Union Station Revitalization

Developer: City of Toronto, Metrolinx
Architect: NORR Architects & Engineers Limited, EVOQ Architecture Inc., Zeidler Architecture
  
Address: 75 Front St W, Toronto
Category: Commercial (Retail), Institutional, Transit
Status: ConstructionCrane(s): 2
Height: ? ft / ? mStoreys: ? storeys
Project Forum 11K posts
Real Estate Forum
Follow 18 followingUpload 2571 photos
Official WebsiteReport Error


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

Willybru21 said:
I’ve been combing some project documents and going frame by frame through a video Metrolinx published last year showing a 3d model of Union

I noticed both of these sources indicate or show that most platforms will be extended 1-200 metres out of the shed.
Not simple asphalt platforms either, it seems like the outer platforms will closely resemble the south platforms currently under construction, including canopies and connections to the proposed pedestrian bridges.

I’ve put this together to show how large the footprint of the station might be from above in the future:

View attachment 637307
Click to expand...


The city really cheaped out Union Station's shed. Looks like a bikini that barely covers the bits and you're telling me its going to get worse?
polkadotbikinuninoni.png


This shed could've been such a landmark and instead they built a generic glass box that covers a tiny bit of the platforms. What's the point? I'm longing for the day of a visionary mayor that cares about public space.
 
Willybru21 said:
I’ve been combing some project documents and going frame by frame through a video Metrolinx published last year showing a 3d model of Union

I noticed both of these sources indicate or show that most platforms will be extended 1-200 metres out of the shed.
Not simple asphalt platforms either, it seems like the outer platforms will closely resemble the south platforms currently under construction, including canopies and connections to the proposed pedestrian bridges.

I’ve put this together to show how large the footprint of the station might be from above in the future:
Click to expand...

Love this.

The thing I wondered (give me an inch, I will ask for more lol ....) is what pedestrian connections there will be to the streets at the outer extremes of the extended platforms. Seems like there is an opportunity to flow passengers away from the center depot altogether.... although, with the platforms not all reaching to the same end points, it might be confusing or disfunctional if some platforms could be accessed from the ends, but others could not. Still, the more options people have to avoid the main concourse, the better.
I'm especially thinking of the flow to and from Skydome during events, but also the Hummingbird Center and other attractions.

- Paul
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
nightstreak said:
The city really cheaped out Union Station's shed. Looks like a bikini that barely covers the bits and you're telling me its going to get worse?
View attachment 637388

This shed could've been such a landmark and instead they built a generic glass box that covers a tiny bit of the platforms. What's the point? I'm longing for the day of a visionary mayor that cares about public space.
Click to expand...

This was a GO - by extension provincial - decision (coupled with the misguided Federal heritage restrictions on the shed). A mayor won't be able to do anything about it.

AoD
 
I think there's surely some opportunity to open up more of the shed to light, as I think there's intrinsically something interesting about a repetitive forest of columns.

Keeping the shed as-is at the moment is probably more of a budgetary decision, much like the elimination of the elaborate roof at East Harbour Station.

For example at the Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal compared to Union's much more covered design.

1742231915373.png
1742231926527.png
 
The original reason for retaining the roof in its current form was to install a green roof on top.

IMHO There was a bit of a piling-on of agendas when the renovations were first planned, which led to some unfortunate decisions.

The heritage attributes of the trainshed can easily be preserved if the green roof is abandoned, and translucent panels substituted for the decking. That would greatly improve the natural light under the trainshed. Probably not costly as a retrofit either.

I'm not sure that having a green roof is all that mission critical, no offense to those who advocate for green roofs, they are great things to have, but may not be practical or desirable everywhere.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The original reason for retaining the roof in its current form was to install a green roof on top.

IMHO There was a bit of a piling-on of agendas when the renovations were first planned, which led to some unfortunate decisions.

The heritage attributes of the trainshed can easily be preserved if the green roof is abandoned, and translucent panels substituted for the decking. That would greatly improve the natural light under the trainshed. Probably not costly as a retrofit either.

I'm not sure that having a green roof is all that mission critical, no offense to those who advocate for green roofs, they are great things to have, but may not be practical or desirable everywhere.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Is there any chance the green roof is ever happening at all?
 
crs1026 said:
The original reason for retaining the roof in its current form was to install a green roof on top.

IMHO There was a bit of a piling-on of agendas when the renovations were first planned, which led to some unfortunate decisions.

The heritage attributes of the trainshed can easily be preserved if the green roof is abandoned, and translucent panels substituted for the decking. That would greatly improve the natural light under the trainshed. Probably not costly as a retrofit either.

I'm not sure that having a green roof is all that mission critical, no offense to those who advocate for green roofs, they are great things to have, but may not be practical or desirable everywhere.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Knowing Toronto, even without the competing agendas, they would have found a way to cheapen out and give us the bikini shed.

I’ve been mostly positive towards the Union Station renos, but the decision to only partially build the glass roof was a big mistake.
 
It's time to get rid of the bush shed altogether. It just looks so bad from the exterior, and its even worse once under the thing. What a missed opportunity. Can't we get some advocacy to stop demo'ing good examples of heritage and start removing what doesn't work for our public spaces?

It's a big conversation that should be had. If Alto ever gets underway, we should include a less 'basement like' experience at Union in those plans. This is the political time for big public projects to nation build, after all.

How do those with power to write for major papers feel about this? @AlexBozikovic
 
christiesplits said:
Knowing Toronto, even without the competing agendas, they would have found a way to cheapen out and give us the bikini shed.

I’ve been mostly positive towards the Union Station renos, but the decision to only partially build the glass roof was a big mistake.
Click to expand...

I agree that retaining the Bush Shed was the wrong choice.

I'm not particularly taken by the glass box either.

Liverpool Lime Street has a nice design:

1742299913020.png

Source: https://www.networkrailmediacentre....ime-street-train-shed-from-end-of-platforms-2

This was the old Broad St. Station in Philadelphia:

1742300042129.png



I really find lots of appeal in the arch shape, also lots of height for open and airy, not just lighter.
Source: https://preview.redd.it/rebuilding-...bp&s=51e3a13fc9c54bc14398a2d5cd90220c318ea2b9
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top
NEWSDATABASEMAPFORUM DASHBOARD SERVICESUTProLOG IN
CITIES