Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
On Monday morning, Astral Media unveiled prototypes of its new line of "street furniture" at City Hall. On Wednesday, we took a look at the garbage bins. On Thursday, we looked at the advertising pillars. This morning, the transit shelters. (Be sure also to read Christopher Hume's review, which makes our less-than-kind assessments look like raves.)
The "Basic" shelter. (The blue "Toronto" ribbon was present for ceremonial cutting purposes only and is not part of the shelter's design.)
As of November 1, 2006, Toronto had 1803 transit shelters with ads and 2257 transit shelters without ads. According to the street furniture Request for Proposals (RFP) [PDF], these included "about 1,000 of the new [Jeremy Kramer] design installed over the past five years and about 3,000 others of varying age, style and condition." The idea is that the 1000 new-style ones will be kept, the 3000 older ones will be replaced, and 2000 new locations will be added, for a total of 6000 shelters.
The thing is, according to Ed Drass in Metro, the TTC currently serves 9288 stops within the city (and will surely add many more over the next twenty years), but only 10% of the 700 shelters installed in the next two years will be in new locations. The other 630 will replace current shelters. The official reason for this is that many of the older shelters have "structural problems," which is probably true but also probably only part of the reason; there are very many older shelters throughout the city that are in solid condition but will be, in short time, replaced, for the dual sins of 1) not being designed by Jeremy Kramer, and 2) being in a high-visibility location but not showcasing advertisements. Under Astral's plan, about 4000 of the 6000 shelters will have ads. So although the total number of shelters is going up 50%, the number with ads is going up more than 100%.
So why are ads a bad thing?
Let us quote liberally from a deputation given by the Safety Program Director of METRAC (the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children) to the City's Works Committee two years ago:
Clear sightlines allow a woman to be seen and to see. Anyone who can clearly see what is ahead and/or behind has a better chance of anticipating problems and taking evasive action. Having this information increases control and can reduce fear of the unexpected. However, sightlines are often obstructed unnecessarily, obscured by things like pillars, walls, shrubs, sharp corners, fences, and landscaped hills. This increases the fear of the unexpected and the unknown. Obstructed sightlines play a part in creating an environment of opportunity by decreasing casual surveillance and increasing the potential for surprise.
Consequently, METRAC recommended that "Sightlines of pedestrians should be ensured when the new street furniture is installed, including advertisements, garbage bins, full transparency of bus shelters" and that there should only be "Transparent glass bus shelters on all 4 sides with no advertisements obstructing sightlines." This would, of course, be impossible under the mayor's chosen funding model and so these concerns were two-thirds dismissed (two thirds being the proportion of shelters that will have an opaque wall of advertising).
Another mostly-ignored METRAC recommendation was that "Bus shelters should have 2 exits/entrances" in order to reduce "peoples’ feelings of isolation and areas of entrapment":
Isolated areas induce an acute sense of fear. Not knowing who may be hiding and not knowing if anyone will see or hear you if you are threatened or assaulted contribute to this fear. Isolation can provide opportunity for a woman to be assaulted with little risk of being seen or heard.
The RFP asked that "shelters should be fully enclosed on all four sides from the roof to within no more than 40 mm of the ground, except for one doorway approximately 1.20 m wide located at the front or back of the shelter and a second exit if viable."
The "Residential" shelter.
Astral designed five types of shelters: "Basic," "Narrow," "Canopy," "Residential," and "Streetcar Platform." Renderings of the initially proposed versions of the first four were placed online in the spring of 2007; the only glimpse of the "Streetcar Platform Shelter," however, is in this Windows Media video. The versions on display at City Hall appeared to be the "Basic" and "Residential."
So how do they stack up?
The Basic manages to be sufficiently enclosed as to potentially become an "area of entrapment" and yet is open enough that the degree to which it would provide shelter is questionable, mostly due to the City's stipulation that shelter walls hover at least 4 cm above the ground; this makes them easier to install and to clean but allows cold wind to come rushing through. The roof of the shelter is transparent, effectively rendering the structure a greenhouse on the hottest days. The original design incorporated a metal panel into the roof that would have provided a strip of shade over top the seating. For some reason, this did not make it into the prototype.
