Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Coolstar said:
Old news. Posted those materials a while back.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that.
KhalilHeron said:
I mean in my opinion, the renderings are pretty beautiful. Beauty is subjective so they're just gonna go for something that is pretty safe as to not make future eyesores when trends change. I personally love the use of copper(or copper coloured) finishes in the renders and I think they add a super cool pop of colours that feels warm, modern, and timeless
Click to expand...
I do like the copper, but I disagree with your viewpoint. While I respect your opinion, I believe that most people prefer expressive design - not modernist buildings. There was a rule in the standards that competely baffled me... "design approach based on high functionality with a simple, predominantly rectilinear language at its core, void of non-essential form making". This is an approach that prioritizes function over form and discourages all "non-essential" design that isn't "restrained". Boxy and restrained environments only cause more stress and discomfort with people, and modernist architecture usually doesn't express local character very well. It's literally proven by science that people are much more comfortable with expressive design, because it mimicks the complexity of nature. I mean, how could anyone like the elevated station rendering that they made? Doesn't it feel bland (large expanses of the same materials)? Isn't it unimaginative with its monotonous colour scheme? Doesn't it look boring?

Personally, I think that more warm and contextual architecture is better, like this beautiful station or perhaps this one. Could you really call these eyesores? Again, I appreciate your opinion but I just think that we deserve something more inspiring and a design that reflects our city's diverse neighbourhoods.
 
Big "beautiful" subway stations are often cited as a contributing factor to why subways cost so much more to build here than Europe, Asia etc... IMO the best subway stations are the ones you don't see. My fav subway station in Toronto has always been Summerhill blending seamlessly into the background of the neighborhood like the infrastructure that it is. Cheap and ugly? Of course not. But simple, timeless, utilitarian design that's inexpensive and unobtrusive is the way to go for most stations. The exception being union-station type interchanges that need large mezzanines to accommodate the volume. For the OL I'd love to see one "centrepiece" station (perhaps East Harbour) and the rest designed like I described above.
 
desperateAmbassador said:
Big "beautiful" subway stations are often cited as a contributing factor to why subways cost so much more to build here than Europe, Asia etc...
Click to expand...
Beautiful subway stations are not the biggest cost drivers. Tunneling - and deep tunneling at that, combined with planning head-fakes are far, far bigger drags on cost.
 
I think it depends. I agree that low-profile stations cost MUCH less money. For example, the Yonge-Spadina Extension into Vaughan has ridiculously large stations, and yet most of them aren't even that attractive at eye level (ex. the bare concrete walls surrounding the platforms). I agree that we shouldn't be building stations as if they're Taj Mahals, but I do believe that a rich architectural expression would a) not be prohibitively expensive b) attract riders c) would make us proud of our subway!
 
allengeorge said:
Beautiful subway stations are not the biggest cost drivers. Tunneling - and deep tunneling at that, combined with planning head-fakes are far, far bigger drags on cost.
Click to expand...

This^^^^

The incremental cost difference between 'average' tile, and the highest quality finishes isn't even 1% of station budget. (maybe 2% if we went with a lot quartz or something)

The incremental cost of slightly higher ceilings and a modest skylight, vs lower ceilings and no skylight is likewise no more than 2% of station construction.

The huge cost-driver, by far, is station depth when buried.

The second is simply total capacity (more buildable ft2)
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
Making this thing ugly is just going to make people oppose elevated transit even more than they already do.
Click to expand...

Your downtown elitism is showing.

PUT THE LATTE DOWN AND STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD.

In all seriousness, we have the resources to build these things properly with thought, care and consideration for the public realm.
 
daniel_kryz said:
Sorry about that.

I do like the copper, but I disagree with your viewpoint. While I respect your opinion, I believe that most people prefer expressive design - not modernist buildings. There was a rule in the standards that competely baffled me... "design approach based on high functionality with a simple, predominantly rectilinear language at its core, void of non-essential form making". This is an approach that prioritizes function over form and discourages all "non-essential" design that isn't "restrained". Boxy and restrained environments only cause more stress and discomfort with people, and modernist architecture usually doesn't express local character very well. It's literally proven by science that people are much more comfortable with expressive design, because it mimicks the complexity of nature. I mean, how could anyone like the elevated station rendering that they made? Doesn't it feel bland (large expanses of the same materials)? Isn't it unimaginative with its monotonous colour scheme? Doesn't it look boring?

Personally, I think that more warm and contextual architecture is better, like this beautiful station or perhaps this one. Could you really call these eyesores? Again, I appreciate your opinion but I just think that we deserve something more inspiring and a design that reflects our city's diverse neighbourhoods.
Click to expand...
I do really like the picture of the UPX station you linked and it's making me think about how they could incorporate some wood into these stations. It could easily stay in the cheap modernist style that Metrolinx is going for while also adding some more natural and warm elements. Wood is fairly cheap, and completely timeless so I hope they at least consider incorporating it somewhere, if not in every station.
 
I like it when the station decor reflects the area. Can be quite cheaply done by incorporating display cases within the walls or having designs in the tile mosaics. For example, Corktown could have murals of scenes of Old York (First Parliament, windmill, Distillery) and some artifacts. Perhaps Queen and Spadina could have broadcasting and textile themes, etc. Some of the stations in New York and Paris are destinations in and of themselves. I love the Paris Metropolitan entrances. Some Moscow subways are palatial and have chandeliers. Public works should aim high because everyone can enjoy them. Think of the Bloor Viaduct or RC Harris water filtration plant in the Beaches.
 
daniel_kryz said:
Regarding the Ontario Line, Metrolinx has already prepared sample renderings for the line - in the new "Subway Station Architecture Design Standard". It is a set of guidelines on how new subway stations will be built, and it has tons of renderings!

Design Standard and additional renderings...

They chose a minimalist style for the stations, which I'm VERY disappointed about. Why won't we ever have beautiful subway stations?!
View attachment 313838View attachment 313839View attachment 313840
Click to expand...

They look fine - the question is not whether that minimalist style is undesirable - but whether they can reach that level of execution.

AoD
 
KhalilHeron said:
I do really like the picture of the UPX station you linked and it's making me think about how they could incorporate some wood into these stations. It could easily stay in the cheap modernist style that Metrolinx is going for while also adding some more natural and warm elements. Wood is fairly cheap, and completely timeless so I hope they at least consider incorporating it somewhere, if not in every station.
Click to expand...
I know, it's pretty nice! The shape is modernist, but the colours are very nice... especially under the sunlight. The least they could do is aim for a Skytrain-like design. Or perhaps something even more ambitious (like Moscow or Saint Petersburg).
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They look fine - the question is not whether that minimalist style is undesirable - but whether they can reach that level of execution.

AoD
Click to expand...
Clearly, people are pretty divided on this topic. It's very important that this project is attractive, so I hope they do a public consultation on this.
 
daniel_kryz said:
I know, it's pretty nice! The shape is modernist, but the colours are very nice... especially under the sunlight. The least they could do is aim for a Skytrain-like design. Or perhaps something even more ambitious (like Moscow or Saint Petersburg).

Clearly, people are pretty divided on this topic. It's very important that this project is attractive, so I hope they do a public consultation on this.
Click to expand...

I have some doubts as to how much public consultation you will get on architectural design.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top