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

They\'re currently installing light pillars in front of Union Station on top of those Toronto branded concrete bases.
I was partially correct. It looks a lot like that GO info pole from my post yesterday but this one doesn\'t seem to have LED dot matrix display. It\'ll all be back lit, likely replacing the temporary signs that have GO, UPx, Via Rail and PATH logos.

48966
 
ninetykman said:
So where did all the money go ? is there a phase 2 for the great hall ?
Click to expand...
You have seen only about 15% of renovated Union.
The other 85% of revitalized Union floor space is not yet open.

OPEN -- Redone York concourse
U/C -- Revitalized Great Hall
U/C -- Revitalized VIA concourse
U/C -- Redone Bay Concourse
U/C -- Big shopping mall in the basement (165,000 square feet).

Yes, a Phase 2 and a Phase 3. Late 2017 completion.

It's my understanding only the (modified version of) Phase 1 is completed on time for PanAm Games. There's also a new basement being dug under the floor you stand on (under the whole footprint of Union Station), so there'll be a 135,000 square foot shopping mall with something like 100 establishments, more than half of it food-related.

You won't see the full fruits of the Union revitalization until around ~2017. But we finally see UPX open, York open, and Front street open today. The redone Bay concourse, redone VIA, redone Great Hall, and the brand new shopping mall (in a brand new basement under Union), won't be fully complete till the end of 2017, though various elements will open in phases up to then.

Also, that is about when they finish spending all the Union Revitalization money. They haven't spent all of the >$800M (plus cost overruns) yet. That's for all phases through 2017, but they already know it is going to cost-overrun. When you read the media coverage, it sounds as if all the money is already spent, when it's being budgeted over the courses of Phase 1/2/3, even though now cost overruns are having to be budgetted in. When they started the Revitalization, it was a $640M budget, however, the project was less than one-third designed when they started working. It is really tantamount to an internal demolition-and-rebuild for many parts of the station.

unionaxonexplodc960-jpg.41856


Look -- a whole new Urban Eatery sized food court in the basement! None is open yet. Won't be fully open for many years, and only opening in stages. This is the brand new basement being built under the floor of all concourses, including under the VIA concourse.
 
Last edited:
mdrejhon said:
Meanwhile, the white sign monolith in the background is obnoxiously bright especially on rainy night.

View attachment 48889

I've successfully started a twitter conversation with the stakeholders, I think.

https://twitter.com/mdrejhon/status/613160912476860417

As an amateur photographer, my recmmendation is a 50%-75% dimming (gray tinted tube protectors, so it's much more subdued) -- perhaps similiar in brightness to planned gentle clock backlighting. I've suggested tube-dimmer sleeves. Neutral density fluorescent tube protection sleeves can reduce light by 2 F-Stops, 3 F-Stops or 4 F-Stops, and would be a very cheap retrofit.

It would make for more kick-ass night photography of Union Station; they would prefer good photos on Social Media. Hope they follow my suggestion.

Tube Sleeve 209 is 51% light transmission (half brightness)
Tube Sleeve 210 is 24% light transmission (quarter brightness)
Tube Sleeve 211 is 14% light transmission (eighth brightness)

It could be combined with Sleeve 206, to convert fluorescent (6500K) to warmer tungesten-look (4600K) which is more compatible with Union Station heritage look. Warm incandescent look from fluorescent tubes, perhaps combined with Sleeve 209 or 210. There might be a single sleeve that combines both simultaneously.

Professional photographers (and amateurs like me) who want to take nighttime photos of Union with an SLR camera, will agree to how big a problem the current overbright signage monolith will be at night, especially on reflective wet sidewalks.

View attachment 48889

Observe that the bright sign in the background overexposes, including the reflection on wet sidewalks.

Union Station night photos, that include the bright signage, will look bad on social media due to the glare. This photo was not with an SLR, but with an iPhone (the best camera is the only camera I already was carrying at the time...) but the same glareout problem also happens with professional SLRs.

The excess monoligth brightness overexposes photography, and overwhelms the heritage elements elsewhere in the photo.

Provisionally, as amateur SLR photographer, I recommend either Fluorescent Tube Sleeve #209 (ND, 50% light) or #210 (ND, 25% light) combined with #206 (warmer Tungesten color temperature). Or skip #206 by utilizing warmer tubes instead, but use #209 or #210 for dimming. Each monolith has 8 tubes per side, and there are two monoliths, so that's 32 tube sleeves of each, plus spares. Very cheap retrofit that would make the white sign monolith more heritage compatible. Include polycarbonate sleeves too, for weatherproofing and protecting the filter. They are also UV resistant, so suitable for outdoor installation when configured accordingly. Several manufacturers, including LEE Filter, makes these fluorescent tube filters in several different lengths, including the exact length of standard tube used in the overbright monoliths.