Basic.
The presence of the next-vehicle display, without a contextual explanation, was misleading. Although the TTC does intend to introduce these sorts of apparatuses in the fall, Astral's responsibilities, as per their contract, are limited to having "to cooperate with the TTC or other agencies, as required, to ensure that the Shelters are available for (and in the case of New Shelters, compatible with) the installation and maintenance of wiring and equipment required" for the devices. Astral "shall not be responsible for the acquisition, installation, or maintenance of such equipment or for the associated costs of these activities."
Residential.
The Residential is a major improvement from a safety perspective in that not only is it fully transparent, but its opening is also wide enough that it would be very difficult to become trapped inside. It also bears the same overhead panel the other shelters did in the original renderings, allowing for a little bit of shade, meaning that in the summer, these shelters will be more pleasant than the others. But in the winter (or in heavy rain) they will be brutal; you will only be sheltered from snow so long as the snow is falling straight down.
The TPSC's Jonathan Goldsbie will conclude his coverage with a round-up of the remaining items. All photos by Goldsbie.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Oh for chrissakes - why is there no overhang on the front so you can wait outside the thing if it's raining?
Why is the bench only for 3? Why isn't it a 5 seater?
WHy is the roof transparent? It'll be nice and steamy hot in there in July.
I hate these things - overdesigned, trying way too hard, and impractical beyond words. What a fucking joke these pieces of shit are.
The transparent roofs do not make much sense at all.
So, these big, open, translucent boxes will not protect us (very well) from the snow, rain, sun or wind. And if there are more than 3 very small people waiting, you can't sit down.
So what exactly is the point? Urban sculpture?
Selling ads.
Well aside from the obvious comments regarding the lack of shade from these "shelters", does anyone else notice how small those seats are? Do these designers not realize that normal every day people have arms?
Good luck trying to fit 3 people on that thing.
>So, these big, open, translucent boxes will not protect us (very well) from the snow, rain, sun or wind.
Main Entry: trans·lu·cent \-sənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin translucent-, translucens, present participle of translucēre to shine through, from trans- + lucēre to shine — more at light
1: permitting the passage of light: a: clear, transparent
Translucent does't mean 'open'.
Last time I checked, the walls are made from plexi-glass.
Which will definatley shelter you from the rain, snow and wind.
Who the hell stands in bus shelters when it's sweltering hot anyways?
I love how you didn't mention that some of these shelters would be solar powered (trying to focus too much on the negative huh?).
>So what exactly is the point?
To provide shelter from the elements in Toronto while people wait for transit.
>Good luck trying to fit 3 people on that thing.
Much like the existing ones with the black roofs that are often chipped to show the metal underneath.
The same ones with only 2 seats in each. The new ones could have many more than 3 people occupying them comfortably (you're looking at a picture, you should go to City Hall). They are much larger then the current ones and now have an extra seat.
yup, no improvement there :P
Translucent. As in the ceiling. It's clear plexiglass - as you said - and no shade=skin cancer.
Open. As in it's got a roof, and 3 walls, but there's big cracks between all of them where, I dunno, rain, snow, and possibly wind can get through.
Plus with the angle on that roof, only the most vertical rain and snow (which if you had your windows open on the weekend, you'll know that it isn't usually) will be deflected by it. Most of it will come right in through.
And why exactly does a shack to protect us from the elements need to be solar powered? What's so great about giving something electricity that probably doesn't need it to begin with?
I think. I'm not positive though. Mostly just basing this on common sense. Don't have a dictionary here to back me up. :(
Wear sunscreen. You should be wearing it anyway if you're worried about cancer.
It does suck to stand in the hot sun waiting up to 20 minutes for a streetcar, in terms of comfort, but I wouldn't be standing inside a stuffy glass box anyway. I'd rather find a nice tree.
Also, we've got a catchy headline now:
"TAKING TTC TO GIVE YOU CANCER"
Nice!
The Residential Shelter in particular is very nice. Shame about the roofs; there should be more of an overhang—and the whole thing should be deeper, too, shouldn't it? Otherwise the openness detracts from their ability to protect from the elements. I'd gladly accept an ad on the side of them for a better roof.
