sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Bookended by small POPS - Privately Owned Public Space
Hardship
All inquiries on those tenant spaces on the Ground Floor of the building that we have been receiving so far (as of the time this is written) are for restaurant or food services related uses. There has been no indication of interest on the Ground Floor spaces for retail or office uses. We believe this drop in demand for prominent ground floor street front retail space could have been accelerated by the rise in e-commerce since COVID. Unfortunately, the said sentence in the bylaw is requiring a minimum number of retail and service retail uses on the ground floor, which in turn prevents us from filling all these spaces with other uses, such as restaurant tenants. The demand for retail space simply does not exist, and having this sentence in the bylaw does not guarantee retail businesses will move in. We believe the market situation has shifted, hence we are adjusting to it. Moreover, setting aside tenant spaces, leaving them vacant, and waiting for probable retail tenants to fill these spaces does not represent good business or planning. Vacant spaces always carry a bad vibe impacting the surrounding.
Surrounding Area
We noted that nearby buildings have restaurant uses occupying a majority of their ground floor spaces. For example:
1.
5000 Yonge Street
All restaurant uses on Yonge frontage.
2.
Yonge Sheppard Centre
5 restaurants (plus 1 on 2/F), with one bank and a pet food supply on Yonge Street frontage.
Benefit
This section of Yonge Street frontage will certainly benefit with heightened animation with these ground floor spaces (fully) occupied. With an increase in pedestrian flow due to the presence of businesses on the Ground Floor, the safety for the adjacent residential condominium and for the area is further enhanced. Afterall, this is a much better outcome than having vacant storefronts in this part of Yonge Street.
sounds like a poorly written by-law to me limiting it to only "retail" which is the sale of goods, excluding restaurants. And of course the CoA denied it as they refuse to touch use variances.
yes, denied by CoA and appealed to the appeal board. Appeal board hasn't made a decision yet from what I can tell.Sorry to clarify the variance was denied ? Do they have any ability to appeal further ? It seems rather silly to me as restaurant usage would work well.
One kangaroo court to another...yes, denied by CoA and appealed to the appeal board. Appeal board hasn't made a decision yet from what I can tell.