When I learned that Union Station was finally getting permanent bollards to replace the haphazardly-placed Jersey barriers that have sat in front of the transport hub since 2018, I was relieved. I wrote about these barriers several times on this website, criticizing their appearance and their placement, blocking the way for the thousands of people who cross Front Street every day. But when I went to see them in person, after seeing criticism online, I was dismayed.
The new permanent barriers might even be worse than the temporary obstructions they are meant to replace.
The Jersey barriers were hastily placed after a tragic attack on Yonge Street in North York, where a man intentionally drove a rented van on to the sidewalk, killing ten pedestrians and injuring and traumatizing many more.
Vehicular assaults on crowds of pedestrians are a major concern; tactics used at mass gatherings — such as the winter light show and New Years Eve events at Nathan Phillips Square and major concerts and playoff games at Skydome and Scotiabank Arena — now include blocking closed streets with heavy vehicles such as snow plows, dump trucks, and city buses. However, Union Station is the only place in the city where officials have decided that new permanent barriers were necessary.
The new permanent barriers are not the sturdy, yet narrow, bollards that are used elsewhere. Instead, they are large, undecorated concrete blocks anchored into the ground and are knee-high. The plain concrete colour does not match the stone sidewalks or plaza. They are placed very close together, impeding access for those using large carts, strollers, or wheeled mobility devices. Despite all the money spent renovating Union Station, these blocks look cheap.
The total cost of installing the “Custom Anti-Terror Concrete Barriers,” as the city described the bid, was $2,438,238, including HST. The lowest bid, by South Central Inc., came over a $1 million cheaper than the other two bids. It is worth noting that there are no public documents that describe the city’s specifications for the contract, nor was there any public consultation before the city solicited bids.
The result? An esthetic failure and an accessibility challenge.
I cannot understand the city’s decision to go with these blocks where more elegant and pedestrian-friendly alternatives are typically used elsewhere. For example, the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna, which faces the famous and busy Ringstrasse, is protected by smaller concrete bollards, which are also more widely separated, making it much more pleasant for pedestrians to get by. In Great Britain, metal bollards are common on busy commercial streets and in front of important buildings, but they are easy for pedestrians to pass, and generally blend in.
In the United States, government buildings are also protected by heavy anti-vehicular barricades (especially since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing), but they are generally more permeable for pedestrians.
It is also worth noting that other popular pedestrian areas, such as the Yonge-Dundas intersection, are not protected from a potential vehicular attack — or an unintentional collision. It is beyond comprehension why the city only focused on protecting one pedestrian area, using such a poorly thought-out design. Toronto can — and should — do better.
Sean Marshall 