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.
