Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Last edited:
Am I the only one thinking that the street-level pavilions are just far too big for what should be used downtown?

I'm not talking about vertical accesses - the footprint of the facilities at ground level could easily be shrunk by more than half and still maintain all of the planned vertical accesses. But why do they need to have so many equipment rooms at ground level, which in theory would be prime retail space? Do they need to have 10 feet of dead space around each of the elevators and escalators?

Dan
 
Why the TTC needs so many equipment rooms in general is something I have never understood. Are they packrats or is there actually something in all of these rooms that is mission critical? I look at the multi-floor Crosstown buildings and look at the amount of space in the Queens Quay LRT station plan assigned to utility rooms while so little is assigned to passenger movement and I just don't get it.
 
Am I the only one thinking that the street-level pavilions are just far too big for what should be used downtown?

I'm not talking about vertical accesses - the footprint of the facilities at ground level could easily be shrunk by more than half and still maintain all of the planned vertical accesses. But why do they need to have so many equipment rooms at ground level, which in theory would be prime retail space? Do they need to have 10 feet of dead space around each of the elevators and escalators?

Dan
The modern requirements for a metro system mean that you need significant space for ventilation, substations, dedicated fireproof emergency access at street level. Building a new, self contained line will have very different requirements to retrofitting an existing station. Torontonians will see this when the Crosstown eventually opens - it's going to have a very different feel to the current Subway!

Why the TTC needs so many equipment rooms in general is something I have never understood. Are they packrats or is there actually something in all of these rooms that is mission critical? I look at the multi-floor Crosstown buildings and look at the amount of space in the Queens Quay LRT station plan assigned to utility rooms while so little is assigned to passenger movement and I just don't get it.
I suspect some of it is future proofing - but yes, you'd be surprised how important these spaces are! It's ... not a surprise that they don't talk about it given that it's pretty boring, and frankly a security risk.
 

Attachments

  • dscn0187.jpg
    dscn0187.jpg
    237.9 KB · Views: 87
Why the TTC needs so many equipment rooms in general is something I have never understood. Are they packrats or is there actually something in all of these rooms that is mission critical? I look at the multi-floor Crosstown buildings and look at the amount of space in the Queens Quay LRT station plan assigned to utility rooms while so little is assigned to passenger movement and I just don't get it.
Escalators and elevators need spaces at the bottom and top for wheels, cables, pulleys, and for later replacement of parts. You may need the space to pull out old or damaged parts and need space to insert them.

For comparison purposes, think about replacing a refrigerator or king size bed in an apartment. You need space to jiggle the pieces in and out.
 
Isn't *all* underground stations in this section 1 or 2 stations? Shouldn't the statement be both or the underground station?
Yeah, for now - it is 2-stations in that segment... but we kinda want the "will reinforce underground" policy just in case any change in Government at Queen's Park in mid-2022 moved more stations underground.

Also, we'll be on the other calls over the next couple of weeks to ensure that it is really "standard design requirement" for any of the remaining underground stations... (eg. don't repeat the station-design mistakes of the Eglinton Crosstown).

1632012380869.png
 
The modern requirements for a metro system mean that you need significant space for ventilation, substations, dedicated fireproof emergency access at street level. Building a new, self contained line will have very different requirements to retrofitting an existing station. Torontonians will see this when the Crosstown eventually opens - it's going to have a very different feel to the current Subway!
Thanks for the attempt at an explanation, but that is not at all what I am referring to. I'm patently aware of the needs for all of the various "ancillary systems" on a subway system.

If you go to the Engage IO page and click either of the Corktown or King-Bathurst pages, you can scroll down to the documents towards the bottom - click on any of the architectural plans and wade through them to see the ground-level projected floorplans for the buildings planned.

Yes, I know that these are meant to be for discussion and not necessarily representative of the final, but why do feel that they need what is essentially an elevator hall of more 1250sq m at the King end of the Corktown Station? That doesn't even include all of the various equipment & auxiliary rooms scattered around the periphery of that area - it looks as if they want to dedicate the entirety of the ground-level footprint of the building to transit use.

Why the TTC needs so many equipment rooms in general is something I have never understood. Are they packrats or is there actually something in all of these rooms that is mission critical? I look at the multi-floor Crosstown buildings and look at the amount of space in the Queens Quay LRT station plan assigned to utility rooms while so little is assigned to passenger movement and I just don't get it.

