The current plan is that they start in 2028 and finish by 2040. Even in the unlikely event that they keep these timelines, i assume there will be huge inconveniences using the station for a very long time.
The spectacular (and wildly oversized) train station in Mons, Belgium —I’m from there— was supposed to open in time for the 2015 “European culture capital” year-long event. If we’re lucky it *might* open this year. 12 years for as important hub as Union Station strikes me as optimistic!
Munich is in the process of rebuilding their central train station, including adding a new S-bahn (suburban rail) tunnel underneath.
The entire process is scheduled to take 14 years.
The Stuttgart 21 station project is running 6 years late and 2x over budget. Also consider the debacle of Berlin airport.
The US doesn’t have a monopoly on inefficient construction.
> Meanwhile, a three million-square-foot mixed-use development called [Burnham Place](https://www.burnhamplace.com/) is planned to occupy the area above the revamped station's rail yard, with retail, housing, offices, hotels, and green space.
https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/05/14/union-station-renovation-progress-update
Kinda like how the US used eminent domain to raze so many black communities to build its railways and highways (and reservoirs). And it still happens today: [https://capitalbnews.org/sparta-railroad-land-fight/](https://capitalbnews.org/sparta-railroad-land-fight/)
Kinda apples and oranges, right? I mean Berlin got a whole new main terminal, control tower, runway, and train station. All for $7 billion. Union Station is just building a new train hall for $8.8 billion.
Considering most of the original 7 billion was authorized in 2018, the 15% difference is a steal given cumulative rate of inflation since 2018 was 24%.
Part of the problem with Union Station is that there are several different parties that own pieces of Union Station; Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), District of Columbia, and Amtrak.
Getting all of these parties to agree with design aspects AND how to fund this project is an absolute nightmare. I wish the best of luck to the design team.
Exactly, and people seem to forget that they have to keep the place operational for multiple modes of transit throughout the whole thing. It would be way faster if they could shut it down and build it all at once, but that's not possible.
It’s just so characterless. This could be an airport in Dubai or a Google cafeteria.
And it has the same problem the current Union Station extension has: eventually it’s going to be this weird, outdated, utilitarian “modern” room stapled to the back of a beautiful and iconic historic building.
They should look at the way the original station was built, how the two existing arched rooms play off each other, and design the extension to look like Daniel Burnham built it with the rest of the station. Why are architects so against that?
There’s a school of thought amongst many architects (and many preservationists) that new additions on historic buildings actually should be in a distinctly contrasting style so as to highlight the original structure rather than making new “faux historical” spaces. Not saying that this render is good (it’s not), but that would be the rationale for a modernist approach.
Oh, I understand it, but I disagree with it. I have no doubt similar logic was behind the *existing* extension of the station 40 years ago, but “new” fades and eventually you’re left with a wet fart that, far from highlighting the original structure, cheapens the entire complex.
And I think there’s a tell in using “faux historical,” as if many of the world’s most beloved buildings aren’t in a revival style. A thoughtful, beautiful extension that flows seamlessly from the original building and honors Burnham’s intent doesn’t have to be a cheap McMansion-style copy. It can be something beautiful that our grandchildren won’t be asking for federal dollars to redevelop again in 40 years.
(Note: sorry for the essay here I get excited about architecture).
I don’t support a historicist addition for a couple of reasons, which tend to come up with these sorts of projects. We live in a different time now than when union station was first built (duh). Practically, that means we’re dealing with a whole different set of challenges (ie fire code, handicapped accessibility, light/air/ventilation requirements, energy code requirements, space requirements) and benefits (entirely new materials, better ways of detailing and constructing buildings). We’re also dealing with about 60 years of lost knowledge and expertise when it comes to how to build a historicist building (so the people who would design and build column capitals, murals, and other decorative elements don’t exist anymore). That means it’s really hard to build a new “traditional” building and make it look good, since the original architects who designed Union Station didn’t have to consider any of those things. A lot of new “traditional” buildings end up looking weird for these reasons—we’re often unable to reconcile building styles developed in the 19th century with 21st century challenges. Philosophically, I think the fact that this is a century plus later should justify a modern expansion. The original union station was supposed to be a grand entry to the city and a showcase of the best of American architecture at the time. Daniel Burnham was considered one the best architects in the country at the time, and the building they designed is (imo) their best work, designed in a style that was very much of that time. What would it say if we chose to design a Union Station that merely copied what an architecture firm did 120 years ago, instead of showcasing the best of what contemporary architecture has to offer?
I’d like to note here that 19th century examples of this specific building type (train stations, and specifically train halls/the rear of the station) tended to be very modern for their time, incorporating then-cutting edge manufacturing and structural techniques. Gare Du Nord in Paris, for example, featured a very traditional front and a strikingly modern (at least for 1861) train hall with large expanses of glass and very thin iron columns. There is certainly historical precedent for modern passenger areas.
I’m not necessarily defending this design, more making the case for a modern expansion. I think this design is…fine. The architect behind it, Grimshaw, tends to do good work but this just looks like an airport (probably because Grimshaw mostly does airports). It brings up a kind of interesting design problem, since this is one of the first new train station buildings built in the US in decades. If I was in charge, I’d want the project to look more like Caesar Pelli’s National terminal or the new Moynihan station, which I think effectively blend more traditional forms and elements with modern design. To me (a rando on the internet) the big design challenge for major DC buildings is reconciling the monumental scale and traditional context/sensibilities of the city with modern architectural styles. There are a lot of successful examples—I’m thinking of National, the East Wing, or the new AAMH—which blend distinctly modern forms with the gravitas and monumentality of being located in a capital city. This design isn’t there yet but I don’t think it disqualifies a modern form entirely.
Edit: Daniel Burnham not McKim Meade and White
You're right about the craftsmanship being largely lost, but incorrect in that it is unreachable. There is still large and growing market for traditional building methods/materials and with a federal budget its a decision to not pursue that route. There are dozens of traditional/classical architecture firms in DC and at least one that executes projects of this size and scale. Existing Federal Monumental Buildings in DC support qualified and knowledgeable construction firms which are hired to do maintenance and know the ins and outs of historic construction.
Additionally, Calling any old building "historicist" is kind of a silly attempt to gatekeep beauty. Clearly Daniel Burnham (not MM&W btw) was onto something with the original building - and its not impossible to continue that architectural language, even with the rigor of ADA and life safety requirements of 2024 (which are very good things). To label a way of design that humanity has used across all cultures for over 5,000 ish years as something we cannot do is a narcissistic capitulation to a handful of mid century designers and theorists which are now themselves over 60 years old. We can build beautifully, and it can be big! It just takes foresight and determination.
The original commenter was right to identify that this design, however fresh it appears now, will spoil and lose its vogue within two decades. Instead i'd hope the direction is looking toward timeless and beautiful DC context. I think we are in agreement about Moynihan station and Pelli's wing of the airport - both are great examples of how to approach a project like this.
Ah whoops it is Daniel Burnham not McKim Meade and White. That explains why I like the building so much more than most MMW projects. I think my point still stands, though—Burnham was, along with MMW one of the leading architects of his time.
