Boy, these are some of the least valid reasons to hate CityPlace I've heard on these forums, and I'm not even a fan of the development.
Of all the failures Cityplace represents, location really isn't one of them.
It wasn't a location argument. Rather, it was a physical and social infrastructure argument. City Place is new. The area around it is new. The post was in reference to why City Place is different than Bay St eventhough the developments share many similar features.
My argument is that City Place lacks the social (easy access to well-lived-in neighbourhoods) and physical infrastructure (higher-order transit) to give it a destination feel. No amount of shiney new glass condos surrounded by dead trees and private amenities can make a desirable destination unless it is physically connected to other established areas. Perhaps if it had character, vibracy, life and oh, some unique qualities then it would be better. And if it had easy, well-connected access to higher order transit then it would have more access. The location of City Place is not the issue but its isolation to the rest of the well-lived-in sections of Toronto remains a problem. The area immediately surrounding City Place is either undeveloped, under construction or brand new. There is heritage or history around the development - just train tracks, highway, wasteland and glass towers. Yes, it is an island.
Bay St residents can get to Yorkville, Church/Wellesley, Annex & UofT, financial core, and every stop on the Subway very easily. It is well connected and, even if it lacks a certain street vibrance and is still dominated by private amenities it can still pass itself off as connected to the overall downtown lifestyle. City Place cannot make the same claim.
City Place may be beside downtown or right in the middle of downtown but it is not connected. There is no intergration or sense of community development. Unlike other areas where the development lifecyle has allowed for a mish-mash of old and new and various forms of buildings, CityPlace and the surrounding waterfront-glass tower developments are all the same. If it had been, oh lets say, The MET or Minto Y&E then it wouldn't have the same failures because those developments are smack in the middle of well-lived-in (and worked-in) neighbourhoods. And both of these tower-developments are in direct access to higher order transit. So not only are they accessible by those who live around them but they are part of a greater integration of destinations and lived-in centres.
If City Place had been built in a fashion that allowed for a greater mix of uses, types of buildings and it coincided with the completion of a higher order transit line (whether subway or LRT) then it would have avoided some of its issues. Location, as you can see, is not the problem. Poor planning is (one of) the problems.