City
What TTC subway stations were meant to look like
Since its opening in 1954, numerous renovations and adaptions have altered the look of the Yonge line between Eglinton and Union. Gone is the uniform TTC font and original Vitriolite tiles - the reflective glass wall panels the system shared with the Woolworth Building in New York - and in their place is a mish-mash of typefaces and tiling jobs that give the stretch a strangely disconnected look.
Eglinton Station is the only one of the original 12 stops that has largely retained its original aesthetic. All the other stops south have had their tiles partially or entirely replaced with lime green (Dundas) and brown (King) textured wall decorations. At Queen and other stations the original TTC font has been ditched for a tightly-spaced version.
Photographs and concept drawings in the City of Toronto Archives show the stations as they were originally intended: minimalist, utilitarian, and clean. The "bathroom modern" look, as it was derisively known, would be repeated in a slightly altered fashion on the Bloor-Danforth line a decade or so later.
Here are pictures of the original styling taken just before the line opened to the public.
Chris Bateman is a staff writer at blogTO. Follow him on Twitter at @chrisbateman.
Photos: City of Toronto Archives
Discussion
35 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
one of the most common comments from people who've been into Lower Bay station is that the lack of advertising is what makes it seem so unique.
First, it's typical of a certain style of thinking in Ontario that the best design they could think of at the time was "bathroom moderne": cold, antiseptic, sterile. Architecture that makes hosing down the vomit off the walls easier. Design that is perhaps contemptuous of the people who use it.
Second, we are all using old infrastructure that was never meant to hold so many people at this rate of use. The platforms and stairwells hint at this--the designers never conceived of so many people in future Toronto. Add to this the deplorable lack of funding, and no wonder the infrastructure is falling apart. The Economist recently called Toronto's subway "grimy" and not befitting of a city with "world class" pretensions.
In all the talk about subway extensions and third lines, I wish I heard more about renovating the crumbling mess we have now.
An opportunity lost, never will they be able to rework the stations again. Here's hoping they same is not repeated with Union Station
Not to say that they should look as good as Russian or North Korean subway lines (seriously, look it up) but at least we could match Montreal, no?
I guess I just like nice things and things that look nice :)
However, I have to agree with above comments. The deterioration of our stations is awful. Grimy is right.
Union Station's current state (I understand it is under renovation) would be great for a horror movie
Another, practical note, a lot (all?) of the surfaces now have a fireproofing applied, so that is why the ceilings look so different.
The first dollars should be spent on improving platforms, etc.
But overall I don't agree with a utilitarian design. Subway stations are an extension of the public space. You spend time in them and the public who use them should (somewhat) enjoy passing through them.
The new stations do suck and we're being screwed because of semantics re: which part of the budget it comes from.
Ever ridden the tube in London, the Metro in Paris, or the U-Bahn in Berlin?
These systems are dirty, shabby, and full of ads. Paris' Metro smells like pee & some stations are full of homeless people and begging Roma. London's tube has no AC, and is dreadfully stuffy. In this sense the TTC compares pretty well.
I like subway advertising in the stations. It adds colour and the ads are often interesting.
And they better be adding more tracks at Union during the renovation. You know, for future expansion plans... but they won't.
It never works that way.
Same with the old Bloor Station colour scheme of blue on yellow - which Yonge Station was built to match. Then Bloor went with green on white in the renovation circa 1991, while Yonge stayed the same. Why?
While we're at it, I'm sure Wiz Khalifa would've loved the old "black stripe, yellow paint" look of Dundas.
Why couldn't more stations have gotten the St Clair/Summerhill treatment (i.e. original colours and font without the damaged Vitrolite)?
Ever ridden the Seoul, HK, Bangkok, KL, Singpore, or Tokyo subways?
Just because others are worse, doesn't mean that be what is sought after.
The fact is there are SIGNIFICANTLY better -specifically HK's which has it's individual stations air conditioned- subway systems. All things considered, Toronto has among the worst in the world yet it wants to be deemed a "world class city".
Regarding the comments criticising an easy to hose-down and clean design, if you sit back and think about the abuse it receives daily, it makes the most sense: hundreds of thousands of people trudging through it weekly, trains bringing in dirt and grease constantly.
The system used to appear cleaner back when they just power washed the dirt, but modern environmental standards deemed the runoff to be hazardous. Agreeable of course, but if you're going to bitch maybe you should offer an economical and environmentally friendly way of cleaning the grime.
Now I'm not defending the TTC or Toronto in general when it comes to its beauty and state-of-repair, but I think a lot of people are deluded because they've visited the pristine historic centres of a couple European cities, or the downtowns of the shiny new Asian metropolises.