yes - the station building is fine to me
We'll have to disagree. It has a lack of basis design sense to me. This isn't about throwing $$$ as it; its how you spend the $$$.
Rule 1) The principle entrance to a building should be obvious.
In the render, it is not. There's the vague idea of a doorway on the one side and the station name on the opposite side of the building. Nope.
The station name should be aligned to an entrance area; the doors should be decently wide, and there should probably be a bump in ceiling height or roof line around the entrance, some visual cue, even changes in paving treatment or non-structural columns next to the door.
Rule 2) The design should be informative
(this way to trains, ticket machines this way etc.) that doesn't all need to be spelled out on exterior signage, much can be intuitive, but give me something.
Rule 3) The design should be welcoming.
Make me feel like I matter as a customer/rider. This is about seating, warm materials, attractive lighting, weather protection.
Rule 4) The design should compliment the brand. In this case, that means GO Transit, and public transit more broadly. That's not just a 'GO' logo. Its about the building reading visually as a station building of some kind. That need not be pastiche, just recognizable for its purpose.
Rule 5) A commuter train station should be a community hub/landmark in some fashion. That may sound grandiose, but I don't mean it that way. A modest station building in size, proportion and material budget can still have a nice public seating area, can still have a small clock-tower feature, exterior drinking fountains or the like.
The size of the station building looks fine.
Agreed, more or less. I don't see any reason it needs a second storey or more ft2; but as part of good design, it should looks less like blase box, which might involve adding some modest height by the entrance.