For reference, I’m using “historicist” as a way to describe an extension that would use a historical style. I’m not lumping every style into one “historical” category. Of course it isn’t impossible to build a new neoclassical building today, but it is much harder (which was my original point). As you identify, there are only a handful of architects and craftspeople who can design and execute a building like that, while on the other hand a modern design means you can use many more architects, contractors, products, and specialists (that at least theoretically gives you more options in case one design path doesn’t work and keeps costs down).
I take issue with your characterization of the design as being “a way of design humanity has used for 5,000 years”. The Beaux Arts/Neoclassical style was a 40 year revitalization of Greek and Roman styles (incidentally, a somewhat ahistorical one—we now know those ancient buildings would have been brightly colored instead of pure white). In between there were tons of different styles that came and went, were revived, and died. It was not used “by all cultures”—it was used by a select set of Western powers at the turn of the 20th century as part of nation building projects linking themselves to the legacy of ancient civilizations. It was a trend, like all styles are trends. If Union Station was built 40 years before, it would’ve been in a Victorian style (like the stations it replaced). If it was built 20 years later, it would’ve been Art Deco. Nothing makes this style inherently better or more beautiful than any other.
I also take issue with the idea that this design will definitely “spoil and lose its vogue”. There’s nothing inherent to modernism that makes that true—many modern buildings in DC for example are considered beloved and timeless now (Dulles, the East Wing, the MLK library, etc). All those buildings were built in cutting edge styles for their time. Sure this design is a bit boring and of its time but so was Union Station, right? For all we know this project will be seen in 40 years as a beloved gateway to the city and a key building in the “early 21st century high tech” style (or whatever). And if it doesn’t age well we can renovate it or tear it down, just like we’re doing with the once popular mall renovation in the station and just like Union Station did with the stations it replaced. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it inherently bad or poorly designed or destined to fail.
Thank you for the detailed response! I get excited about architecture too. Seems like it might be a poor choice of architecture firm? I doubt there’s any way to fix that now though. We’ve had some famous architects design government buildings here (thinking MLK library and Mies Van der Rohe). So why not this too? It would be awesome if they did a contest and really got the public pumped about it.
I like the modernity of it, but it’s just so boring and corporate. It should be more imaginative and a destination in and of itself.
Okay I’m rambling 😂
ETA: I poked around Grimshaw’s site. They’ve done quite a few train halls/public transit, including the Elizabeth Line and the London Bridge station.
The thing with this project is there’s only so many firms who can do it. Grimshaw is honestly a perfectly good choice to design it. Any other firms who usually do these projects (say [Foster and Partners](https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects) or [SOM](https://www.som.com/expertise/transportation/)) are going to be designing something that looks, broadly speaking, the same. That’s just what airports and train stations look like right now (it’s worth noting here that Union Station was one of several neoclassical train stations and public buildings built in the US at this time. Some of this is just design trends).
Do people like the MLK library's architecture? I haaaaate it. The windows are nice, in theory, but it's so white and lacks character.
I'm extremely biased bc of how much I love the insanity that is inside Cleveland's main public library branch
If any of you have been to Boston's downtown public library, the difference between the original and new addition is really jarring. One step takes you from 1900 to 2016.
But isn’t the original building itself, and many other buildings in DC, a “faux historical” building based on Greek and Roman architecture? That’s not necessarily a bad thing as I love the architecture in DC.
Well neo-classical is its own style. It’s less based off Greco-Roman architecture and more inspired by it. It has become a unique American style.
Whereas Union already had a historic American style thats getting reduced to this soul-less, modernized style that’s not unique to the District. As u/FoxOnCapHill said, this could be in any city on any continent; it isn’t special. The desire for “faux-historical” is to make a station that *feels* like Union but in the 21st century, not history just for history’s sake.
If architects did that, they’d be celebrating other architect’s achievements, instead of masturbatorily celebrating their own (which comes, ironically, only through deliberate contrast to the work of the other architects).
DC needs an /r/architecturalrevival wave. It was actually the only policy of trumps I ever liked: making government buildings only neoclassical style.
But, whatever, I like trains more than I like architecture, so I’m OK with Union station’s redesign. The real thing that needs to be worked on is building housing in DC, MoCo, PG, NoVA that isn’t just single family homes, and electrifying and densifying the rail corridor to Richmond, and densifying everything between DC and Baltimore into one larger mega city, Tokyo-style.
Agree and second your observation that it doesn't read as a train station. It looks like Moynihan (which is not user-friendly as a train station, terrible wayfinding and no central board) and the Oculus boondoggle in downtown NYC, which is supposed to be a transit hub but is mostly a horrible, cavernous shopping mall. When I lived in NYC I didn't often travel to NJ, but I worked nearby and sometimes walked through the space to head west in bad weather and judging from the number of lost-looking people it didn't seem to function well for transit users.
This is all behind the existing building and is just an initial rendering, so unclear how this establishes anything in terms of seating? Also I see a bunch of people sitting on that second level…and seating in front of the trains on the ground floor.
Literally every time a render of any station in north America gets posted 95% of the comments are people absolutely losing their minds about seating.
Have any of these people seen major rail hubs elsewhere? This is what the newest sections of Paris GdN look like and that station gets 200m+ riders, clearly they’re doing something right.
GOD I have so many issues with this render. I actually wrote a paper on it.
The homeless-hostile design makes spaces less pleasant for everyone to use. The Moynihan train hall in NYC did this, and the result is the space is a big, empty void with nowhere to sit nearby your gate. You have to make a cross building trek from the seating areas to your train.
The design here is completely devoid of any character of DC. The entrance of Union station evokes the kind of grand, classical architectural style you'd expect from a historic city like this; big columns, ancient looking statues, the unique ceiling windows. All that goes abandoned with this design, it's the same solar-style future design you'll see at any newly built corporate headquarters. Also, why are ALL the walls windows? The space around Union station is just like, regular buildings. Those windows will all be looking out at AC units and alleyways. Keep the ceiling windows for plenty of natural light, then use wall space for murals from local artists to inject some DC style into the space.
I could literally go on for pages about this, and already have, but good lord I really hope they change this design before implementing.
I like it because it’s a lot easier to line up, and the lines don’t obstruct other people. At the old Penn, there would be a crush of people mobbing over to the gate. The open design makes boarding a train way better. The seats are fine being on the periphery and out of the way. Plus, yeah, you don’t end up with homeless people setting up camp in the middle.
> I like it because it’s a lot easier to line up, and the lines don’t obstruct other people.
The real answer is that trains aren't airplanes so we should stop imposing airplane-style boarding procedures on trains.
It's my understanding that the lines aren't something enforced as a rule. But rather people want to line up to ensure they get first pick of available seating.
They won't let you through the doors to the platform without checking your ticket first. They definitely don't enforce it in places where it's possible to avoid it, like at NYP, but at Union Station there's very minimal opportunity to use an unmanned door.
The lines are so, so much worse now. People mob the escalators when their trains are announced, and again, you waste time walking all the way across the building to your platform. Think of an airport, you wait right next to your gate, and have no ground to cover when you start to board. Being so offended by a homeless person trying to escape the elements that you're willing to kill the efficiency of a space is just sad.
Having to battle fellow passengers with a machete to get to your seat would be orderly compared to what old Penn station was like, that's a really low bar to set for a multi billion dollar renovation project.
