[UrbanAffair]

Agreed with the above. Anything that adds light and "a positive experience" when using transit, should take precedent in my opinion over heritage. Not that I have any sway, but if I did, I would be happy to look at compromises that pay homage to the train shed and its history, while providing Torontonians with a decent experience as they commute. I don't commute, but if I did I would not enjoy the current bush shed experience, and it tarnishes the Toronto experience I think.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Being both a railway history nerd and a heritage advocate, I am loathe to speak against something which is an established landmark in the city and which is a well preserved rare example of definite historical value. However.....

My take - many of the heritage buildings that we conserve date from the era before indoor plumbing. When we conserve them, we do not remove the indoor plumbing in the interest of historical fidelity. No one wants to use an outhouse in January, even if that's what people did in the past times we are commemorating.

The Bush trainshed design is the railway equivalent of the outhouse.... while distinctive and technically interesting, they never contributed to a positive passenger experience. Even in the golden days, they were dark, dingy, sooty, and unpleasant.

I am not in favour of razing the trainshed altogether but it could be given a substantial reworking that interprets its values in a more interesting way and creates a new architectural treatment appropriate for a "great" train station.

- Paul

PS - Union Station was not Toronto's first train station. Its predecessors had more interesting trainshed designs. Maybe that would give some inspiration while respecting the heritage.

Putting aside the aesthetics for one second, another fatal problem with the Bush shed is how retaining it had created all sorts of issues with rearranging the platforms, tracks and access. The end result is an end product that is haphazard, primitive and inefficient.

AoD

 

[DSCToronto]

Agreed with the above. Anything that adds light and "a positive experience" when using transit, should take precedent in my opinion over heritage. Not that I have any sway, but if I did, I would be happy to look at compromises that pay homage to the train shed and its history, while providing Torontonians with a decent experience as they commute. I don't commute, but if I did I would not enjoy the current bush shed experience, and it tarnishes the Toronto experience I think.

This ship has sailed and there is really not much point relitigating it. No doubt the station will be 'renovated' again in 15-20 years - the shed might go then, or not.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This ship has sailed and there is really not much point relitigating it. No doubt the station will be 'renovated' again in 15-20 years - the shed might go then, or not.

There is every point in re-litigating it - if anything to make sure those/opinions behind those who produced this mess are in no position to constraint future redevelopment. Every user frustration, every inadequacy, every lost opportunity - should be laid squarely at their feet.

AoD

 

[Sauga89]

Would it be too radical to suggest taking it apart piece by piece and rebuilding it somewhere else? It would make a lovely farmers market or event space outside the city.

 

[smallspy]

Putting aside the aesthetics for one second, another fatal problem with the Bush shed is how retaining it had created all sorts of issues with rearranging the platforms, tracks and access. The end result is an end product that is haphazard, primitive and inefficient.

AoD

Once again, since you seem to have forgotten.....

The shed has no bearing on where the tracks and accesses are. The columns holding up the tracks are the cause of that.

Dan

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Once again, since you seem to have forgotten.....

The shed has no bearing on where the tracks and accesses are. The columns holding up the tracks are the cause of that.

Dan

And would you have been able to completely redevelop the concourse and rearrange the tracks if not for the heritage status of the shed and VIA concourse?

AoD

 

[crs1026]

And would you have been able to completely redevelop the concourse and rearrange the tracks if not for the heritage status of the shed and VIA concourse?

AoD

No.... as Dan points out, the placement of the pillars and pilings and not the heritage status is what constrained things.

What you suggest would imply excavating and rebuilding from scratch the entire space south of the Great Hall. Not necessarily a bad idea in theory, but far more expensive, and likely would have had a greater or total impact on operations for several years.

When the original reno was planned, various groups fought hard for their agendas. I don't think that was a bad thing, in that there was potential for a lot of really tasteless modernisation that fortunately was discarded. Overall, the attention to detail in the renovation is wonderful (although not always well executed). The old departures concourse, and the trainshed....were never really positive attributes of the station, so only so much that can be done about them without a total demo and replacement. It is what it is.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What you suggest would imply excavating and rebuilding from scratch the entire space south of the Great Hall. Not necessarily a bad idea in theory, but far more expensive, and likely would have had a greater or total impact on operations for several years.

That is what should have happened - if the parties involved have a clear vision/direction of what train operation at the station should look like before . Instead we put the cart before the horse - and end up with this ineffectual thing, which is hardly cheap for what it is (except in the way it looks).

AoD

 

[crs1026]

That is what should have happened - if the parties involved have a clear vision/direction of what train operation at the station should look like before . Instead we put the cart before the horse - and end up with this ineffectual thing, which is hardly cheap for what it is (except in the way it looks).

AoD

In a perfect world, yes.... but the reno plan was started back around 2005-2006, where GO RER only came about by about 2014-2015, and VIA HSR is still in gestation.....ML hasn't helped by vaccillating over the years, but the planners did not have today's information at hand.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Of course, unlike @crs1026 I wasn't around to see it..... LOL

But to my understanding, this is was the interior of the train shed for Toronto's previous (2nd) Union Station:

source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/The_new_Union_Station,_interior_view,_Toronto,_1873.jpg


This is a view of the exterior:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toron...#/media/File:Second_Union_Station_in_1878.jpg

 

[crs1026]

LOL I was also partial to the Great Western's station. But it wouldn't hurt to aspire to full Paddington.

- Paul

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The city really cheaped out Union Station's shed. Looks like a bikini that barely covers the bits and you're telling me its going to get worse?
View attachment 637388

This shed could've been such a landmark and instead they built a generic glass box that covers a tiny bit of the platforms. What's the point? I'm longing for the day of a visionary mayor that cares about public space.

Because the original "bush" shed is considered heritage and the preservationists in the city wouldn't allow a complete teardown of them

 

[crs1026]

Because the original "bush" shed is considered heritage and the preservationists in the city wouldn't allow a complete teardown of them

I can't help but push back on your turning this into an ad hominem - as if "preservationists" are a sinister thing, like "lefties" or "magas" or (worse of all /s) "woke urban cyclists".

Heritage status is governed by law, and when a property is designated (which can be at the federal, provincial, or municipal level - train stations generally receive federal heritage status) there are processes that are followed.

The discussion of what weight heritage receives in a major project such as Union Station gets a lot of debate and a lot of deliberation.

I'm not saying that in the case of Union Station, the powers that be got everything right, but for a property such as Union Station, the heritage discussion was a legitimate element of the planning process (and rightfully so).

Heritage advocates don't always get everything they ask for, either. It's not a case of a narrow group of people hijacking the process.

- Paul

 

[ward10]

The thing that gets me about how unassailable the heritage element of the shed supposedly is...it's only 25 years older than Union subway station, which no one seemed to mind gut renoing for functional reasons around the same time