813_063217.jpg
    201.7 KB · Views: 310
For all those wondering the damage does appear extensive. It makes me wonder where the water got in and how extensive it really is.

Frankly, I would not say the damage was 'extensive' and from the photos it seems to be drying out quite fast as the 'damp spots' were larger on Friday. Presumably it came in from either an open window in the area above the Great Hall's roof or a blocked or too small roof drain.
 
Frankly, I would not say the damage was 'extensive' and from the photos it seems to be drying out quite fast as the 'damp spots' were larger on Friday. Presumably it came in from either an open window in the area above the Great Hall's roof or a blocked or too small roof drain.

I wonder though.. will they sandblast again?
 
I wonder though.. will they sandblast again?
If it's permeated, sandblasting won't work, it only takes off the patina. (Which in itself is a concern for polished stone) It would have to be bleached. And if the leak isn't fixed, there will be structural changes as well as visual.
 
Frankly, I would not say the damage was 'extensive' and from the photos it seems to be drying out quite fast as the 'damp spots' were larger on Friday. Presumably it came in from either an open window in the area above the Great Hall's roof or a blocked or too small roof drain.

If I had just had a new roof put on my house, and I was finding leaks, even minor ones....I know what I would be saying to the roofer.

I hope these dry out without leaving a trace, but if they don't.... or if pails in the Great Hall are now the norm for heavy rainstorms.... I may just have to admit that for the first time, I have found grounds for agreement with Sue Ann Levy.

How could we have spent all this money, only to find leaks in the roof?

- Paul
 
Work on the permanent lighting under the atrium progresses

It's a shame they couldn't structure the lighting in such a way so that it attached to the vertical support columns instead of from cables hanging from the roof. Those cables are downright ugly.
 

Back
Top