On the forum we're frequently lamenting the disrepair and abuse suffered by historic storefronts on streets like Queen and Yonge, where bricks are painted purple or covered up by aluminum siding, and so on. Yet new developments are built to oppressively monotonous standards, often not even at human scales, and are articulated by voids, recesses, and precast protuberances. Why can't newly developed storefronts be the ones covered with purple polka dots and funky wood and metal siding? Or, at least, interesting brick and tile work instead of precast panels? Or, you know, actually visible and interesting signage? No one's going to miss the plastic panels in seven shades of grey or the precast pillars that end up cracked and discoloured before the stores have a chance to open. Hopefully, vibrant renovations and customizations will occur when the precast falls off in a decade or two, but variety within blocks may be permanently stymied by the fact that each block has only one owner dictating appearances and changes...it's so much more difficult for lively and interesting retail and restaurants to emerge when the buildings themselves at so dreary and crude at eye level.

Rant over :)


Then again, the long-ago Mustapha before-and-after 1968-vs-today photo thread of Yonge N of Eglinton might be an argument against such present-day cacaphony vs the decorum of old...
 
Nov 2

IMG_nov-02-09-0153.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0182.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0188.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0187.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0192.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0186.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0201.jpg


IMG_nov-02-09-0196.jpg
 
I'm not sure I understand this obsession that street-front retail should be everywhere. By and large it is in the nature of the retail industry that clusters form, each individual enterprise benefitting from the critical mass of the whole in the drawing the business. This is the same in most cities. You will always get your one-off boutique or destination store that might venture off into new territory on their own, obviously, but there are reasons that retailers are jostling to get onto Bloor or are willing to pay rents along Queen, that furniture stores cluster on King East or second hand clothes shops in Kensington etc. and this takes time to establish and will likely happen somewhat organically.

In general CBDs and residential areas are not known for concentrations of retail. These areas will likely draw service-type businesses that cater to local needs (banks, cleaners, florists, convenience stores/markets) and perhaps the odd restaurant but will not likely develop in ways that will compete with main commercial arteries that in Toronto are probably not that far away, i.e. commercial Yonge Street from residential Bay Street etc. No big deal, and in fact the health of commercial arteries probably benefits from this.
 
I understand that Bay north of Dundas is lifeless because it is nothing but condos (just like the harbourfront),

I don't know where people get this idea. Stand at College and Bay during business hours and it is busy. The hospitals, offices and government buildings result in a lot of traffic. Its after business hours that it gets quiet. And all the new condos going up is slowly starting to change after hours.
 
A place can have loads of foot traffic and still feel pretty lifeless.

Then again, the long-ago Mustapha before-and-after 1968-vs-today photo thread of Yonge N of Eglinton might be an argument against such present-day cacaphony vs the decorum of old...

Purple polka dots is an extreme example, though. Something between a cacaphony and an oppressive mass of beige precast that takes a full minute or more to walk past is desirable - unless the cacaphony is ads and signs and neon, which we need more of in some places. At least older retail strips have an inherent advantage in variety in the way each building is not an entire block long.

Your rant seems to ignore the reality of retail development. The 'owner' owns the building only in most cases and the space is leased out to McDonald's, Shopper's Drug Mart etc.. who have 'standards' for how their
stores look. The owner (of the building) can try and dictate some design guide
lines in the lease but the retailor can simply say no in lease negotiations. In a
market such as this the owner (of the building) wants tenants and will give them pretty much what they want. With stores facing the exterior (or interior in the case of a mall) all the projects I have been invovled with the architect designs the overall concept and the units are a shell and it is up to the tenant what the store interior/storefront will look like. In the case of exterior facing tenants the cities urban design guide lines also apply.

Your response indicates you didn't read my rant, which began "unless custom-built for chains." That's fine, it's a free country. We want thriving retail strips but we don't want them to consist of nothing but Roots and Shoppers Drug Marts and Pizza Pizzas, either. On the other hand, a block of nail salons and dry cleaners are going to take their storefronts as they come...maybe they'll throw up a small neon sign in the window, but that's it. If the facade at street level is nothing but plate glass and a small space for a backlit sign, there isn't even an opportunity to repaint anything, let alone create some character over time with creative renovations.