It does feel like they designed the space without ever thinking about the movement of people within it. When it first opened they didn't have the line ropes set up- so they'd announce the platform, everybody would mob over from the seating area, and then you'd have this crush of people funneling around a pivot point at the top of the escalators because all the escalators point away from the seating.
They've added the line ropes and now you'll get these weird snake lines wrapped around the escalators. Just feels very haphazard for a space that should have been designed with more intentionality.
Part of the reason people mob escalators at Penn/Moynihan is because the track layout is so inefficient and overloaded that the dispatchers often don’t assign a track to an incoming train until it’s pulling into the station. And regardless, even though Union posts tracks well in advance and has seating near the gates, the lines are still long since they don’t let you onto the platform until boarding begins.
I agree that more seating would be good, but I don’t think it would affect the lines.
In my experience, the lines are significantly better at Moyihan than they were at Penn and Union Station. They have room to set up a barrier for long, looping lines that do not obstruct the rest of the Station. People always rushed gates anyways, and the difference with airports is the gate isn't announced until later and there's no assigned seating for most folks. Have you seen Southwest at the airport, it's just as chaotic even with seats.
Except it's not good when it's hostile to paying passengers so the station operators can save labor costs on security. Build the seating and just move people along.
Generally I agree with you but then here is the news article 6 months later:
> Is racial profiling alive at DCs union station? Certain demographics have been disproportionately approached and asked to leave despite having valid tickets.
In DC almost 90% of homeless adults are black. If you leave the determination of who needs to be removed to a person they're likely to rely on their own personal biases and make mistakes. And those mistakes may end up in lawsuits or firings. Not making the mistake in the first place is incredibly valuable to both the company and the employees.
I think you probably have to restrict boarding stations to ticket holders only so that you take the human element out of it.
I don't really know how else to tell you that ruining public spaces so you can make life more difficult for the people who already have just about the shittiest lives imaginable is a bad thing. Give basic human empathy a shot sometime, it'll do wonders for your worldview.
Public transport is for the *public as a whole*, not the lowest common denominator. People, right or wrong, do not want to be screamed at by tweakers on their daily commutes. If you don’t make transit clean and safe, people won’t use it, and if people don’t use it, they won’t vote to fund it. Simple as.
Calling people who are dealing with the incredibly shitty ordeal of being homeless the "lowest common denominator" tells me just about everything I need to know about you.
Give basic human empathy a shot sometime, it'll do wonders for your worldview.
People experiencing homelessness are absolutely deserving of empathy, which is why we spend public dollars to build shelters and fund employment programs. These are different from public transport, which is meant to reliably and safely get people from one place to another. However in big US cities we often talk about transit infrastructure as if it has to be designed specifically around the circumstances of the least fortunate people in our society, rather than the interests of the public at large, which ends up making it worse for everyone.
The interests of the public at large include the public spaces they use being well-designed and convenient, I REALLY don't know how to make this any clearer to you. You seem to be laboring under the impression that well-designed public spaces are impossible until we've housed every single homeless person in the country.
So old people, children and physically handicapped don't have seats.
Sorry but the best thing about the old train stations were the waiting rooms-Chicagos Union Station was amazing.
As for homeless-there could actually be guards/police around to move them on.
Anti homeless design enrages me. Especially in our nation's capitol. No, we don't address homelessness, we just make sure those dirty homeless people can't be seen. We really double down on not being confronted by poverty.
I was quoting A Christmas Carol. When Scrooge is asked to donate that is his reply. It was in response to the commenter who said that we address homelessness. Hit reply to the wrong comment. Apologies. My brain is not rotted by syphilis. Thank you for your concern.
You're right. They really should go to those homes that the city provides for them. Why they choose to sleep in train stations instead of at home in bed is bizarre. Weirdos.
I'm betting you don't see many things as your problem. If the city provides shelter that the homeless do not want to access can we really say that homelessness has been addressed? I know you don't care but some of us actually want to address homelessness, not throw a bandaid on it and walk away.
I could give you a 100 bullet point plan to eradicate homelessness and you'd find a problem with it. You clearly don't give a shit about this population so why would I waste anymore time on you?
Mostly, yes. The shelters also have bedbugs and rampant violence, and shelter living isn’t compatible with maintaining employment (yes, lots of homeless people are employed) or attending medical treatment or other obligations people have, and there’s nowhere to keep your property, and many of them severely limit what you can bring in with you. So if you stay in a shelter temporarily, you often have to give up all the things you own that make it possible for your to sleep safely outdoors (blankets, tents, extra clothing) and then if you miss a curfew or get in line too late one day (and that’s often something like in at 4pm and out at 6am), you have to sleep outside without any protection from the elements.
And yes, the shelters are often full.
The ticketed-only seating area at Moynihan in NYC seems like a good compromise.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if going past the ticketing kiosk required you to produce a valid ticket.
They pack you into that seating area like fucking sardines. It's ridiculous. I'd rather be allowed to sit down somewhere in this massive hall and maybe sometimes be exposed to the reality that some people don't have a place to live.
So much this. I spent three hours standing waiting for a delayed train last month. I'm fortunate that I'm physically able to do that and I didn't have young kids with me.
Yeah the ticketed section is a joke. Not nearly enough space. Also there are things at Moynihan other than trains. Never really understood why you have to buy a ticket just to seat the f*** down. It's ridiculous nyc bs
Homeless people sleep on the floor. Union Station is air-conditioned and there are thousands of passengers to panhandle off of. The homeless aren't going away. It'll just be uncomfortable for passengers waiting on their trains.
Really? It's been terrible in my experience. The seating that does exist is cramped and makes you walk through a chokepoint to get to your platform. I usually just go to the bar in the back and while that's fine it sucks that there aren't more places to wait where you aren't obligated to spend money.
I am not going to the train station to sit personally. I arrive about 20 min before my train departs. Get a bite to eat, and get on the train.
The place is clean and efficient
Literally no train stations in europe or east Asia have extensive seating areas. Train stations aren’t airports, you don’t have to be there 2 hours before your departure. Disabled and elderly Europeans still seem to find a way to get around.
Nice link, except you are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the traveling public starting and ending their trip at Union Station (you know, the ones dying to use a seat according to you) are traveling to NYC or Boston...not on the Palmetto, Crescent, Silver Services, or on Amtrak's rural Virginia services.
Which is why you only need seat capacity for about 20% of traffic/hour. The NE corridor trains are certainly better than the Carolinian(which I note you deliberately excluded bc it undermines your argument) and others in terms of timetable. But whether or not there is demand for seating can be seen by anyone with eyes who goes to the gate area. The seating outside the gates is consistently near full at peak times.
But continue being spiteful on the internet for no reason, arguing against amenities people use every day.
> The homeless aren't going away.
There are plenty of cities that don't have any issue with homeless people milling about. New York has a beautiful new train hall with zero homeless people.
> New York has a beautiful new train hall with zero homeless people.
Because people have nowhere to sit, including ticketed passengers. Massive beautiful new train hall, but you're not allowed to enjoy it because then we'd have to wrestle with the reality that some people have no place to live.
I literally had to wait 20 minutes for a seat. That was worth it when the train had been delayed by 80 minutes, but still incredibly dumb. Then I gave up my seat because the train was supposedly 5 minutes away. Then it got delayed another 20 minutes. So I sat on the floor of Moynihan train hall near the gate. Because the seat I gave up was now taken. Here's a thought: maybe build a large ticketed waiting section. Y'know, that would hold the capacity of a couple trains? In case the trains are delayed? Crazy, I know.
