I wouldn’t call the Longueil terminus cheap. The steel beams holding it up are rather stout. There’s enough steel in that terminus to ensure that its going to be there until they decide to replace it with something else.
As far as Japan goes, the one big strength of the way that they build infrastructure is that it is all standardised. We’ve started doing some of that, but we’ve still got a long way to go. If we were to apply standardisation at a large scale, we most certainly could reduce construction costs while also making parts more available for repairs.
It’s important that you do something that is inviting to passangers, thought it’s true that sometimes in Quebec this obsession goes too far, like we do a by default rejection of elevated alignments for rail just because it’s doesn’t « look » good. Or when the trams is choose just because it « look » good instead of this mode making true sense where it’s choose.
Why tho when everyone just looks at their phones while waiting… In the 50’s fine but now with everyone on there phones we could go far more utilitarian and nothing else and no one would notice
I would say it’s not the core of the problem cost wise, the main thing that could help is standardization while being nice, like the REM! It’s really what we miss in the STM to help reducing cost, having nice stations is not the problem, it’s to make each pieces of it, even technical one like escalator, unique that is the real pain in the ass complicating tendering to no end and forcing to make a lot of orders.
Good architecture helps people actually care about the system and maintaining it. Theres a reason the very opulent grand central is meticulously maintained while many utilitarian new york subway stations go months between cleaning. Furthermore, while architecture definitely plays a part in construction/maintenance costs, its likely alot less than you would imagine. Our construction costs aren’t being driven up by architects, it’s politicians who refuse to fund in-house planning and engineering, while caving to any NIMBY demand to bury things deeper.
I feel like we’re constantly backing ourselves into the false dichotomy of either having nice stations or having cheap stations. Obviously a gold-plated triple-level station with marble floors is gonna cost more than a concrete box on a elevated guideway, but those are two extremes of a very large spectrum. We should be aiming for the middle:continuing our tradition of excellent architecture in public transportation, while also using best practices from other nations to reduce our construction costs.
Like I said, the key work is standardization, do it for a maximum of things that are technical as well as the overall architecture principle and keep the details unique for each station a bit like how the REM did it, which is the best approach for me. You have a coherence in the network while being abble to deffirenciate each stations, the work of natural lighting is for me the best part of the REM stations. Also, like you said, the maximum you do in-house the best it is and adopt alignment that are the most cheap possible so elevated when feasible.
Distinctive architecture can be designed to be functional, too. The “removable” canopies built here at Lucien-L’Allier appear to embody “form” well over “function.” There is zero reason for these structures to be able to accommodate or clear double-stacked TEU trains.
Let me cut you right there. In North America, we have a history of demolishing opulent buildings because:
They cost too much to maintain
The building has gone without maintenance for so long that it is at a risk of collapse
They would cost too much to bring up to modern standards
The land they sit on is more valuable than the building
They have been made redundant by a more modern and more boring building.
The configuration of the building makes it hard to use as is and laws prevent us from making the modifications that could give it a second life.
The reasons why we demolish historic buildings are usually a mix of those. There’s been a rather long list of those, especially in the last 2 decades. In New York, Pen Station is particularly famous for being one of those opulent dilapidated building that got demolished. The modern Pen Station is basically a dingy basement under Madison Square Garden. It isn’t too different from what we did with Lucien L’Allier.
In most cases, easy of maintenance should trump opulence. There’s just way too many exemples of opulent buildings being demolished.
oui je suis d’accord, les stations à Tokyo étaient très utilitaires (tôles, etc) et pas très esthétiques, mais bon faut dire qu’ils doivent avoir 10x plus de stations là-bas aussi.
Concerning the Terminus in Longueuil, i used it pretty often when i went to Cegep. It was almost new back in the day, i always found it very well made and practical (easy to naviguate), at least once you’re inside. The outside finish might look cheap a bit, but the heating inside felt good during winter (i don’t remember if it had AC during summer though, but im guessing yes)
J’ai enfin été capable cette semaine de me libérer pour prendre quelques clichés avant et après le travail. C’est pas top – capté sur iPhone et dans les quelques instants que j’avais de libre – mais c’est un départ pour mettre à jour la page Wikipédia sur Lucien L’Allier.
Ce n’est pas un problème d’architecture autant que c’est un problème de programme. Malheureusement, le propriétaire des lieux, le CP, a décidé d’exiger cette condition que cela soit justifiable ou non. Je ne doute pas que les architectes aient remis cette contrainte en question lors de l’élaboration du projet. Or, le CP a le dernier mot sur la réalisation du projet que les architectes soient du même avis ou non. Ainsi, la firme a rempli son travail dans le cadre de ce qui était possible : ils ont simplement respecté le programme qui leur a été donné.
En outre, je ne vois rien de trop extravagant dans l’élaboration des marquises. C’est une structure préfabriquée en acier et en bois d’ingénierie. Est-ce que la structure aurait pu être plus utilitaire ? Définitivement. Est-ce que ces économies de bout de chandelles auraient valu la peine ? Probablement pas. Il faut se rappeller que l’environnement bâti joue un rôle important dans la qualité de vie. Après tout, c’est l’apparence de notre environnement immédiat qui est en question. Ainsi, une des fonctions de cette structure est d’offrir un environnement agréable à l’usager. Fonction qui semble bien remplie prenant compte des contraintes difficiles.
Absolument d’accord. On s’attend plus à refaire des stations de métro moscovites qui sont de véritables palaces souterrains mais on est pas obligé d’aller dans l’autre extrême non plus. Une belle gare ou station de métro maintenue en état sera respectée par le plus grand nombre. C’est sans compter l’aspect positif sur le bien-être de ses utilisateurs.
It seems silly, but I’m pretty sure we are all saying the same thing from different angles. What I’m saying is that civic structures that are architecturally or aesthetically pleasing can also be functional, and vice-versa. In this case, the roof canopies they have built are quite nice to look at, but serve very little purpose, functionally. They might provide some shade from the sun in the middle of a summer day, but how many people take exo trains in the middle of the day right now? So yes, the architects had to design something within the constraints imposed by CPKC, as illogical as they may be, and as we’ve discussed time and again, our authorities are simply toothless when it comes to dealing with the Class I railways.
Pourquoi faudrait-il accepter que la plupart des usagers sont sur leur téléphones cellulaires comme un ordre fixe et établi ? On devrait plutôt voir ce comportement comme une conséquence de notre environnement bâti. Le téléphone offre un micro-environnement stimulant beaucoup plus attirant qu’une gare stérile ou un abris d’autobus. On pourrait facilement imaginer que la proportion d’usager occupée par leur cellulaire diminuerait si on leur offrait un environnement plus stimulant et engageant. Pour l’instant, nos infrastructures de transport ne sont que des espaces liminaux dédiés au mouvement des personnes. Ce ne sont pas des lieux en soi. Offrir un environnement plus beau, plus social ou plus interactif serait des pistes de solutions pour diminuer ce comportement. On peut aussi entrevoir les retombées psychologiques positives que ces nouveaux lieux pourraient occasionner.
