[Tuscani01]

I agree, and I'm in the unfortunate position of defending the PATH, which inarguably kills street life, because it steals the vibrancy away from the street, but ksun's one-size-fits-all solution of "destination retail everywhere" lacks nuance and wouldn't work here for a variety of reasons that I think are pretty obvious to the rest of us.

Lets be real... Destination retail everywhere doesn't work anywhere. Even Shanghai, which he holds to a higher standard doesn't have destination retail everywhere. Most of Pudong is a ghost town outside of business hours, save for Super Brand Mall, which is pretty dead outside of business hours too.

We actually laugh at retailers in Shanghai, as its clear many of them are just opening there so they can have a presence. Many retailers are taking a loss to be there. It's not about making money, and many of the big names are given special treatment to open stores in certain areas. Head to the mall at the Expo site for example, and you will see many big name stores, yet no one shopping.

 

[Tulse]

I agree, and I'm in the unfortunate position of defending the PATH, which inarguably kills street life, because it steals the vibrancy away from the street

I don't know that that is true. Many of the businesses I know in the PATH are either food-courty places, or shops that are often targeted at the business customer, and not really the general public. (And I think no one can argue about stealing "vibrancy" with a straight face after seeing Aura's pathetic underground shopping area.)

 

[ksun]

Lets be real... Destination retail everywhere doesn't work anywhere. Even Shanghai, which he holds to a higher standard doesn't have destination retail everywhere. Most of Pudong is a ghost town outside of business hours, save for Super Brand Mall, which is pretty dead outside of business hours too.

We actually laugh at retailers in Shanghai, as its clear many of them are just opening there so they can have a presence. Many retailers are taking a loss to be there. It's not about making money, and many of the big names are given special treatment to open stores in certain areas. Head to the mall at the Expo site for example, and you will see many big name stores, yet no one shopping.

Most of Pudong is NOT like a ghost town outside the business hours - maybe you only went to Luijiazui, which is like 1% of Pudong. My folks live in the northern part (about 30 minutes from CBD), more residential but the nearby retail, including shopping plazas and retail streets, are busy. On the weekends, the restaurants are packed and the stores are crowded like Queen West or Eaton Centre (for a suburb 45 minutes by subway from downtown that's pretty good). Pudong is so much larger than its west most corner (where the huge towers are, and probably where expats mostly go). Keep in mind Lujiazui copied the American model and in my opinion is the least interest part of Shanghai. Nobody thinks of that when it comes to shop and having fun.

You are right the big name luxury stores are taking a loss just to be there. People don't shop there often because it is much more expensive than in Western countries due to the high tax. But there is nothing to laugh about - those retailers decide to take a loss for a good reason. Things will change fast and if you are late to the market by 5 years and fail to gain the brand recognition, the shoppers are not gonna know you like they know LV or Burberry. And luxury products are all about brand recognition.

To come back to the topic, our Fidi is exactly like Lujiazui, looking busy with people in suits running everywhere during office hours and nothing interesting in terms of retail. Not exactly an idea situation. Difference is that Lujiazui has the tourist traps which still attract tens of thousands of tourists while King/Bay doesn't. People still go to Lujiazui to look at the 610m Shanghai tower, the 500m SWFC, the famous TV tower, along with the waterfront which is nearby, but nobody comes just to see the 298m First Canada Place (and there is practically nothing touristy nearby).

 

[grey]

Tourist traps are extremely undesirable and have very little to do with building a vibrant, livable city.

 

[Uptowner]

Given how differently people seem to feel about the retail experience and feel of walking along Yonge St here in our beloved Toronto it probably doesn't make much sense to digress much further on our subjective opinions of the Shanghai retail experience. I say that because it is hard for me to resist when I read things I disagree with but it's getting a bit OT and I don't want to contribute that.

AS for here, given the built form in the FD it seems that not too much will change with respect to retail at street level but how much does it really matter anyway given how small the area is? Does anyone here think that filling the path with concrete would turn the area into another Yorkville? The PATH is so clearly not what has prevented the lack of small retail shops at the corner of King and Bay that the conversation is laughable.

To get back to the topic, can a MOD or Administrator add a poll to this thread to ask if people think the PATH should be extended up to Bloor? Am I sort of curious.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

If it's doable I say sure extend it. I am cool with its expansion in general. But I for one never use it and prefer to be above ground. All seasons. But it's neat. I particularly like some of the path bridges above ground. Those I like. Underground mazes. No. Not at all.

 

[WislaHD]

I don't know that that is true. Many of the businesses I know in the PATH are either food-courty places, or shops that are often targeted at the business customer, and not really the general public. (And I think no one can argue about stealing "vibrancy" with a straight face after seeing Aura's pathetic underground shopping area.)

Agreed. It is not like if we removed the PATH that our above ground streets will suddenly mirror Melbourne laneways or what have you.

