taal
Senior Member
hmm I doubt it would have worked out ... in the sense of doing Union station any justice.
Interesting though
Interesting though
|
|
|
GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Wow, I had never seen this before, when was this thought up? I'm not sure the building is so great, and I don't see any obvious connection between cis- and transrailway Toronto. I quite like the idea though.
syn
Senior Member
Thanks for posting that Wylie, I have never been able to find it. I thought it was a good idea at the time...MLSE was going to quite a lot on aesthetic upgrades to Union Station.
TOareaFan
Superstar
If I recall correctly, there was a time when we might have ended up with two arenas there.
The Raptors ownership (the Slaight family) were going ahead with what is now the ACC and the Leafs ownership (Stavros at the time) wanted to build a new Maple Leaf Gardens on top of the station.
The Raptors ownership (the Slaight family) were going ahead with what is now the ACC and the Leafs ownership (Stavros at the time) wanted to build a new Maple Leaf Gardens on top of the station.
Ramako
Moderator
Just looking at the skyling from the lake, there is perhaps no better place in the city than right on top of the train shed for a supertall.
Could the station still function if there was any kind of construction in that location?
Could the station still function if there was any kind of construction in that location?
k.w.l.
New Member
You're correct. The Raptors proposed the ACC and then went ahead with it after failing to reach an agreement with the Leafs regarding a lease or shared ownership. The Leafs then proposed this alternative, but soon after ended up buying the Raptors instead and taking over the ACC.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Union station is a stereoisomer and the ACC is a functional group. Wha?
jswag
Active Member
Wow wylie, thanks for posting that. An interesting idea, but I think Toronto is better served by what eventually happened. That rendering is brimming with late-90s optimism though.
Is that from Unbuilt Toronto exhibit/book?
Is that from Unbuilt Toronto exhibit/book?
CDL.TO
Moderator
I don't believe that just because a majority of travellers are from within the GTA that we shouldn't be making an effort to make the travel as pleasant as possible. There is no single point anywhere else in the GTA that is common to to the daily lives of over 180,000 people (and growing rapidly), plain and simple.
People don't usually see park space as wasted land that needs to be developed. Parks play an important role in improving our quality of life. The inside of a railway station is highly important public space that also should be designed to maximize the quality of life of people who use it. Even from a cold, capitalistic perspective if GO was a private corporation, there would be likely still be a recognition that the one point that is common to 99% of their customers should be designed as well as possible to maximize consumer satisfaction and increase demand. Shopping malls have atriums rather than simply developing office or residential space above for a reason.
I'm not simply being nostalgic for European long-distance train travel. Look to Austraila where intercity rail travel is practically non-existent but regional networks are well-developed. Melbourne has a grand total of two trains a day to Sydney and three a week to Adelaide, but look at their new central station. Perth sees two long-distance trains a week (!) but still feel the need for a well-designed central station. Speaking of Europe, London's Liverpool Street, Waterloo*, and Victoria Stations serve no intercity long distance trains but still offer a light-filled environment for travellers. I'm sure that with some time I could find many more examples of well-designed regional rail stations.
One thing that I agree with completely is that the current situation is unacceptable. But that doesn't mean that we should be willing to accept anything as an improvement.
(*Not Waterloo International)
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Wha?
Nobody would suggest we should purposefully build something ugly for the sake of being economical. Maybe its just me, but I don't really see how building over the train shed and building something attractive are mutually exclusive. Yes, building over would prohibit something like Calatrava's Oriente station, but other than vaulted glass roofs most other things would still be feasible. I'm not sure a massive, lofty canopy is even a good idea in Canada's climate.
nfitz
Superstar
The Waterloo International section of the station was less separated from the rest of the station than the VIA Concourse is from the GO Concourse at Union.
And as there is no service to Waterloo International these days, then it doesn't have any long-distance service either!
Though there are Intercity services from Waterloo. To Southampton, Winchester, Poole, etc.
And surely the services from Victoria to Venice are intercity.
CDL.TO
Moderator
We were talking about the train shed.
Southhampton? It's an hour and fifteen minutes from Waterloo. Winchester is less than an hour. Yeesh.
adma
Superstar
Is it just me, or is the distinction between "long distance" and "regional" much more a relative matter in Europe than over here?
wyliepoon
Senior Member
It's from the exhibit, not the book.
nfitz
Superstar
??? They are adjacent. We're not talking Waterloo East here.
You said intercity. Intercity equipment is used on these runs.