[jje1000]

You're comparing this to Michigan Avenue, but you do realize how much wider that street and its sidewalks are in comparison to Yonge Street, right? Michigan Avenue is much more comparable to the infrastructure of Spadina or University. Sticking 40+ storey towers on Yonge won't recreate the same of grandeur as Michigan Avenue, you'd probably end up with something like this instead:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=chica...mhAUTjklAK_1XFY2iw&cbp=12,0.96,,0,-10.14&z=18

On this framework:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Bay+S...Gu9QaywmyvBrzNi6PwaBmg&cbp=12,345.25,,0,-5.59

There's simply not enough horizontal distance for such an environment to not feel hemmed in.

In my opinion, we should leave the original built form of Yonge Street as is (suitable for the smaller infrastructural framework that is Yonge Street), and put up the highrises behind these, giving them a bit more room to breathe and people to see them more clearly. Yonge Street should really be pedestrianized in a way similar to Stephen Avenue.

 

[Ramako]

You're comparing this to Michigan Avenue, but you do realize how much wider that street and its sidewalks are in comparison to Yonge Street, right? Michigan Avenue is much more comparable to the infrastructure of Spadina or University. Sticking 40+ storey towers on Yonge won't recreate the same of grandeur as Michigan Avenue, you'd probably end up with something like this instead:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=chica...mhAUTjklAK_1XFY2iw&cbp=12,0.96,,0,-10.14&z=18

On this framework:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Bay+S...Gu9QaywmyvBrzNi6PwaBmg&cbp=12,345.25,,0,-5.59

There's simply not enough horizontal distance for such an environment to not feel hemmed in.

In my opinion, we should leave the original built form of Yonge Street as is (suitable for the smaller infrastructural framework that is Yonge Street), and put up the highrises behind these, giving them a bit more room to breathe and people to see them more clearly. Yonge Street should really be pedestrianized in a way similar to Stephen Avenue.

Wouldn't a better comparison for what Yonge north of Dundas would feel like with more highrises in fact be Yonge south of Dundas? I think the vibe on Yonge from Dundas to Front is a good one (save the somewhat deadening effect of the Eaton Centre). It's got height but it's also has heritage, much of it low rise. It's also an energetic and interesting stretch of city. I'd simply like to see the same thing extended north of Dundas, albeit with more retail in place of office space. That can be done without demolishing the many heritage buildings.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yonge south of Queen isn't exactly a great, animated street.

AoD

 

[Ramako]

Yonge south of Queen isn't exactly a great, animated street.

AoD

Maybe it's just me then. It's easily one of my favourite stretches in the city. Perhaps I'm just a sucker for urban canyons.

 

[Tewder]

Maybe it's just me then. It's easily one of my favourite stretches in the city. Perhaps I'm just a sucker for urban canyons.

You're not wrong though Ramako. The built form is not the reason for the lack of animation south of Yonge, the land use is. This area is largely office, no? The point remains that Yonge south of Dundas demonstrates what Yonge north of Dundas could be, in many respects.

 

[DtTO]

You're not wrong though Ramako. The built form is not the reason for the lack of animation south of Yonge, the land use is. This area is largely office, no? The point remains that Yonge south of Dundas demonstrates what Yonge north of Dundas could be, in many respects.

Bingo. That kind of built form with a much heavier emphasis on retail should be exactly what we aim for. It would actually represent the city well instead of making it look like a dump, as the current Yonge north of Dundas does. It's pathetic when even Aura is enough to improve the look of an area.

 

[egotrippin]

Just to illustrate my point above, these aren't the same as these.

This is a good point, but unfortunately to someone so wilfully ignorant, not one that will sink in.

 

[DtTO]

This is a good point, but unfortunately to someone so wilfully ignorant, not one that will sink in.

Not everyone here is claiming that they are. Anyways, using that example is shooting yourself in the foot, since those specific buildings are in fact being preserved along with the Five Condos development.

The point of designating buildings as "Heritage" is to credit them for being exemplary in their representation of their respective era/architectural style/architect/etc. to be preserved for future generations. When you decide that a whole street must be preserved in the heart of the city's downtown, you cross the line of sensible preservation into complacency and lack of vision for the future.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Not everyone here is claiming that they are. Anyways, using that example is shooting yourself in the foot, since those specific buildings are in fact being preserved along with the Five Condos development.