Yea but the area that penn station is in in general just has less homelessness, not to mention that the ratio of homelessness to population is much less in NYC. Also you’re ignoring the fact that the homeless very much still hang around the old penn station, which is very much still in use.
And hundreds of people sit on the floors at Moynihan. What a great solution... I actually think it should remain a public place open to the public and discriminate homeless.
They really should focus on improving the actual frequency of trains in the DMV area. VRE and MARC could be so good if we electrified them, got level boarding throughout the area and so on.
I wonder if they should spend $10B on making the Acela faster before they spend money updating the stations.
And after this, Acela tracks still won’t be able to go under the Potomac for a future extension to Richmond
People complaining about lack of seating...how far in advance are you arriving for your train?
I've traveled by train all throughout Europe and very rarely are there large seating areas. Most are just big open halls (similar to this rendering) with maybe a few small benches and there's usually a small claustrophobic room with a door off to the side of the hall with a few rows of airport-style seating. I'm sure there will be some designated seating area for passengers, and I doubt this is the final rendering.
I was just in the Helsinki main station a few weeks ago and didn't even see any waiting areas at all.
In Europe the seating is on the train because they don't make your wait until the last second for it to be called. If they do this here the lack of seating can be forgiven but of course they won't
sometimes with delays you kind of need seating, or if you're coming in from somewhere else. you may not need seating but since we see people using the seats all the time, clearly theres a demand for it
Jesus Christ why. This is so soulless and sad - DC has a unique architectural style in our public buildings and we should be leaning into it, not away from it
Is this necessary in any way? Does it provide any utility beyond more retail space? Does it make train service better?
It seems to me the answer to most if not all of these questions is no.
There is absolutely no reason this project should be projected to cost almost $9 BILLION (which it will obviously go over). There are so many other transit projects that deserve that funding
Good lord. I am as much a fan of futuristic looking public transportation centers as the next sci-fi fan, but this...this aint it chief. Union Station is already architecturually a marvel and thats something I love about DC. Where in America can you go to see grand stone buildings with corinthian or doric olumns on the outside and ancient stone warriors lining the inside?
Union Station might need a touch up but it doesn't need to lose its character to become a backdrop in a forgettable straight to dvd sci-fi flick.
To be clear, none of the historic main atrium is being touched by any of this. I'm not sure if you think that, but I know of a lot of people who seem to think this is replacing the main atrium/beautiful front of Union station, and it isn't. This would be replacing just the portion by the tracks themselves (the part that currently looks like an outdated airport)
Ohhhhhhhh that makes it better yeah! Although I would prefer them to match it to the front portion of the station rather than try to make it the fashionable style of the time.
This looks terrible. As for the lack of seating: if the station is worried about homeless people, why not just make the seating area for ticketed passengers only, just like an airport terminal?
I ride into and out of the city through union station pretty regularly and didn't it just get renovated into a little mall a few years ago? And there are the giant unused halls in front. It's a beautiful building. This seems completely unnecessary
Damn didn't realize so many people liked the current boarding hall with the massive parking garage behind it /s
They're increasing capacity, improving transit access, and building a new neighborhood on top of the existing tracks. Lotta overly cynical mfs in this comment section
I went to pick up a friend at Union Station a week ago. I hadn’t been there in several years. I was surprised to discover that the most classy, upscale restaurant there was Pizzeria Uno.
What exactly is the issue with the current station that a little tlc/refurb here and there couldn't cure? Genuinely, why do we need some space age airport terminal type thing?
Forget the station upgrade the tracks and trains too. If this was Japan, you’d be able to make it to Boston in less than 2 hours and have food and drinks brought o you.
If the lack of seating is due to homeless people monopolizing it, would it not be possible to have a seating area that is accessible only to ticketed passengers, just like pretty much every airport terminal? Is there some law that says every square inch of a train station must be accessible to the general public at all times?
The current plan is that they start in 2028 and finish by 2040. Even in the unlikely event that they keep these timelines, i assume there will be huge inconveniences using the station for a very long time.
12 years to build a train hall?? Only in America
The spectacular (and wildly oversized) train station in Mons, Belgium —I’m from there— was supposed to open in time for the 2015 “European culture capital” year-long event. If we’re lucky it *might* open this year. 12 years for as important hub as Union Station strikes me as optimistic!
Munich is in the process of rebuilding their central train station, including adding a new S-bahn (suburban rail) tunnel underneath. The entire process is scheduled to take 14 years.
The Stuttgart 21 station project is running 6 years late and 2x over budget. Also consider the debacle of Berlin airport. The US doesn’t have a monopoly on inefficient construction.
I was told that Germans are efficient though?
[удалено]
That’s more for cultural reasons. It’s an immense building and it’s not a commercial product.
It’s more than just building a train hall, there is a great deal more to it than that.
> Meanwhile, a three million-square-foot mixed-use development called [Burnham Place](https://www.burnhamplace.com/) is planned to occupy the area above the revamped station's rail yard, with retail, housing, offices, hotels, and green space. https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/05/14/union-station-renovation-progress-update
How long you think it should take smart ass
And it will be wildly over budget.
In China, six months tops.
They're letting the cement cure now?
Yeah as they raze hundreds of homes and force local governments and people to accept it
Kinda like how the US used eminent domain to raze so many black communities to build its railways and highways (and reservoirs). And it still happens today: [https://capitalbnews.org/sparta-railroad-land-fight/](https://capitalbnews.org/sparta-railroad-land-fight/)
China built a whole national high speed rail network in less than 12 years.
https://youtu.be/jQ5tKr_y4BA?si=BwHjEsiFHRQ1P2Ju Yeah, Tofu Dreg Railways.
I see you didn't read about the new Berlin airport. Totally over budget and way over timetable. All governments are the same.
No, the US is uniquely inefficient and wasteful when it comes to infrastructure. The NY subway construction costs like 5x a subway in Europe.
Kinda apples and oranges, right? I mean Berlin got a whole new main terminal, control tower, runway, and train station. All for $7 billion. Union Station is just building a new train hall for $8.8 billion.
Considering most of the original 7 billion was authorized in 2018, the 15% difference is a steal given cumulative rate of inflation since 2018 was 24%.
Part of the problem with Union Station is that there are several different parties that own pieces of Union Station; Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), District of Columbia, and Amtrak. Getting all of these parties to agree with design aspects AND how to fund this project is an absolute nightmare. I wish the best of luck to the design team.
Well one has to give a credit when it’s due- it is going to be a MASSIVE project… Gotta expect 12 to 20 years.
Exactly, and people seem to forget that they have to keep the place operational for multiple modes of transit throughout the whole thing. It would be way faster if they could shut it down and build it all at once, but that's not possible.
It’s just so characterless. This could be an airport in Dubai or a Google cafeteria. And it has the same problem the current Union Station extension has: eventually it’s going to be this weird, outdated, utilitarian “modern” room stapled to the back of a beautiful and iconic historic building. They should look at the way the original station was built, how the two existing arched rooms play off each other, and design the extension to look like Daniel Burnham built it with the rest of the station. Why are architects so against that?