Maybe they'll resort to loud drapes, or fake trees with Christmas lights, or Flight Centre 'Otto Pilot' mannequins, but this all happens inside. The bay windows in older storefronts are often quite large, but bay windows are great for displays and focus the eye much more than a sheer plane of glass with some interesting things scattered inside. If the leasee wants a wall of some sort instead of glass, they board up the glass from the inside...always charming. If the units are all shallow and about 400 sq.ft, it forces retailers to combine units if they want, say, a restaurant with more than 6 tables, and then you have fewer uses on the block. McDonald's will not locate a store in a tiny cubicle underneath an arcade where there's little visibility and little opportunity for anything to be customized. Only in some, usually high-visibility, developments is the retail leased out and customized during construction. More often, the speculative storefronts are mummified in brown paper until some little fishy swims along, grabs the worm, and opens...it's amusing when the first little fishy is a real estate outlet showcasing all the units currently offered by flippers in the condo above.

I also mentioned the monotonizing role of planners and city officials in forcing comprehensive and cohesive developments, though much of this does have good intentions and some is done in the name of quality urban design. They're requesting the horrible arcades and hideous awnings [that hide the retail much better than they ever protect people from the elements]. They're approving the block long projects, but if developers acquiring and combining properties are the only ones developing anything, it's an uphill battle. If they're not careful, they'll even be cited for requiring token retail in places where vibrant retail strips aren't particularly viable...we'll see what materializes on the Avenues.
 
great post man! The skyline is certainly growing, but the street level is surely being diminished and sterilized. The humanity is so frequently lost in our modern, rational, efficient, technological wonders...

just to be clear in regards to the comments about retail at street level... on this particular project I dont think we are expecting to see any of that are we? I mean, this is meant to be a cultural edifice and as such I would expect all the programming of the street front would reflect the intended use of the building. How odd would it be during TIFF to see a Pizza Pizza and a Subway on either side of the red carpet?
 
Last edited:
great post man! The skyline is certainly growing, but the street level is surely being diminished and sterilized. The humanity is so frequently lost in our modern, rational, efficient, technological wonders...

just to be clear in regards to the comments about retail at street level... on this particular project I dont think we are expecting to see any of that are we? I mean, this is meant to be a cultural edifice and as such I would expect all the programming of the street front would reflect the intended use of the building. How odd would it be during TIFF to see a Pizza Pizza and a Subway on either side of the red carpet?

It beats a parking lot....

There are reasons to agree and disagree with what you said in general, but I'm not sure anyone would find this a lacking building in terms of character.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know why that charcol grey cladding looks to pillow a little? Is it just bad worksmanship?
 
just to be clear in regards to the comments about retail at street level... on this particular project I dont think we are expecting to see any of that are we? I mean, this is meant to be a cultural edifice and as such I would expect all the programming of the street front would reflect the intended use of the building. How odd would it be during TIFF to see a Pizza Pizza and a Subway on either side of the red carpet?

If I have this all right... To the east of the Lightbox entrance will be an Oliver & Bonacini run cafe. To the west of the entrance will be access to TIFF's gallery/exhibition space, and a film-related shop, and at the west end of the building will be a Bell retail outlet.

Does anyone know why that charcoal grey cladding looks to pillow a little? Is it just bad workmanship?

I'm underwhelmed by that too so far... is the stuff too thin a gauge?

42
 
Does anyone know why that charcol grey cladding looks to pillow a little? Is it just bad worksmanship?
I noticed that too and now i have a strong urge to jump against it to see what happens :D seriously thou it looks really cheap imo
 
i've never seen a building use so many types of finishing material. the only thing it seems to be missing is stone (fingers crossed for the sidewalks, folks).
 
The first time I saw that small section on King St many months ago, it looked cheap and out of place for a building like this.

I agree there is way too many type of material on this project and clash with some of them in various places.

Not impress how this was installed and gives a fake look.
IMG_nov-02-09-0187.jpg
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Is it possible that something else is go on the top of this? It really looks like some kind of insulation or something. Otherwise, yeah. It looks really bad.
 

Back
Top