Posts: 466
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation:
16
This design isn't bad but it is short sighted. The region proposed this as a visionary project, potentially on a world city level. They should stick to their gut.
While the proposal isn't bad, the station should have more grandeur, and should go over the tracks. I also still think they should plan for the eventual high speed rail link.
And lastly whatever they do it needs to be able to support density in a future phase. I would hope that this site could be the first to crack 40 stories in the region and it should. It should be the region's centerpiece.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(01-09-2020, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote: (01-09-2020, 02:52 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Honest question: these designs are "terrible" and "brutal" compared to what? I can agree that they're not too exciting, but I don't think they're terrible and there's not enough in those sketches to say whether the final result would be something we'd be ashamed about. To be honest, if the roofline of the first option were extended over the tracks, I would probably look at that and say it might very well wind up quite nice.
I can see the merits of future proofing to some extent. It's true that this is a very important parcel of land. But there are parcels nearby that can and will accommodate high-density developments. I'm not sure it would be a good strategy to build nothing and wait for conditions to get better for something grander to make sense. That argument might make sense for a long time, meanwhile we're without an integrated terminal.
Among those available sites is the rest of this site, which one assumes would become more attractive to private developers with the transit hub in place next door.
Indeed. I see in that render a big surface parking lot that will be immensely valuable to developers as soon as so many people are passing through this site. And does the Region still own 100 Victoria- half an acre 350 metres away?
Posts: 1,084
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
31
I'm curious if there's a caveat with the provincial funding that it all needs to be used at once - anything short would either forfeit the unused portion or not qualify because it's not the full hub it was designated for.
Complete speculation here, but would make sense with those designs and lack of future integration.
Posts: 122
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
5
The design compared to the original concepts is called "bait & switch"....I'm sure that the $40 million funding from the province will barely cover the cost of this.
Posts: 6,469
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
85
(01-10-2020, 03:25 PM)LesPio Wrote: The design compared to the original concepts is called "bait & switch"....I'm sure that the $40 million funding from the province will barely cover the cost of this. More “concept that didn’t pan out” than bait and switch, istm.
Posts: 749
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation:
46
Posts: 1,084
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
31
Biggest beef is the lack of platform access from anywhere other than the west end. People in the eastbound car would need to walk the entire length of the train and then halfway back to get to the bus loop.
Posts: 10,275
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(01-24-2020, 04:28 PM)timio Wrote: Biggest beef is the lack of platform access from anywhere other than the west end. People in the eastbound car would need to walk the entire length of the train and then halfway back to get to the bus loop.
Eastbound car ... eastbound car ... do you mean Toronto-bound? I think those pax would be OK. Kitchener-bound pax would need to walk to the Waterloo St underpass.
Posts: 1,701
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
128
I filled out the survey. To me it is window dressing. Both concept A and B are horrible. I was blunt but I also added many ideas of what it should be... May be they will listen to us and hold off...
Posts: 7,580
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(01-24-2020, 05:55 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I filled out the survey. To me it is window dressing. Both concept A and B are horrible. I was blunt but I also added many ideas of what it should be... May be they will listen to us and hold off...
I don't always agree with you, but yeah, they're bad...it's interesting though, Concept B is vastly worse, it's almost like that one exists to try and make A more palatable.
There is a bigger issue here, if the plan is to develop a transit building, and grand plaza separate from the development, that's fine, but it's a radical shift from the previous plans, they should mention that. Worse, they aren't even showing future plans here, they show surface parking and the existing buildings, what garbage! If they expect a future development, that should be included in the concept. And the plans themselves (the serious issues with B not withstanding) are incredibly boring and uninspired, and too deep at this level. What are they hoping to gain here? These look like staff were caught with their pants down and threw something together, honestly, I hope no architect was paid for this.
Posts: 10,275
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
They really can't show the future buildings there since the region won't be building those, and the private developer has nor yet been selected.
Posts: 1,084
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
31
(01-24-2020, 04:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (01-24-2020, 04:28 PM)timio Wrote: Biggest beef is the lack of platform access from anywhere other than the west end. People in the eastbound car would need to walk the entire length of the train and then halfway back to get to the bus loop.
Eastbound car ... eastbound car ... do you mean Toronto-bound? I think those pax would be OK. Kitchener-bound pax would need to walk to the Waterloo St underpass.
Eastern car. Sorry, wrong word.
On the platform, the eastern car passengers would need to get out, walk to the west end of the train, down the stairs, and then back.
Posts: 10,275
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(01-24-2020, 10:48 PM)timio Wrote: (01-24-2020, 04:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Eastbound car ... eastbound car ... do you mean Toronto-bound? I think those pax would be OK. Kitchener-bound pax would need to walk to the Waterloo St underpass.
Eastern car. Sorry, wrong word.
On the platform, the eastern car passengers would need to get out, walk to the west end of the train, down the stairs, and then back.
OK, thanks for the correction.
Based on the image, pax in the first car in a Kitchener-bound train would need to walk about six car-lengths to get to the Waterloo St underpass and over to the bus bays (which would be located roughly in front of the underpass). The walk would not be so much different from that for the pax in the last car.
Posts: 4,328
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
178
(01-24-2020, 10:39 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They really can't show the future buildings there since the region won't be building those, and the private developer has nor yet been selected.
They can show an indistinct block, to suggest that there will be some sort of large high-rise development. This is perfectly normal to do. The “Grand Market District” at Fairview has published renderings that show additional future buildings, with no promise that they will actually be built exactly as shown. But they give the suggestion of what the rest of the development could or might look like, and clearly indicate that the intent is not to leave the rest of the parking lots as they are in the long term.
Posts: 1,084
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
31
(01-24-2020, 10:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (01-24-2020, 10:48 PM)timio Wrote: Eastern car. Sorry, wrong word.
On the platform, the eastern car passengers would need to get out, walk to the west end of the train, down the stairs, and then back.
OK, thanks for the correction.
Based on the image, pax in the first car in a Kitchener-bound train would need to walk about six car-lengths to get to the Waterloo St underpass and over to the bus bays (which would be located roughly in front of the underpass). The walk would not be so much different from that for the pax in the last car.
I'm not seeing a way to get from track level to ground level at the underpass, but maybe my eyesight isn't so great.
|