Much like Silicone Valley, there is a reason why business has decided to locate itself around Toronto's Financial District. It is advantage for the big corporations to be located next to the banking sector to be near the finance sector and for them to be near the accounting sector and near the law firms and so forth. Their close proximity to each other is efficient and part of what makes Toronto a thriving global finance center despite its relatively smaller size.

And as such, these office towers containing all those prestigious firms, companies and corporate headquarters require prestigious lobbies and entrances. The PATH's existence has nothing to do with the built form of the Financial District's streets.

This also makes me wary of making conclusions about the PATH outside of the Financial District, since the PATH is still largely centered between Yonge&University and Queen&Front. I think the jury is still out on whether it kills street retail elsewhere, as the only other major retail street the PATH interacts with (Yonge St.) is also affected by the presence of the Eaton Centre.

(Aura's underground shopping area stands as a good counterpoint, but as you said already, it is pathetic and just another area the developer cheapened big time with that project. Hopefully not indicative of the final product at another site, like say the Eaton Chelsea redevelopment site.)

 

[buildup]

If it's doable I say sure extend it. I am cool with its expansion in general. But I for one never use it and prefer to be above ground. All seasons. But it's neat. I particularly like some of the path bridges above ground. Those I like. Underground mazes. No. Not at all.

Extending PATH up to Bloor would relieve congestion on the Yonge TTC line. Many people in the financial district have clothing and footwear requirements that make walking outdoors impractical unless the weather is dry and crispy/cool. I could see people jumping off the TTC and walking south to King, its just 30 minutes by foot.

 

[ksun]

Extending PATH up to Bloor would relieve congestion on the Yonge TTC line. Many people in the financial district have clothing and footwear requirements that make walking outdoors impractical unless the weather is dry and crispy/cool. I could see people jumping off the TTC and walking south to King, its just 30 minutes by foot.

30 minutes on the street level, but on PATH, it might take 45 minutes (if you don't get lost at all). PATH doesn't exactly follow the street grid.

I am all supportive of the extension, but to expect it to relieve the Yonge line is unrealistic. Most of the pressure on Yonge line is from folks who live north of Bloor, and most likely north of Eglinton or from east/west on the BD line. The number of people between Bloor and King who actually take the subway during peak hours is negligible. Do you really see a lot of passengers getting on the SB train at Wellesley, College, Dundas and Queen station?

 

[maestro]

No way. PATH needs to stay underground north of Union . Above ground not only creates a nicer environment more comparable to street level but, all the bridges affect the ambiance of walking outdoors.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What they should do is ensure PATH interact with the external environment more - be it through judicious placement of architecturally meaningful entrances, daylighting, etc.

AoD

 

[buildup]

30 minutes on the street level, but on PATH, it might take 45 minutes (if you don't get lost at all). PATH doesn't exactly follow the street grid.

I am all supportive of the extension, but to expect it to relieve the Yonge line is unrealistic. Most of the pressure on Yonge line is from folks who live north of Bloor, and most likely north of Eglinton or from east/west on the BD line. The number of people between Bloor and King who actually take the subway during peak hours is negligible. Do you really see a lot of passengers getting on the SB train at Wellesley, College, Dundas and Queen station?

I see a dangerous crush of people at 8:30AM on the Yonge/Bloor platform transferring South, especially in bad weather. This suggests that people heading to College, Dundas, or Queen (maybe King in my case) could be incented to walk. Especially the younger ones.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I see a dangerous crush of people at 8:30AM on the Yonge/Bloor platform transferring South, especially in bad weather. This suggests that people heading to College, Dundas, or Queen (maybe King in my case) could be incented to walk. Especially the younger ones.

Considering the distance/number of individual sites between Bloor and College I think you be better off waiting for the Relief Line.

AoD

 

[WislaHD]

Considering the distance/number of individual sites between Bloor and College I think you be better off waiting for the Relief Line.

AoD

Well who knows.

Connecting to College alone seemed crazy and then all of a sudden we have this site, World's Biggest Bookstore site, and 385 Yonge Street set to be redeveloped plausibly with PATH connections. Suddenly connecting Aura and College Park to the rest of the PATH network seems very likely very soon.

With southward expansion of the PATH from Bloor, redevelopment around Wellesley Station (Wellesley on the Park?), it may not be that crazy after all. College to Charles Street (where it will meet up with any development south of The One) is roughly the distance of Dundas to King. Which is not that far.

The issue I see is that this chunk of Yonge Street will be redeveloped into condos, not into shopping malls or office towers. Condos may not be as conductive to PATH expansion.

 

[Mongo]

Bisonblight on SSC provided this link. Go to "supporting documentation" at the bottom of the page, and you will find a wealth of information on the project. The following is just a small sample of what is there.