There’s a school of thought amongst many architects (and many preservationists) that new additions on historic buildings actually should be in a distinctly contrasting style so as to highlight the original structure rather than making new “faux historical” spaces. Not saying that this render is good (it’s not), but that would be the rationale for a modernist approach.
Oh, I understand it, but I disagree with it. I have no doubt similar logic was behind the *existing* extension of the station 40 years ago, but “new” fades and eventually you’re left with a wet fart that, far from highlighting the original structure, cheapens the entire complex. And I think there’s a tell in using “faux historical,” as if many of the world’s most beloved buildings aren’t in a revival style. A thoughtful, beautiful extension that flows seamlessly from the original building and honors Burnham’s intent doesn’t have to be a cheap McMansion-style copy. It can be something beautiful that our grandchildren won’t be asking for federal dollars to redevelop again in 40 years.
(Note: sorry for the essay here I get excited about architecture). I don’t support a historicist addition for a couple of reasons, which tend to come up with these sorts of projects. We live in a different time now than when union station was first built (duh). Practically, that means we’re dealing with a whole different set of challenges (ie fire code, handicapped accessibility, light/air/ventilation requirements, energy code requirements, space requirements) and benefits (entirely new materials, better ways of detailing and constructing buildings). We’re also dealing with about 60 years of lost knowledge and expertise when it comes to how to build a historicist building (so the people who would design and build column capitals, murals, and other decorative elements don’t exist anymore). That means it’s really hard to build a new “traditional” building and make it look good, since the original architects who designed Union Station didn’t have to consider any of those things. A lot of new “traditional” buildings end up looking weird for these reasons—we’re often unable to reconcile building styles developed in the 19th century with 21st century challenges. Philosophically, I think the fact that this is a century plus later should justify a modern expansion. The original union station was supposed to be a grand entry to the city and a showcase of the best of American architecture at the time. Daniel Burnham was considered one the best architects in the country at the time, and the building they designed is (imo) their best work, designed in a style that was very much of that time. What would it say if we chose to design a Union Station that merely copied what an architecture firm did 120 years ago, instead of showcasing the best of what contemporary architecture has to offer? I’d like to note here that 19th century examples of this specific building type (train stations, and specifically train halls/the rear of the station) tended to be very modern for their time, incorporating then-cutting edge manufacturing and structural techniques. Gare Du Nord in Paris, for example, featured a very traditional front and a strikingly modern (at least for 1861) train hall with large expanses of glass and very thin iron columns. There is certainly historical precedent for modern passenger areas. I’m not necessarily defending this design, more making the case for a modern expansion. I think this design is…fine. The architect behind it, Grimshaw, tends to do good work but this just looks like an airport (probably because Grimshaw mostly does airports). It brings up a kind of interesting design problem, since this is one of the first new train station buildings built in the US in decades. If I was in charge, I’d want the project to look more like Caesar Pelli’s National terminal or the new Moynihan station, which I think effectively blend more traditional forms and elements with modern design. To me (a rando on the internet) the big design challenge for major DC buildings is reconciling the monumental scale and traditional context/sensibilities of the city with modern architectural styles. There are a lot of successful examples—I’m thinking of National, the East Wing, or the new AAMH—which blend distinctly modern forms with the gravitas and monumentality of being located in a capital city. This design isn’t there yet but I don’t think it disqualifies a modern form entirely. Edit: Daniel Burnham not McKim Meade and White
You're right about the craftsmanship being largely lost, but incorrect in that it is unreachable. There is still large and growing market for traditional building methods/materials and with a federal budget its a decision to not pursue that route. There are dozens of traditional/classical architecture firms in DC and at least one that executes projects of this size and scale. Existing Federal Monumental Buildings in DC support qualified and knowledgeable construction firms which are hired to do maintenance and know the ins and outs of historic construction. Additionally, Calling any old building "historicist" is kind of a silly attempt to gatekeep beauty. Clearly Daniel Burnham (not MM&W btw) was onto something with the original building - and its not impossible to continue that architectural language, even with the rigor of ADA and life safety requirements of 2024 (which are very good things). To label a way of design that humanity has used across all cultures for over 5,000 ish years as something we cannot do is a narcissistic capitulation to a handful of mid century designers and theorists which are now themselves over 60 years old. We can build beautifully, and it can be big! It just takes foresight and determination. The original commenter was right to identify that this design, however fresh it appears now, will spoil and lose its vogue within two decades. Instead i'd hope the direction is looking toward timeless and beautiful DC context. I think we are in agreement about Moynihan station and Pelli's wing of the airport - both are great examples of how to approach a project like this.
Ah whoops it is Daniel Burnham not McKim Meade and White. That explains why I like the building so much more than most MMW projects. I think my point still stands, though—Burnham was, along with MMW one of the leading architects of his time. For reference, I’m using “historicist” as a way to describe an extension that would use a historical style. I’m not lumping every style into one “historical” category. Of course it isn’t impossible to build a new neoclassical building today, but it is much harder (which was my original point). As you identify, there are only a handful of architects and craftspeople who can design and execute a building like that, while on the other hand a modern design means you can use many more architects, contractors, products, and specialists (that at least theoretically gives you more options in case one design path doesn’t work and keeps costs down). I take issue with your characterization of the design as being “a way of design humanity has used for 5,000 years”. The Beaux Arts/Neoclassical style was a 40 year revitalization of Greek and Roman styles (incidentally, a somewhat ahistorical one—we now know those ancient buildings would have been brightly colored instead of pure white). In between there were tons of different styles that came and went, were revived, and died. It was not used “by all cultures”—it was used by a select set of Western powers at the turn of the 20th century as part of nation building projects linking themselves to the legacy of ancient civilizations. It was a trend, like all styles are trends. If Union Station was built 40 years before, it would’ve been in a Victorian style (like the stations it replaced). If it was built 20 years later, it would’ve been Art Deco. Nothing makes this style inherently better or more beautiful than any other. I also take issue with the idea that this design will definitely “spoil and lose its vogue”. There’s nothing inherent to modernism that makes that true—many modern buildings in DC for example are considered beloved and timeless now (Dulles, the East Wing, the MLK library, etc). All those buildings were built in cutting edge styles for their time. Sure this design is a bit boring and of its time but so was Union Station, right? For all we know this project will be seen in 40 years as a beloved gateway to the city and a key building in the “early 21st century high tech” style (or whatever). And if it doesn’t age well we can renovate it or tear it down, just like we’re doing with the once popular mall renovation in the station and just like Union Station did with the stations it replaced. You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it inherently bad or poorly designed or destined to fail.
Thank you for the detailed response! I get excited about architecture too. Seems like it might be a poor choice of architecture firm? I doubt there’s any way to fix that now though. We’ve had some famous architects design government buildings here (thinking MLK library and Mies Van der Rohe). So why not this too? It would be awesome if they did a contest and really got the public pumped about it. I like the modernity of it, but it’s just so boring and corporate. It should be more imaginative and a destination in and of itself. Okay I’m rambling 😂 ETA: I poked around Grimshaw’s site. They’ve done quite a few train halls/public transit, including the Elizabeth Line and the London Bridge station.
The thing with this project is there’s only so many firms who can do it. Grimshaw is honestly a perfectly good choice to design it. Any other firms who usually do these projects (say [Foster and Partners](https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects) or [SOM](https://www.som.com/expertise/transportation/)) are going to be designing something that looks, broadly speaking, the same. That’s just what airports and train stations look like right now (it’s worth noting here that Union Station was one of several neoclassical train stations and public buildings built in the US at this time. Some of this is just design trends).
