The exterior looks great at night, there are some strips (panels)that are lit up, and many more that are nice and glazed that reflect light from the square and look great in contrast to the textured ones that don't reflect the light.
 
P23 said:
I don't care for it personally. It's both bland in material and colour, and has a lot of awkward elements like the cutouts, overhang, etc.

Compare it to their flagship design in NYC: [...]

Although, this one seems to be an exception. Most of the other ones are equally dull as Eaton Centre's.
Click to expand...

That's the new portion of the facade, facing West 57th. As I understand it, the store will extend into the lower levels of existing buildings along Broadway, between West 57th and West 58th streets. The difficulty with the Eaton Centre space is that they don't occupy the upper floors. But yeah, nonetheless, point taken.
 
If I recall, when the Eaton Centre facade was redone in the 90s, the idea was to create the illusion of different buildings and stores. Their goal was to create something more pedestrian friendly, engaging and less monotonous. At the time, the all white exterior was seen as being just the opposite.

Time has obviously proven them wrong. The original was far superior, and the changes have fostered greater pedestrian engagement.

As for Nordstrom's I believe they're aiming for a sense of exclusivity by having a large wall and relatively small entrance. Something brighter and more engaging would benefit the mall overall, but I guess they're going to do what they feel best ties into their brand.
 
Last edited:
From memory, I believe that there's a net gain in window coverage given that new windows were added to the upper floors where SEARS ads used to be. It'll be more apparent once the windows are uncovered. However, inside, the large open entrance from the mall is gone, replaced with a brick wall and a single small entrance abruptly ending the Eaton Centre before reaching Yonge & Dundas. That's a missed opportunity with this renovation.
 
syn said:
If I recall, when the Eaton Centre facade was redone in the 90s, the idea was to create the illusion of different buildings and stores. Their goal was to create something more pedestrian friendly, engaging and less monotonous. At the time, the all white exterior was seen as being just the opposite.

Time has obviously proven them wrong. The original was far superior, and I don't the changes have fostered greater pedestrian engagement.

As for Nordstrom's I believe they're aiming for a sense of exclusivity by having a large wall and relatively small entrance. Something brighter and more engaging would benefit the mall overall, but I guess they're going to do what they feel best ties into their brand.
Click to expand...

There's almost no pedestrian engagement along Yonge street. They may have said that was their goal at the time but secretly what they wanted was to maximize square footage.

It would have been nice to have restaurants with patios along that west side of Yonge but I guess CF would rather people walk through the mall than on Yonge St.
 
Agreed. Yonge Street frontage should have been reserved for restaurants with garage doors that could open up to Yonge in warmer months. Many of the stores with doors on Yonge are locked. I understand that it's a security concern but then why have doors at all?
 
I think Starbucks and Baton Rouge are the only places with open doors on Yonge right now.. Roots used to be open but they aren't right now.
 
Armani A|X used to be open to Yonge too. Anecdotally, it's hurt their business. I hadn't thought of this before but I've shopped there less. I used to use Armani as a shortcut through to Yonge from Queen Street and would often find something I liked and would buy — until one day I walked into a locked door.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think Starbucks and Baton Rouge are the only places with open doors on Yonge right now.. Roots used to be open but they aren't right now.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the addition (which took away a good portion of the sidewalk) is supposed to engage the street - now they chose the suburban way of doing things, gaining significant retail footage and ad space while the pedestrians end up being the losers (because we all know there is enough space for them along that stretch right?) 20 years in the Y+D redevelopment process, and one can argue easily that it's a design failure.

AoD
 
The additional irony is that the City, in approving the additions that extended the mall towards the sidewalk, would have almost certainly required that doors and windows be constructed to animate the frontage. But either the City didn't bother to secure a requirement that the doors not be locked, or did secure such a requirement but nobody is bothering to enforce it.

It's a pet peeve of mine. The City will care about ground floor animation during the site plan approval process, ensure that the building has appropriate doors and fenestration facing the sidewalk, but then tenants cover the windows with opaque film (turning them into large signage) and, if there is alternate access to a parking lot or interior mall, lock the door to the sidewalk.

(ETA: What is that opaque film stuff called?)
 
Locked doors to the street definitely create a dull pedestrian experience. Most of those doors are probably locked to save the stores money. They either needed the space for product OR more likely locked it due to theft prevention. Multiple doors mean it's easier to sneak in or out, and require extra security.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top