hawc
Senior Member
Wish they tore down the shed and re-did the entire thing to look like this!
|
|
|
GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'm impressed with how fast this is going. Well done, so far!
hawc
Senior Member
Are all the different parts of the revitalization due to be completed around the same time? Or are some scheduled to be done earlier than others? What's the timeline for the full completion?
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 25,263
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
drum118
Superstar
April 26
whatever
Senior Member
Is that glazing on the east side?
hawc
Senior Member
Remind me again what's historic about the 'shed' that looks like a shanty town?
rbt
Senior Member
It's a unique/rare design from that time period.
taal
Senior Member
Will the entire shed be converted to a green roof ? I thought that was the plan.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
I think that heritage structures should be judged on their adaptability to new uses, their architectural form and their uniqueness - in that order. In terms of the Bush shed's adaptability, it clearly is a failure: it is dank, dark, unpleasant and restricts passenger movement. It will be difficult to retrofit for electrification. It doesn't meet the needs of a 21st century inter-regional transportation program.
In terms of aesthetics, there's not much there, either. It has about the same amount of architectural thought put into it as a modern warehouse or big box outlet does - it just happens to be very old.
In terms of uniqueness, okay, there are arguably few of these Bush sheds around, but there's probably a good reason for this (see above functionality concerns). There still are good examples to be found in Winnipeg, Hoboken and Jersey City. There is also a modern Bush shed at Chicago's Ogilvie station where the planners and architects had the sense to build a new structure that met the functional needs of a contemporary commuter train system, instead of retaining the old one for the sake of "heritage":
drum118
Superstar
Never noticed when I shot it, but it looks like it. Was not there on Tuesday.
All of the existing roofing, except over track 1 & 2 will be green roof.
1 & 2 will be as per the original roof when first open.
MetroMan
Senior Member
It's their way of saying: "We can't afford to do the whole thing so we'll just do the central portion and call it a day". If they were ok with demolishing part of the old shed, it can't be that valuable historically.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Sure, because who has ever seen a place with 15ft high ceilings that isn't dank and dark.
MetroMan said:
If all of our history isn't worth keeping then none of it is? I think most historic buildings are not in their original state so if your analysis was the basis of historic worth it could be used to rationalize the elimination of most historic buildings.
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
The Bush Shed (as a type or as this particular example) is not valuable as a piece of architectural heritage per se, but rather as a piece of engineering heritage. It's a heritage solution. So keeping part of the original (most, of it actually) is not the same as tearing down half of Old City Hall, or indeed half of the head house of Union Station itself. It still keeps a significant bit of railway heritage while allowing the platform area to be vastly improved.
MetroMan
Senior Member
No. What I'm saying is that if it was that valuable historically, they wouldn't have touched it at all. Demolishing even a portion of a historically significant building would have had a lot of people in the preservation community up in arms. Clearly that didn't happen and part of the bush shed was demolished to make way for the new one with little to no fanfare.