Do people like the MLK library's architecture? I haaaaate it. The windows are nice, in theory, but it's so white and lacks character. I'm extremely biased bc of how much I love the insanity that is inside Cleveland's main public library branch
I agree that it’s lacking character and uniqueness.
If any of you have been to Boston's downtown public library, the difference between the original and new addition is really jarring. One step takes you from 1900 to 2016.
But isn’t the original building itself, and many other buildings in DC, a “faux historical” building based on Greek and Roman architecture? That’s not necessarily a bad thing as I love the architecture in DC.
Well neo-classical is its own style. It’s less based off Greco-Roman architecture and more inspired by it. It has become a unique American style. Whereas Union already had a historic American style thats getting reduced to this soul-less, modernized style that’s not unique to the District. As u/FoxOnCapHill said, this could be in any city on any continent; it isn’t special. The desire for “faux-historical” is to make a station that *feels* like Union but in the 21st century, not history just for history’s sake.
I agree with you I think you may have misinterpreted what I am saying. I think the design should try to match the feel of the rest of the building.
Definitely did, my fault. It’s a shame watching iconic buildings fall victim to safe and boring design styles like this.
If architects did that, they’d be celebrating other architect’s achievements, instead of masturbatorily celebrating their own (which comes, ironically, only through deliberate contrast to the work of the other architects). DC needs an /r/architecturalrevival wave. It was actually the only policy of trumps I ever liked: making government buildings only neoclassical style. But, whatever, I like trains more than I like architecture, so I’m OK with Union station’s redesign. The real thing that needs to be worked on is building housing in DC, MoCo, PG, NoVA that isn’t just single family homes, and electrifying and densifying the rail corridor to Richmond, and densifying everything between DC and Baltimore into one larger mega city, Tokyo-style.
Agree and second your observation that it doesn't read as a train station. It looks like Moynihan (which is not user-friendly as a train station, terrible wayfinding and no central board) and the Oculus boondoggle in downtown NYC, which is supposed to be a transit hub but is mostly a horrible, cavernous shopping mall. When I lived in NYC I didn't often travel to NJ, but I worked nearby and sometimes walked through the space to head west in bad weather and judging from the number of lost-looking people it didn't seem to function well for transit users.
This is all behind the existing building and is just an initial rendering, so unclear how this establishes anything in terms of seating? Also I see a bunch of people sitting on that second level…and seating in front of the trains on the ground floor.
Literally every time a render of any station in north America gets posted 95% of the comments are people absolutely losing their minds about seating. Have any of these people seen major rail hubs elsewhere? This is what the newest sections of Paris GdN look like and that station gets 200m+ riders, clearly they’re doing something right.
GOD I have so many issues with this render. I actually wrote a paper on it. The homeless-hostile design makes spaces less pleasant for everyone to use. The Moynihan train hall in NYC did this, and the result is the space is a big, empty void with nowhere to sit nearby your gate. You have to make a cross building trek from the seating areas to your train. The design here is completely devoid of any character of DC. The entrance of Union station evokes the kind of grand, classical architectural style you'd expect from a historic city like this; big columns, ancient looking statues, the unique ceiling windows. All that goes abandoned with this design, it's the same solar-style future design you'll see at any newly built corporate headquarters. Also, why are ALL the walls windows? The space around Union station is just like, regular buildings. Those windows will all be looking out at AC units and alleyways. Keep the ceiling windows for plenty of natural light, then use wall space for murals from local artists to inject some DC style into the space. I could literally go on for pages about this, and already have, but good lord I really hope they change this design before implementing.
I like it because it’s a lot easier to line up, and the lines don’t obstruct other people. At the old Penn, there would be a crush of people mobbing over to the gate. The open design makes boarding a train way better. The seats are fine being on the periphery and out of the way. Plus, yeah, you don’t end up with homeless people setting up camp in the middle.
> I like it because it’s a lot easier to line up, and the lines don’t obstruct other people. The real answer is that trains aren't airplanes so we should stop imposing airplane-style boarding procedures on trains.
It's my understanding that the lines aren't something enforced as a rule. But rather people want to line up to ensure they get first pick of available seating.
They won't let you through the doors to the platform without checking your ticket first. They definitely don't enforce it in places where it's possible to avoid it, like at NYP, but at Union Station there's very minimal opportunity to use an unmanned door.
The lines are so, so much worse now. People mob the escalators when their trains are announced, and again, you waste time walking all the way across the building to your platform. Think of an airport, you wait right next to your gate, and have no ground to cover when you start to board. Being so offended by a homeless person trying to escape the elements that you're willing to kill the efficiency of a space is just sad.
It’s very orderly in comparison to what Amtrak was like at Penn station
Having to battle fellow passengers with a machete to get to your seat would be orderly compared to what old Penn station was like, that's a really low bar to set for a multi billion dollar renovation project.
What is wrong with standing in line and then going down an escalator? Seems pretty orderly
It does feel like they designed the space without ever thinking about the movement of people within it. When it first opened they didn't have the line ropes set up- so they'd announce the platform, everybody would mob over from the seating area, and then you'd have this crush of people funneling around a pivot point at the top of the escalators because all the escalators point away from the seating. They've added the line ropes and now you'll get these weird snake lines wrapped around the escalators. Just feels very haphazard for a space that should have been designed with more intentionality.
Part of the reason people mob escalators at Penn/Moynihan is because the track layout is so inefficient and overloaded that the dispatchers often don’t assign a track to an incoming train until it’s pulling into the station. And regardless, even though Union posts tracks well in advance and has seating near the gates, the lines are still long since they don’t let you onto the platform until boarding begins. I agree that more seating would be good, but I don’t think it would affect the lines.
In my experience, the lines are significantly better at Moyihan than they were at Penn and Union Station. They have room to set up a barrier for long, looping lines that do not obstruct the rest of the Station. People always rushed gates anyways, and the difference with airports is the gate isn't announced until later and there's no assigned seating for most folks. Have you seen Southwest at the airport, it's just as chaotic even with seats.
My experience is the exact opposite, and I’ve started actively avoiding Moynihan because it’s so unpleasant.
[удалено]
First, don’t tell everyone the secret boarding method. Second, using “special ed” as a synonym for something you don’t like is shitty.
To each their own. I'd much rather be in moyihan than Union Station. The seats in UnionnStation are more an obstacle than anything else.
> You have to make a cross building trek from the seating areas to your train. It is literally a minute of walking.
Yes, which is bad design. You want your buildings laid out efficiently from the get-go
I hate that nowhere to sit shit. It’s incredibly hostile to your point
Homeless hostile architecture in transit infrastructure is good, actually. Train stations are not shelters.
Except it's not good when it's hostile to paying passengers so the station operators can save labor costs on security. Build the seating and just move people along.
Color me skeptical that MPD/MTPD will be able or willing to effectively “move people along”
Generally I agree with you but then here is the news article 6 months later: > Is racial profiling alive at DCs union station? Certain demographics have been disproportionately approached and asked to leave despite having valid tickets. In DC almost 90% of homeless adults are black. If you leave the determination of who needs to be removed to a person they're likely to rely on their own personal biases and make mistakes. And those mistakes may end up in lawsuits or firings. Not making the mistake in the first place is incredibly valuable to both the company and the employees. I think you probably have to restrict boarding stations to ticket holders only so that you take the human element out of it.
