In order to retain more space for independent retail options, including, but not merely music venues.............what if Toronto followed San Francisco's lead and more or less banned chain retail?

SF has a ban on any new stores opening in most areas, if they have more than 11 outlets world wide.

Policy Basis for Formula Retail (Chain Stores) | SF Planning

sfplanning.org sfplanning.org

One can grandfather existing locations, exempt certain sectors (supermarkets in under-served areas) and also combine that with restrictions on big boxes (banning stores over 30,000sq ft) which has been done in many communities and some countries around the world.
 
Northern Light said:
In order to retain more space for independent retail options, including, but not merely music venues.............what if Toronto followed San Francisco's lead and more or less banned chain retail?

SF has a ban on any new stores opening in most areas, if they have more than 11 outlets world wide.

Policy Basis for Formula Retail (Chain Stores) | SF Planning

sfplanning.org sfplanning.org

One can grandfather existing locations, exempt certain sectors (supermarkets in under-served areas) and also combine that with restrictions on big boxes (banning stores over 30,000sq ft) which has been done in many communities and some countries around the world.
Click to expand...

Agreeable concepts, although I find it difficult to see Toronto implementing such initiatives. There also needs to be activity in the realm of re-establishing a new equilibrium for commercial rents. Leases have grown to such astronomical levels in many parts of the city, to the point where only chains are able to afford it. I'm curious to see the long-term effects of the pandemic, and whether we'll see a gradual shift of rents dialing back to more accommodating ranges.
 
AlbertC said:
Agreeable concepts, although I find it difficult to see Toronto implementing such initiatives. There also needs to be activity in the realm of re-establishing a new equilibrium for commercial rents. Leases have grown to such astronomical levels in many parts of the city, to the point where only chains are able to afford it. I'm curious to see the long-term effects of the pandemic, and whether we'll see a gradual shift of rents dialing back to more accommodating ranges.
Click to expand...

I tend to think limiting the ability of chains to sign new leases would have the effect of lowering commercial rents.
 
How come is the media completely ignoring that there will be purpose-built rental replacement units and an affordability component in the development?

Just focusing on the opposition to development.
 
I don't believe that there's been enough information available yet to verify there's an affordable housing component within this proposal. The comment with the Star's article is from a local who hopes to at least see a commitment from the developer to include it if the plan were to move forward.
 
Those 2-storey buildings don't appear to have much redeeming value, and they are located at the intersection of two major streets, both of which are served by streetcars. Considering it isn't the city's role to preserve private businesses, I don't see the problem with some intensification as long as the proposed development is acceptable otherwise.

As an edit to my original post: I've lived in Toronto for 33 years. Many places, stores, etc. I used to go to are long gone, and they continue to disappear. I have learned that if you are prone to nostalgia, this is the wrong city to live in. This is rather the place to be if, like Arthur Rimbaud, you believe that il faut être absolument moderne.
 
Last edited:
And yet John Tory comes out today with a completely tone deaf statement saying in essence "Toronto is giving live-music venues tax deferrals and tax relief through one-time payments to help them operate in this tough environment".

Sorry John that's not the issue at play. Sure your tax relief scheme will help in the short-term and medium-term (which is all he ever seems to think about), but in the long-term the point of the matter is that people are concerned with entertainment venues closing up shop for good because they cant find suitable replacement space since developers arent including them on site to replace them.

City planning is broken in the city, and i'm not optimistic that the city or province will be fixing things anytime soon. In fact, things are getting worse with the province playing games with dozens of city initiatives.
 
This is so disappointing. Is it an ugly building? Sure. But for many people, "culture" isn't just getting bottle service on a rooftop patio.
 
Just so everyone understands, this assembly has been 'soft' for at least 5 years now - just no one was able to make the numbers work.
 
Like others have said, there is no loss here in terms of the existing buildings. While I've never been to Nest or Sneaky Dees, I can respect that they have been very important culturally. Entertainment and art is and has been a very big part of Toronto for a long time, and to just allow developers to destroy that part of Toronto is not okay. Something needs to happen. Bylaws need to be made. Many of the places I used to go when I was younger do not exist. Actually the vast majority do not exist. The suburbs are taking over downtown, and it's so gross. It's becoming this boring soulless bland incorporated wasteland. Yes, there are some cool areas left, but they are shrinking and it's only a matter of time before they are also gone. Maybe the pandemic will make a lot of people rethink living downtown and return back to the suburbs!
 
AlbertC said:
I don't believe that there's been enough information available yet to verify there's an affordable housing component within this proposal. The comment with the Star's article is from a local who hopes to at least see a commitment from the developer to include it if the plan were to move forward.
Click to expand...
This is TOCore area though, so affordable component is expected.
 
A problem with replacing venues is the astronomical cost of creating a new legalized space not the absence of land or property. There is no business model here. We regulated this out of existence. It’s become either a charity case or a plaything of the rich. Nachos and Indie rock aren’t going to pay the bills for a multi-million dollar project. Go for it if you inherit 10+million. You’ll go under if you’ve only got a few mill.

The real pressure on these properties is land value not rent. Land value, the very driver of density beloved on this forum, is the terminator. Land value even steamrolls silly little Landlords. It’s “The Nothing” of the urban bohemian Never-ending Story.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top