Some of these rooms are required, yes. Stations need bathrooms, switchgear closets, ventilation control, etc. And it could be argued that other rooms that don't seem at first blush are useful too, such as janitor's rooms/broom closets. And in some cases, you need to double-up on them - it is good practice to put a bathroom at both the subway platform level and at the street level for the staff that will occupy that area. Multiple broom closets mean that janitors don't need to be hauling buckets of water & cleaners up and down elevators (or worse, escalators).

But it seems like the number on these plans is excessive, yes.

Dan
 
Yes, I know that these are meant to be for discussion and not necessarily representative of the final, but why do feel that they need what is essentially an elevator hall of more 1250sq m at the King end of the Corktown Station? That doesn't even include all of the various equipment & auxiliary rooms scattered around the periphery of that area - it looks as if they want to dedicate the entirety of the ground-level footprint of the building to transit use.

They probably want it to feel spacious, rather than the old cramped stations.
Also, if there is some sort of breakdown, there would be indoor queuing/circulation space rather than having people gather on the sidewalk outside.
i.e. What happens whenever the subway has a delay in service and people pile up or they have to implement a "bus bridge"?
May be there are code restrictions on the space required to prevent overcrowding(?)
 
They probably want it to feel spacious, rather than the old cramped stations.
Also, if there is some sort of breakdown, there would be indoor queuing/circulation space rather than having people gather on the sidewalk outside.
i.e. What happens whenever the subway has a delay in service and people pile up or they have to implement a "bus bridge"?
May be there are code restrictions on the space required to prevent overcrowding(?)
That would be all fine and good if there was a fareline here. Hell, I wouldn't be making these complaints if there were.

But there isn't, at least on none of these drawings. These areas simply seem to be areas where the elevators, stairs and escalators will reach street level.

Dan
 
Yeah, for now - it is 2-stations in that segment... but we kinda want the "will reinforce underground" policy just in case any change in Government at Queen's Park in mid-2022 moved more stations underground.

Also, we'll be on the other calls over the next couple of weeks to ensure that it is really "standard design requirement" for any of the remaining underground stations... (eg. don't repeat the station-design mistakes of the Eglinton Crosstown).

View attachment 350045
Have you thought about advocating for housing built into above ground station form?

It has been done. The government could use the $ to offset station costs, Toronto as a whole benefits from the additional housing and the residents get direct station access.

With the Ontario Line likely having above ground stations whenever it's built past Eglinton, it would be a good precedent for building house+station on the extension.
 
Have you thought about advocating for housing built into above ground station form?

It has been done. The government could use the $ to offset station costs, Toronto as a whole benefits from the additional housing and the residents get direct station access.

With the Ontario Line likely having above ground stations whenever it's built past Eglinton, it would be a good precedent for building house+station on the extension.
That's essentially what the City is already doing at the "above-ground" TTC subway stations at Victoria Park and Wilson, etc...

VICTORIA PARK - https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/777-victoria-park-avenue

WILSON - https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/50-wilson-heights

It only makes sense if there's enough space around those stations (eg. parking-lots, etc), which you don't really have around the Ontario Line sites.

We're advocating for Housing and Affordable-Housing at every new transit-station site where it makes physical-sense.
 
That's essentially what the City is already doing at the "above-ground" TTC subway stations at Victoria Park and Wilson, etc...

VICTORIA PARK - https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/777-victoria-park-avenue

WILSON - https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/50-wilson-heights

It only makes sense if there's enough space around those stations (eg. parking-lots, etc), which you don't really have around the Ontario Line sites.

We're advocating for Housing and Affordable-Housing at every new transit-station site where it makes physical-sense.

I meant using the footprint of the station and the immediate surrounding area. Why not have the building directly above the station? This is almost the same thing as the underground stations. Only need ground level room for maintenance /utilities which doesn't need much of a footprint.

I see this as comparable to the Queen /Spadina and King/Bathurst developments or the office buildings with a condo added on top.

The air space is there and it's a new build (as opposed to a retrofit) so I would imagine it's doable.
 
I meant using the footprint of the station and the immediate surrounding area. Why not have the building directly above the station? This is almost the same thing as the underground stations. Only need ground level room for maintenance /utilities which doesn't need much of a footprint.

I see this as comparable to the Queen /Spadina and King/Bathurst developments or the office buildings with a condo added on top.

The air space is there and it's a new build (as opposed to a retrofit) so I would imagine it's doable.

You probably won't have to if you have a large piece of land that can accommodate a good amount of units already - unlike over at Spadina and Bathurst.

AoD
 

Back
Top