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

[Platform 27]

Frankly the whole thing should be razed and rebuilt. As to the Bush shed - I find that extending the heritage monkier to it weakens the concept.

This comes up every 25 pages, like clockwork.

Union Station has been a designated national historical site since 1975. Your opinion or my opinion on what is or isn't of heritage value is irrelevant. Under the law, the only opinion that matters is Parks Canada's, and they dictated the current design.

 

[Ralph]

Brilliant. And where do you propose they run the trains to while they are doing this, exactly?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Platform 27:

I am aware of what constitute the law. I am also fairly confident that the decision makers aren't necessarily daily user of the station AND I am also fairly confident that most current users of the station will consider the current state of affairs less than desirable. Given the potential increase in traffic beyond what even the current round of revitalization is designed to handle, it is prudent to think beyond what Parks Canada consider appropriate or otherwise given their limited mandate. The rest of the battle can be fought in the political arena, if necessary.

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

I have to question how much Parks Canada values the Bush trainshed, seeing that they approved the demolition of 1/4 of it.

 

[gweed123]

I have to question how much Parks Canada values the Bush trainshed, seeing that they approved the demolition of 1/4 of it.

My thoughts exactly. The station itself is gorgeous and should be retained at almost all costs, but the train shed? Meh.

Was the train shed specifically given a heritage designation, or was it just lumped into the "Union Station" heritage designation?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

My thoughts exactly. The station itself is gorgeous and should be retained at almost all costs, but the train shed? Meh.

Was the train shed specifically given a heritage designation, or was it just lumped into the "Union Station" heritage designation?

Wasn't it given heritage due to the design of the shed? IIRC it was one of the first, and is now one of the last examples of a Bush shed. The design itself was very unique in the steam powered train era where smoke from the firebox of the locomotive needed to be removed from the shed so that passengers were not suffocated.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

smallspy:

I am sure you are familiar with the concept of phased redevelopment - not to mention far more challenging stationwork elsewhere in the world. Hell, it wasn't like there is no place along the corridor to build a temporary station to divert at least part of the load if they have to.

Woodbridge:

So just because we are the last to commit to demolishing it meant that we should - no, have to save (most) of it, knowing that a) we don't run steam powered trains anymore, b) Union Station being one of the most heavily used stations anywhere in North America and c) the shed will compromise reorganization of the tracks and user experience? All of that just because of some distant, utterly impotent bureaucratic organ think so while the station and the shed was rotting over the past what, 30, 40 years? Their concern is really quite touching, I must admit.

AoD

 

[whatever]

In defense of the Bush shed, I've come to appreciate it a little bit more now that the middle section has been opened up to allow some light to penetrate in. The ironwork is kind of attractive and unlike anything else that I can think of around town. To be honest I didn't even realize it was iron and had always thought it was wooden, just based on how filthy and rotted it looked. With some natural light, decluttered platforms, a thorough clean-up, and a fresh coat of paint (something light I hope, like a light grey or even a white) the shed might actually win some fans.

That said, yes, we should've thought long term and done something to address the long term capacity of Union and also considered burying the tracks, both which would have required the wholesale demolition of the Bush shed. But given how things went I don't think the semi-preservation of the shed is going to be all bad.

 

[EnviroTO]

I have to question how much Parks Canada values the Bush trainshed, seeing that they approved the demolition of 1/4 of it.

The train shed is identical from one section to the next. If Toronto was a walled city it would be like punching a new opening through it. You don't need the whole thing to understand it.

 

[nfitz]

That said, yes, we should've thought long term and done something to address the long term capacity of Union and also considered burying the tracks, both which would have required the wholesale demolition of the Bush shed.

But there are long-term plans to bury tracks below the concourse to increase capacity. But it doesn't require the removal of either the shed or the existing tracks.

 

[EnviroTO]

Enviro:

The whole atrium/shed business didnt deal with the fundamental issue of track and platform organization. Frankly the whole thing should be razed and rebuilt. As to the Bush shed - I find that extending the heritage monkier to it weakens the concept.

I wouldn't assume they would have dealt with track and platform organization by taking down the shed. Track and platform organization which would require the shed gone would also require almost all the supporting columns not just extended as they are now, but the completely replaced along with shed floor. To keep the station going during that would be another whole level of complexity. If heritage isn't something historically important and almost completely unique, a design that was patented no less... then what is heritage. I don't find log cabins all that impressive architecturally but if it was the last log cabin in downtown Toronto I would think it worth preserving. Are only monumental things worthy of being "heritage"?

 

[DavidJamesTO]

Brilliant. And where do you propose they run the trains to while they are doing this, exactly?

The same place they're running now? If partial demolition can take place with full service, why not full?

The story is that it was the temporary solution after all the years of arguing over how the tracks would connect to the new station. I wouldn't miss it, especially after seeing what the new middle portion will look like. That said, the Bush trainshed is one of only three built in Canada. Montreal Windsor Station's is gone, while Winnipeg's is still going strong. No harm in keeping a small memento of the past.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Woodbridge:

So just because we are the last to commit to demolishing it meant that we should - no, have to save (most) of it, knowing that a) we don't run steam powered trains anymore, b) Union Station being one of the most heavily used stations anywhere in North America and c) the shed will compromise reorganization of the tracks and user experience? All of that just because of some distant, utterly impotent bureaucratic organ think so while the station and the shed was rotting over the past what, 30, 40 years? Their concern is really quite touching, I must admit.

AoD

You would have to take that question up with ADMA. I certainly am not advocating preserving it on those grounds.

 

[SkyJacked]

But there are long-term plans to bury tracks below the concourse to increase capacity. But it doesn't require the removal of either the shed or the existing tracks.

I am not up to speed on long term plans, or short term even but it is worth noting that after you dig down 20 - 25' it's solid rock all the way. I'm all for it though, dig.

 

[diminutive]

I don't find log cabins all that impressive architecturally but if it was the last log cabin in downtown Toronto I would think it worth preserving. Are only monumental things worthy of being "heritage"?

There has to be a utilitarian angle to this though, too. It's one thing to see your log cabin as historically valuable, but what if it was at King n Bay?

Union Station is arguably one of the most important facilities in this city and its purpose should be first and foremost to serve its riders, not necessarily to preserve (quite esoteric) railway history.

It does seem like a Principle-Agent problem. It's all well and good for Parks n Canada to fulfill its mandate and try to protect heritage wherever it can, but it doesn't have to deal with the long term costs of its decisions.

I know London has had to deal with this issue with Thameslink upgrades at London bridge, with involved the destruction of several heritage aspects of the original station (including platform roofs). I think they compromised and put the dismantled roofs into storage. That seems like a better compromise than what we opted for, perhaps if the roof could be reassembled elsewhere (farmer's market??). Plus their new platforms look totally cool.