Tower 1 • 74 Storeys / 227.3 metres = 746 feet (237.3 metres = 779 feet to top of mechanical penthouse)
Tower 2 • 46 storeys / 144.7 metres = 475 feet (154.7 metres = 508 feet to top of mechanical penthouse)
Tower 3 • 50 storeys / 153.4 metres = 503 feet (163.4 metres = 536 feet to top of mechanical penthouse)
Tower 4 • 80 storeys / 241.9 metres = 794 feet (251.9 metres = 826 feet to top of mechanical penthouse)
Bar Building Office • 6 storeys / 23.3 metres = 76 feet

Towers 1 & 2

Podium

A 5-storey podium base is shared between Towers 1 and 2, and containsretail and commercial uses, amenity space, as well as hotel management/staff offices. Levels 3-5 contain a total of 1,756 square metres of indoor amenity space, including a bridge component that connects both towers and also contains amenity space. This amenity space will be shared between residential and hotel users. A total of 946 square metres of contiguous outdoor amenity space is provided between the two towers on the 4th level, including an outdoor pool area.

Levels 4 and 5 contain a narrow building connection running east-west between the amenity space of both towers along the northern perimeter, with the roof of the 5th floor containing a green roof. This connecting feature has an angled north façade that extends beyond the podium face at its west end and is setback slightly from the north podium face at its east end.

The podium base is set back, on average, 1.2 metres from the east lot line, resulting in a separation distance of approximately 5.1 metres from the adjacent rear façade of buildings fronting onto Yonge Street. The base is set back approximately 0.5 metres from the south lot line on levels 1-3, and 7.8 metres on level 4. The podium is built directly up to the limits of both Walton Street and the north-south walkway, with the exception of a portion of the north façade at the west end of ground/mezzanine levels which is slightly recessed from Walton Street to allow for increased accessibility and visibility of the hotel lobby. Additionally, the west face of the ground/mezzanine level is pulled back slightly from the north-south walkway limit to allow for the outdoor patio space.

The ground level contains the hotel lobby at the northwest corner, a café to its immediate east, and a restaurant at the southwest corner of the building. The residential lounge and lobby area is located east of the café and fronts onto Walton Street. Shared loading for the hotel as well as all residential and retail uses on the site is consolidated within the southeast portion of the building and is accessed from Walton Street.

Access to the hotel and café is provided from Walton Street, and access to the restaurant is provided from the north-south walkway. These three areas are interconnected internally. A hotel and resident drop-off area is provided along the southern perimeter of Walton Street and located immediately in front of the building. A partial mezzanine level is open to the hotel lobby and the commercial uses below, as well as to the loading area, and also contains a garbage area.

The second floor contains the hotel ballroom and prefunction and lounge area situated generally along the north, with hotel kitchen, staff cafeteria, change rooms, and hotel management office space located on the remainder of the floor. A green roof is provided on the roof of the mezzanine along the south end of the building.

Level 3 contains a fitness gym along the full length of the north end, and a yoga studio and change rooms along the south end. A central east-west lounge area runs between these two spaces as part of level 3.

The ground floor height is 4 metres, and when combined with the mezzanine level, has a height of 7 metres. As well, floors 2-3 extend over the west face of the ground level by approximately 2.0 metres, providing a canopy along the east end of the north-south walkway; similarly, a 2.9-metre canopy is provided at the west end of the building’s frontage along Walton Street. The building overhang at these locations provides a canopy and weather protection for the hotel lobby entrance as well as the restaurant patio space.

Tower

A 69-storey tower component (Tower 1), and 41-storey tower component (Tower 2), is built over the 5-storey podium. The tower elements of both towers contain residential uses, and Tower 2 also contains the hotel suites.

The tower component of both towers is rectangular in shape and oriented in a north-south direction. Tower 1 is situated at the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the service laneway and rear façade of buildings fronting onto Yonge Street (356-368 Yonge Street), while Tower 2 is located to the west of Tower 1. Levels 6-74 of Tower 1 contain residential units comprised of a mix of unit sizes. Levels 7-30 in Tower 2 contain the hotel component with a total of 300 hotel suites, which range in size from 254 square feet to 409 square feet; the remaining levels (floors 31-46) of this tower contain residential units. In total, Tower 1 contains 552 units, and Tower 2 contains 128 residential units. Tower 1 has an overall height of 227.3 metres, and 237.3 metres with mechanical penthouse. Tower 2 has a total height of 144.7 metres, and 154.7 metres with mechanical penthouse.

With respect to tower separation between Towers 1 and 2, a 21.9 metre separation is provided at levels 5-6, 20.25 metres at levels 7-31, and approximately 20.2 metres at levels 32-46. The interior-facing walls of both towers are parallel to each other on levels 5-31, and have an angled façade to mirror each other from levels 32-46. Additionally, a separation distance of 20.9 metres is provided between Tower 1 and Tower 4

The setback of Tower 1 to the east lot line varies throughout the floors. A 5.6 metre setback is provided on levels 5-6, and an approximate 4.5 metre setback is provided on levels 7-74. The setback provided for Towers 1 and 2 to the south lot line is 8.7 metres on levels 5-6, 7.8 metres on levels 7-46, and 7.8 metres continued through levels 47-74 on Tower 1.