In an effort at conciliation, If heritage is so important, why not just move the bush shed somewhere else? It's not like anyone appreciates it where it is. Nobody gets off the GO train and marvels at it's beauty and majesty. Why not reassemble it at Downsview and turn it into something for heritage types to faun over, while people who actually use the station get something decent. We could turn it into a farmer's market, heritage types would love that. Organic granola AND buildings nobody else likes! As far as technical challenges, dissembling and reassembling a shed must be pretty easy in comparison to moving these babies 65m up.
Believe it or not, I'm way ahead of you on that one.
I've already offered, at least a couple of times in UT, that if keeping in situ was not an option, the Bush sheds (or parts thereof) could be reerected someplace like the Portlands reused as a nifty farmer's market, event space, Biennale-type art venue, whatever.
The difference is, my tone isn't your snide, disgruntled tone. I'm halfway expecting you to start a little Sun-editorial-board-style ranting about those socialists in City Hall as well. Indeed, 40 years ago you probably would have been ranting about those worrywarts who were campaigning on behalf of saving an old cadaverous crock like Union Station.
Look: if you really want to know the "silent majority" perspective, it's probably not vehemently anti-Bush. It's more like indifferent-to-latently-sympathetic--that is, if they were party to a Doors Open-or-otherwise tour of Union Station (or if there was signage on the platforms drawing attention to the sheds), they'd be all eyes and ears and gee-whiz. And such tours are likely to highlight the sheds, rather than brush them off apologetically. Indeed, if anything's likely to be brushed off apologetically because it's too nondescript and/or ugly, it's the most "active" part of Union Station, i.e. the GO concourse zone.
Sure, maybe they're grubby, but maybe this Bush needs a good douche rather than a total wax job.
Besides, why must there, ought there be a "poetic", "soul-stirring" new shed, especially now the concept of such sheds is taking on a tinge of hackneyed wannabe fatigue? Union Station's already got a space of beauty and majesty; and it doesn't absolutely need something new aggressively hogging the attention--maybe today's state of affairs complements the Beaux-Arts dignity better. And most of those GO commuters are probably just as "indifferent" of Union Station, and not just because as GO commuters, they don't have the chance to experience its magnificence the way that VIA travellers do. It's simply because when you're on the fast track to and from work, self-conscious architectural magnificence is overrated. They've got other things on their minds.
And above all, if it were deemed that the Bush sheds were to go, it'd be on straightforward functional, they've had their day, the replacement scheme's superior, grounds. The analogy is with Riverdale Hospital: those arguing for Bridgepoint on behalf of the half-round's replacement are emphasizing its functional obsolescence, poor adaptability, and not fitting present-day healthcare requirements. They're not arguing that it's because it's a so-called ugly piece of 60s c**p which only the heritage lunatic fringe is interested in; besides, that yahoo-mentality approach would undermine their argument. (Indeed, Michael McClelland of ERA, the heritage consultants, would probably be the first to
defend such architecture, generically speaking. Which in a perverse way, strengthens his authority to write the half-round off as a "necessary sacrifice".)