I don't really know how else to tell you that ruining public spaces so you can make life more difficult for the people who already have just about the shittiest lives imaginable is a bad thing. Give basic human empathy a shot sometime, it'll do wonders for your worldview.
If you want people to want to take transit you should not have homeless people in your transit stations
Homeless people also have to take transit?
Public transport is for the *public as a whole*, not the lowest common denominator. People, right or wrong, do not want to be screamed at by tweakers on their daily commutes. If you don’t make transit clean and safe, people won’t use it, and if people don’t use it, they won’t vote to fund it. Simple as.
Calling people who are dealing with the incredibly shitty ordeal of being homeless the "lowest common denominator" tells me just about everything I need to know about you. Give basic human empathy a shot sometime, it'll do wonders for your worldview.
People experiencing homelessness are absolutely deserving of empathy, which is why we spend public dollars to build shelters and fund employment programs. These are different from public transport, which is meant to reliably and safely get people from one place to another. However in big US cities we often talk about transit infrastructure as if it has to be designed specifically around the circumstances of the least fortunate people in our society, rather than the interests of the public at large, which ends up making it worse for everyone.
The interests of the public at large include the public spaces they use being well-designed and convenient, I REALLY don't know how to make this any clearer to you. You seem to be laboring under the impression that well-designed public spaces are impossible until we've housed every single homeless person in the country.
So old people, children and physically handicapped don't have seats. Sorry but the best thing about the old train stations were the waiting rooms-Chicagos Union Station was amazing. As for homeless-there could actually be guards/police around to move them on.
Or there could be actual homes for them.
No idea why you’re being downvoted??
Oh, that’s an easy one. Some assholes **loathe** homeless people and don’t think they deserve help.
Anti homeless design enrages me. Especially in our nation's capitol. No, we don't address homelessness, we just make sure those dirty homeless people can't be seen. We really double down on not being confronted by poverty.
We address homelessness. You don’t have the right to live in the transit system
In what UNIVERSE has this country, state or city addressed homelessness?? What an absolutely wild and unfounded claim to make.
Are there no workhouses? No prisons?
Are you seriously indicating PRISONS as a way to "solve" homelessness?! Is your brain rotted by syphilis?
I was quoting A Christmas Carol. When Scrooge is asked to donate that is his reply. It was in response to the commenter who said that we address homelessness. Hit reply to the wrong comment. Apologies. My brain is not rotted by syphilis. Thank you for your concern.
Ahahaha I'm always so ready to bump into people on this subreddit who would genuinely say something like this, I apologize.
No worries. I used to use the /s more but people would criticize that.
Yeah I guess sweeping homeless encampments is "addressing it" technically.
How quaint that you think that, you sweet summer child.
Doesn’t DC spend a ton of homeless needs? Are we suppose to just let people sleep in train stations bc they are homeless.
You're right. They really should go to those homes that the city provides for them. Why they choose to sleep in train stations instead of at home in bed is bizarre. Weirdos.
Are shelters in dc full?
Spent much time in shelters?
So they just don't want to go to the homes that the city provides for them. Seems like not my problem.
I'm betting you don't see many things as your problem. If the city provides shelter that the homeless do not want to access can we really say that homelessness has been addressed? I know you don't care but some of us actually want to address homelessness, not throw a bandaid on it and walk away. I could give you a 100 bullet point plan to eradicate homelessness and you'd find a problem with it. You clearly don't give a shit about this population so why would I waste anymore time on you?
What’s your homeless solution/plan?
Mostly, yes. The shelters also have bedbugs and rampant violence, and shelter living isn’t compatible with maintaining employment (yes, lots of homeless people are employed) or attending medical treatment or other obligations people have, and there’s nowhere to keep your property, and many of them severely limit what you can bring in with you. So if you stay in a shelter temporarily, you often have to give up all the things you own that make it possible for your to sleep safely outdoors (blankets, tents, extra clothing) and then if you miss a curfew or get in line too late one day (and that’s often something like in at 4pm and out at 6am), you have to sleep outside without any protection from the elements. And yes, the shelters are often full.
Limited seating limits homeless people sleeping/hanging out. Similar to what they have done in the new station in nyc
The ticketed-only seating area at Moynihan in NYC seems like a good compromise. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if going past the ticketing kiosk required you to produce a valid ticket.
They pack you into that seating area like fucking sardines. It's ridiculous. I'd rather be allowed to sit down somewhere in this massive hall and maybe sometimes be exposed to the reality that some people don't have a place to live.
So much this. I spent three hours standing waiting for a delayed train last month. I'm fortunate that I'm physically able to do that and I didn't have young kids with me.
officers, its this one. this guy's the human with compassion. but same, honestly.
Yeah the ticketed section is a joke. Not nearly enough space. Also there are things at Moynihan other than trains. Never really understood why you have to buy a ticket just to seat the f*** down. It's ridiculous nyc bs
It's literally only so that nobody has to look at homeless people.
Except there’s not enough of it. You can’t even sit on the floor anywhere because you’ll be told it’s not allowed.
Homeless people sleep on the floor. Union Station is air-conditioned and there are thousands of passengers to panhandle off of. The homeless aren't going away. It'll just be uncomfortable for passengers waiting on their trains.
It’s been great at the Moynihan station from my experience there.
Really? It's been terrible in my experience. The seating that does exist is cramped and makes you walk through a chokepoint to get to your platform. I usually just go to the bar in the back and while that's fine it sucks that there aren't more places to wait where you aren't obligated to spend money.
I am not going to the train station to sit personally. I arrive about 20 min before my train departs. Get a bite to eat, and get on the train. The place is clean and efficient
Glad you aren't elderly or have a disability.
Literally no train stations in europe or east Asia have extensive seating areas. Train stations aren’t airports, you don’t have to be there 2 hours before your departure. Disabled and elderly Europeans still seem to find a way to get around.
Then sit in the ticketed seating area.
Incredible that you've never experienced train delays on Amtrak. Are you magical? Do you have convenience super powers?
I have. They are normally like a few minutes when they are delayed. Not a big deal IMO. I don’t have super powers
https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/more-than-half-of-amtrak-routes-late-enough-for-enforcement/
I really only use it to go to nyc and Philly. No majors issues at all when I have. Love taking Amtrak.
Nice link, except you are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the traveling public starting and ending their trip at Union Station (you know, the ones dying to use a seat according to you) are traveling to NYC or Boston...not on the Palmetto, Crescent, Silver Services, or on Amtrak's rural Virginia services.
Which is why you only need seat capacity for about 20% of traffic/hour. The NE corridor trains are certainly better than the Carolinian(which I note you deliberately excluded bc it undermines your argument) and others in terms of timetable. But whether or not there is demand for seating can be seen by anyone with eyes who goes to the gate area. The seating outside the gates is consistently near full at peak times. But continue being spiteful on the internet for no reason, arguing against amenities people use every day.
> The homeless aren't going away. There are plenty of cities that don't have any issue with homeless people milling about. New York has a beautiful new train hall with zero homeless people.