The point of designating buildings as "Heritage" is to credit them for being exemplary in their representation of their respective era/architectural style/architect/etc. to be preserved for future generations. When you decide that a whole street must be preserved in the heart of the city's downtown, you cross the line of sensible preservation into complacency and lack of vision for the future.

Seems that many people use the word "heritage" simply as an inflated synonym for "old." This simple substitution creates an easy illusion of credibility to so many statements. Consider, for example "It would be a crime to tear down those buildings. They're old!"
Well, nobody would buy that for a second. But with this simple substitution you get "It would be a crime to tear down those buildings. They're heritage!" And, hey presto! Suddenly you appear to have a compelling argument.

Unless someone can clearly explain how their use of "heritage" differs from their use of "old" they really can't make a case for the preservation of anything.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Speaking specifically of Yonge Street downtown, it's more than the heritage buildings that exist it's the scale of the buildings, the collection of buildings and the use that they are put to that makes a walk down Yonge Street so enjoyable for many. Are there buildings along this stretch that have no aesthetic value? Yes. Is there retail that doesn't appeal to everyone? Sure. Are many of the buildings poorly maintained? You bet. If your looking for shiny stores with faux storefronts along with the latest styles of clothing, shoes, handbags or home products there's a huge mall just down the street that has it all. If your looking for the unusual, the cool finds, trendy nicknacks, great restaurants & otherwise offbeat retail then Yonge Street is a place for you. There are also hundreds of great priced, huge apartments discretely tucked away above many of these establishments if your really into downtown living and if you can find a vacancy, your gold.

 

[isaidso]

We have thousands of Vic homes throughout the city, yes, but not thousands of Vic commercial buildings. That's what we're talking about on Yonge.

Thousands or hundreds, the point remains. Those commercial Vics on Yonge served Toronto well for a century, but it's time to wipe the slate clean to meet the growing needs of a modern city. We'll still have hundreds of similar buildings on College, Queen, King, Bloor, Parliament, the Junction, and myriad other places. Yonge: our main high street downtown? Compromise 'solutions' don't serve Toronto best here. It's structures like the Concourse Building that needed saving, not 30-40 Vics on Yonge out of an inventory of many hundreds all over the place.

I'm eager to see how 5ive pans out, but not convinced it was the right route to go. That sort of re-development would be better suited to our secondary high streets like Queen, King East, Bloor West, etc.

 

[jje1000]

Thousands or hundreds, the point remains. Those commercial Vics on Yonge served Toronto well for a century, but it's time to wipe the slate clean to meet the growing needs of a modern city. We'll still have hundreds of similar buildings on College, Queen, King, Bloor, Parliament, the Junction, and myriad other places. Yonge: our main high street downtown? Compromise 'solutions' don't serve Toronto best here. It's structures like the Concourse Building that needed saving, not 30-40 Vics on Yonge out of an inventory of many hundreds all over the place.

I'm eager to see how 5ive pans out, but not convinced it was the right route to go. That sort of re-development would be better suited to our secondary high streets like Queen, King East, Bloor West, etc.

Wipe the slate clean

 

[SP!RE]

wipe the slate clean to meet the growing needs of a modern city.

The same wasteful and heavy-handed rhetoric that has ruined entire neighbourhoods so many times in the past.

 

[arvelomcquaig]

On Yonge between Bloor and Queen there's relatively few Victorian buildings compared to hideous, ’90s-seeming, and tiny one or two-storey buildings containing shops hawking the tackiest sweatshop-produced wares. These should be cleared to make room for denser structures before we even think of the beautiful Victorians.

 

[DtTO]

Wipe the slate clean

The same wasteful and heavy-handed rhetoric that has ruined entire neighbourhoods so many times in the past.

1) When I said that city hall has "lack of vision," this is exactly what I meant. If this is truly what you think will happen, given a clean slate, on Yonge, there is no use in me arguing with such ridiculousness.

2) The picture you posted is ironic, because it does a very good job of representing the before in Regent Park. What did newer development do to that area, and when was the last time we made such massive urban planning mistakes (queue Cityplace jokes...)? I'll wait.