I understand a compromise for wayfinding is needed between "bright enough" versus "too bright". However, it is currently definitely "too bright" both for people and for successful photography. When experimenting with multiple sleeves, test using a camera too at nighttime. I think the 25% (#210) sleeve would be "just right" especially when combined with a color-temperature-warming sleeve (#204, #205 or #206) to make the color more heritage-like but if this is too dim, then the 50% (#209) would be a compromise even though it will probably still overexpose many night photos.

Feel free to vet this post through a different professional (e.g. news photographer), I hereby claim this post as public domain, and give up all rights to this specific post, for the public good.

EDIT: My recommendation has been forwarded to the Union Revitalization Manager.
Click to expand...

Really good news: they're taking apart the signs today removing the light tubes. They're not dimmable so I guess they're going to use LED lighting. It looks permanent as they're cutting the wiring out and breaking the lighting panels as they remove them.

ajtqjLw.jpg
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
Really good news: they're taking apart the signs today removing the light tubes. They're not film able so I guess they're going to use LED lighting. It looks permanent as they're cutting the wiring out and breaking the lighting panels as they remove them.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it's warm white LED, with adjustable dimmable ability.

I wonder if there is a reason why they're actually ripping out the whole thing despite cheaper solutions of less-bright tubes and tube filters. Perhaps somebody else didn't like the "light bars" of the fluorescent lighting (non-uniformity), and there were complaints all around internally how bad it ended up looking.

My twitter fuss might've contributed but I can't be the only one. All the heritage nuts hate it, as do night photographers, and the everyday commuter like you and me see it as being out-of-place, etc. And I'm pretty sure not everyone liked thse sign monoliths. So I can't be the only complainer. If they specified LED but contractor installed crap tube lights, then at least a solution can be exercised without a taxpayer dime.

Good to see some action being done. All that money spent on a beautiful block of Front Street, and then installing these night-blinding warts. Looking forward to the result.
 
Last edited:
AlbertHWagstaff said:
And what the media don't report is that all this money is being spent after several decades of spending almost nothing on the station.
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly. We allow our public utilities to deteriorate for far too long, but then when we go to improve them and there are 'cost overruns,' we cry foul. It's the tragedy of the commons writ large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
The light poles are up. Brace yourselves, it's disappointing. They're normal street poles and lights that you'd find anywhere else. What a missed opportunity. :(
 
MetroMan said:
The light poles are up. Brace yourselves, it's disappointing. They're normal street poles and lights that you'd find anywhere else. What a missed opportunity. :(
Click to expand...
Boo!
Hope that's temporary. This 1-block section of street needs to be fully heritage look, being what they've done to Front, Union Station, and Royal York areas. If only we were visionary enough to install gaslights!
 
mdrejhon said:
Boo!
Hope that's temporary. This 1-block section of street needs to be fully heritage look, being what they've done to Front, Union Station, and Royal York areas. If only we were visionary enough to install gaslights!
Click to expand...

There's no reason why they would be temporary. They waited until the street was finished to add them so I'm sure they're permanent.

They didn't even have to be gas lights. Heritage poles powered by LED would have been great. It was even considered once as seen in this rendering:

le5IYCo.png


For clarification, the light poles were only installed on the north side in front of the Royal York. The plaza in front of the station will be lit by the station walls and under lit furniture.

What I don't get is that this is a near billion dollar project and they couldn't find few hundred thousand for nicer light poles.
 
Would the lights even cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as MetroMan estimated? That seems like a lot for what wouldn't be very many lights.
 
The lights are a disappointment but the original ones were cut due to $$. The poles are actually brushed aluminium but they have the ugly cobra luminaires. It REALLY should not be too hard to get better luminaires, and ideally put them on all these cobra poles on Front from York to Scott.

Of course, putting in better poles later is fairly easy so it MAY not be for ever. Ideally the City would replace all the ugly lighting on Front from York/University to Scott.
 
Last edited:
The amazingly bright "signs" at the two TTC entrances that were discussed above have ALL been removed. Lights, signs and metal structure. I guess that 'the powers that be' agreed with the opinions expressed here about their brightness and general over-kill. I assume they are busily fabricating new ones. They have also attached quite nice signs on the two "poles" that were also noted above. These just say that GO, UPX, VIA and TTC are inside by displaying logos.
 
At least this good decision actually outweighs the cheap streetlamps.

Two steps forward, one step back, baby!

Armour said:
Would the lights even cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as MetroMan estimated? That seems like a lot for what wouldn't be very many lights.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't cost that much if it is a minor modification. For the poles, I'd imagine they can also just replace the ugly cobra part later (possibly under $10K each, not including labour -- or a few ten-K for something custom) as there are nicer retrofits available I've seen bolted to existing light poles. The existing brushed aluminum can still look nice if it's holding a nice black cast-iron overhanging light that looks less cobra. Not fully heritage but stays in spirit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top