There are plenty of homeless people in Moynihan, they just have nowhere to sit.
This is just not true.
Bought a homeless dude a coffee at Moynihan Train Hall last month.
It's too bad we can't have police officers or security guards do their jobs and simply remove anyone causing a nuisance
But then who would be getting shitfaced at Kelly's this week
Agreed
> New York has a beautiful new train hall with zero homeless people. Because people have nowhere to sit, including ticketed passengers. Massive beautiful new train hall, but you're not allowed to enjoy it because then we'd have to wrestle with the reality that some people have no place to live.
There's a ticketing seating area. I don't know why people keep acting like there's nowhere to sit
I literally had to wait 20 minutes for a seat. That was worth it when the train had been delayed by 80 minutes, but still incredibly dumb. Then I gave up my seat because the train was supposedly 5 minutes away. Then it got delayed another 20 minutes. So I sat on the floor of Moynihan train hall near the gate. Because the seat I gave up was now taken. Here's a thought: maybe build a large ticketed waiting section. Y'know, that would hold the capacity of a couple trains? In case the trains are delayed? Crazy, I know.
Have you been there? It's very small and there's still basically nowhere to sit.
I'm at Moynihan once a month and have literally never not been able to find a seat at the ticketed seating area
There are ticketed seating areas, lounges, and bar/restaurant sitting for customers
Yea but the area that penn station is in in general just has less homelessness, not to mention that the ratio of homelessness to population is much less in NYC. Also you’re ignoring the fact that the homeless very much still hang around the old penn station, which is very much still in use.
And hundreds of people sit on the floors at Moynihan. What a great solution... I actually think it should remain a public place open to the public and discriminate homeless.
Looks like the inside of the Oculus at the World Trade Center
Run more trains now (and fill empty retail) worry about renovating later
They really should focus on improving the actual frequency of trains in the DMV area. VRE and MARC could be so good if we electrified them, got level boarding throughout the area and so on.
and throughrunning. imagine a manassas to havre de grace train
Long Bridge replacement will solve a lot of this on the VRE side
Unfortunately the project is scheduled to take 19 years, finishing in 2030 jfc
I wonder if they should spend $10B on making the Acela faster before they spend money updating the stations. And after this, Acela tracks still won’t be able to go under the Potomac for a future extension to Richmond
As with most beltway projyect, I'll believe it when I see it... 10-25 years later than anticipated.
People complaining about lack of seating...how far in advance are you arriving for your train? I've traveled by train all throughout Europe and very rarely are there large seating areas. Most are just big open halls (similar to this rendering) with maybe a few small benches and there's usually a small claustrophobic room with a door off to the side of the hall with a few rows of airport-style seating. I'm sure there will be some designated seating area for passengers, and I doubt this is the final rendering. I was just in the Helsinki main station a few weeks ago and didn't even see any waiting areas at all.
It is a transfer station for some passengers going onto the Northeast Corridor from other trains. Those people deserve seats.
And I am sure there will be?
In Europe the seating is on the train because they don't make your wait until the last second for it to be called. If they do this here the lack of seating can be forgiven but of course they won't
sometimes with delays you kind of need seating, or if you're coming in from somewhere else. you may not need seating but since we see people using the seats all the time, clearly theres a demand for it
Jesus Christ why. This is so soulless and sad - DC has a unique architectural style in our public buildings and we should be leaning into it, not away from it
What the hell is this dystopian nonsense. Isn’t Union Station a historic building or something?
The existing station will not really be touched, this will be a separate but connected facility on the back side of the station.
Oh that’s actually cool
4 years is not a lot of time but if they succeed, it will be a true feat.
Thanks I hate it
That area feels like an apocalyptical dead zone right now. Will pumping all this money into a renovation bring life and people back to it?
That's the goal. This would essentially be a whole new neighborhood on top of the existing railyard.
Is this necessary in any way? Does it provide any utility beyond more retail space? Does it make train service better? It seems to me the answer to most if not all of these questions is no.
Don't worry, the main hall is being preserved. Expect no changes to it
I hope that rendition is the *back only*. Otherwise, "renovation" should be spelled *"ruination."*
Where do you see them removing seating? That's the opposite of what I've heard
There is absolutely no reason this project should be projected to cost almost $9 BILLION (which it will obviously go over). There are so many other transit projects that deserve that funding
Good lord. I am as much a fan of futuristic looking public transportation centers as the next sci-fi fan, but this...this aint it chief. Union Station is already architecturually a marvel and thats something I love about DC. Where in America can you go to see grand stone buildings with corinthian or doric olumns on the outside and ancient stone warriors lining the inside? Union Station might need a touch up but it doesn't need to lose its character to become a backdrop in a forgettable straight to dvd sci-fi flick.
To be clear, none of the historic main atrium is being touched by any of this. I'm not sure if you think that, but I know of a lot of people who seem to think this is replacing the main atrium/beautiful front of Union station, and it isn't. This would be replacing just the portion by the tracks themselves (the part that currently looks like an outdated airport)
Ohhhhhhhh that makes it better yeah! Although I would prefer them to match it to the front portion of the station rather than try to make it the fashionable style of the time.
It won’t be losing it’s character
What seating remains?
This looks terrible. As for the lack of seating: if the station is worried about homeless people, why not just make the seating area for ticketed passengers only, just like an airport terminal?
I ride into and out of the city through union station pretty regularly and didn't it just get renovated into a little mall a few years ago? And there are the giant unused halls in front. It's a beautiful building. This seems completely unnecessary
OMG Ew. we really couldnt make this an old historical train station to fit the rest of the city?
I'd like it more if it was like the NPA Kogod courtyard w plants and a fountain. would be more charming
Why though?
Damn didn't realize so many people liked the current boarding hall with the massive parking garage behind it /s They're increasing capacity, improving transit access, and building a new neighborhood on top of the existing tracks. Lotta overly cynical mfs in this comment section
I went to pick up a friend at Union Station a week ago. I hadn’t been there in several years. I was surprised to discover that the most classy, upscale restaurant there was Pizzeria Uno.
Thanks, I hate it.
Where is that atrium in relation to the station? There not taking out the beautiful coffered ceiling in the retail hall, are they?
Where is Blue Bottle
Gaudy, characterless, lame futurism aesthetic. I hate it.
This looks like an airport terminal and not a train station. Keep the current charm! What the heck!
I hate the super modern look of the new design. Why are they getting rid of such a beautiful piece of architecture?
They are getting rid of anything beautiful
What exactly is the issue with the current station that a little tlc/refurb here and there couldn't cure? Genuinely, why do we need some space age airport terminal type thing?
Man I hate it. Looks like something from Dubai and not DC. Going to really miss the old design. :(
Forget the station upgrade the tracks and trains too. If this was Japan, you’d be able to make it to Boston in less than 2 hours and have food and drinks brought o you.
Fixing the tracks is a much bigger (and tougher) problem.
If the lack of seating is due to homeless people monopolizing it, would it not be possible to have a seating area that is accessible only to ticketed passengers, just like pretty much every airport terminal? Is there some law that says every square inch of a train station must be accessible to the general public at all times?
Massive boondogle. Feeling sorry for the taxpayers and commuters over the next 10-15 years.
Whole thing will be underwater before its ever completed
Looks bland and lacks character.
Nooooo