And on the weather note, torontothegreat, Beth's comment ("So, these big, open, translucent boxes will not protect us (very well) from the snow, rain, sun or wind") does not suggest that translucency is the same thing as being open, just as it doesn't suggest that being big is the same thing as being open. I think we all know what translucent means from Grade 7 science curriculum. The point was, I think, about the sun, and that being translucent doesn't do a good job at reducing it or the heat from it—not as good as opaque would. The shade that opaque roofs create actually makes transit shelters rather pleasant in the weather we've been having of late, especially if the shelters were to be bigger.
And as Jonathan's article explicitly points out, because of the design of the shelters, "in the winter (or in heavy rain) they will be brutal; you will only be sheltered from snow so long as the snow is falling straight down."
And Marc Lostracco's article about the street furniture when the designs were first unveiled mentioned the solar-powered thing, but it is an obvious plus to the design. But by the looks of the things, they might as well put the solar panels on the floors for all the light that'll come through their roofs.
>The point was, I think, about the sun, and that being translucent doesn't do a good job at reducing it or the heat from it—not as good as opaque would. The shade that opaque roofs create actually makes transit shelters rather pleasant in the weather we've been having of late, especially if the shelters were to be bigger.
You don't actually believe this do you? The 'sun' is rarely the cause of the extreme heat we've been having, usually the humidity has a 'bit' more to do with it. Opaque roofs also are sweltering hot in the summer, or have you actually never tried to go into a bus shelter when it's 42 above?
>And as Jonathan's article explicitly points out, because of the design of the shelters, "in the winter (or in heavy rain) they will be brutal; you will only be sheltered from snow so long as the snow is falling straight down."
with the open doorways of the current shelters you also get snowed on/rained on when the weather decides to dump on an angle. What's changed?
I think Beth is reaching... In fact, almost all of these 'complaints' are pretty far reaching...
>But by the looks of the things, they might as well put the solar panels on the floors for all the light that'll come through their roofs.
ummm... or on the roof for all that light that'll be shining on it :P
/slaps forehead
facepalm.jpg
knock any sense loose?
Hey!
I use subway every day and wait both in TTC and bus stops. Streetcar shelters on Spadina are great the way they are. One open side, big overhangs, opaque roof. Good in sun and rain. Always can be improved on, but are allright.
Bus shelters I use more and pretty much in all kinds of weather. In winter, they are awesome - glass all around except for one opening on the side opposite to street. Very good! Could be larger and cooler designed, but pretty good. In summer, the shade is nice (and yes, most of the discomfort that can be avoided is from the sun - duuh, why do people look for shade instead of being in direct sunglight???), but they get way too hot. Maybe an opening on the top part?
I am very much against glass being lifted up from the ground. Have fun standing there when it is snowing and raining and when a car or a bus passes by.
These proposes shelters look cool and I am all for cool, but if my current ones were replaced by these, they would not do the job as well as the current ones do. No shade, no protection from the wind in the winter (I cannot believe how absolutely stupid the "residential" is in this regard) and more attention to displaying adds than "sheltering" people.
I have very pale skin. It is also very sensitive skin, which limits my sunscreen use.
Believe me when I say that a little shade goes a long way.
And I know from bus shelters. I have only been taking public transportation my whole life (I don't even have a drivers license).
I've experienced lots of different varieties of the things in real world applications in all 4 seasons of weather, so you can believe me when I say that based on my previous experiences these probably aren't a great design (the other street furniture seems nice enough though).
So I'm far from reaching.
But.
Whatever.
I'm gonna go back to commenting on Jezebel where everybody isn't a troll or an editor.
I believe that the solar panels are not on all shelters, but are only to be used to "supplement" the backlit ad panel, and for no other reason. These shelters are also wired up to the grid in case there isn't enough sunlight to keep the ad lit up.
Beth: I have super-sensitive, allergic skin too, but NeoStrata and ROC Dermatologic sunscreen products have worked well for me. Unfortunately, they cost a fortch.
Actually Marc they are for the use of the next-vehicle display and any other electric needed by the shelter. They aren't a contigency plan.
I love Jezebel too, but I have to say that they don't offer much in terms of ruminations on Toronto street furniture.