yrt+viva=1system said:
Considering some of the demographics in the condo and the surrounding area, I think a T&T or Galleria store would work really well here. I've passed by the small scale H-Mart and Galleria stores in the area and they are always busy.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea. I'm in the area, and last week I was unable to find karashi and kombu for dashi anywhere and had to order HonDashi and powdered mustard online from Haisue. Then the grocery store at Manulife somehow replaced the white miso it usually carries with doenjang - the packages are similar.
 
I think Panda's basement makes a bit more sense - Yonge and Bloor is not an area I'd equate with the sort of "young people hanging out" demographic that the Ball Room goes for.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Interesting. They were looking at Panda's basement space as well.
Click to expand...
Parkdalian said:
I think Panda's basement makes a bit more sense - Yonge and Bloor is not an area I'd equate with the sort of "young people hanging out" demographic that the Ball Room goes for.
Click to expand...
It appears that may be happening as well, which strikes me (ha - see what I did there?) as a very aggressive expansion.

This line is included in the RetailInsider article:
There are four basic concepts – Ballroom Bowl, Ballroom Social, Ballmart (which will move out into the suburbs) and the Ballroom Bowl Mechanical, going into Yonge and Dundas and other locations.
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely love this, we need more of this in the city especially in the downtown core where entertainment options have been plummeting severely.

Parkdalian said:
I think Panda's basement makes a bit more sense - Yonge and Bloor is not an area I'd equate with the sort of "young people hanging out" demographic that the Ball Room goes for.
Click to expand...
This should be very successful here, there are more young people then you think around the area. I look at it from the other way around, I think they'll do a lot better here than they would at Panda's basement. I dont see heavy pedestrian traffic there (on Edward St) at any point during the day/night and it would be tougher to draw a crowd there.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It appears that may be happening as well, which strikes me (ha - see what I did there?) as a very aggressive expansion.

This line is included in the RetailInsider article:
Click to expand...

Saw that too, thought of the same space (note, the former World's Biggest Bookstore, was also the former Olympia Bowling before that).,

But, I don't see any permits on the Panda site that would account for this. Which, of course, doesn't mean it's not happening, but it would seem not to be happening there just yet.
 
Has anyone heard any news about what could be filling in all the vacant retail space? I think the spaces are as follows: former Nordstrom Rack, former Tokyo Smoke, former Starbucks (interior space), and the massive two floors of retail on the east side of the building along Bloor.
 
DevDudeToronto said:
Has anyone heard any news about what could be filling in all the vacant retail space? I think the spaces are as follows: former Nordstrom Rack, former Tokyo Smoke, former Starbucks (interior space), and the massive two floors of retail on the east side of the building along Bloor.
Click to expand...
Other than The Ballroom going into the former McEwan's spot downstairs, I haven't heard a peep. There are spots on the East of the Bloor side that have been vacant the entire time the building's been up.
 
zang said:
Other than The Ballroom going into the former McEwan's spot downstairs, I haven't heard a peep. There are spots on the East of the Bloor side that have been vacant the entire time the building's been up.
Click to expand...
It's so bizzare that they'd keep those spots vacant instead of just lowering the rent. It doesn't even make financial sense to hold out for higher rent since the original leases would have expired by now. If they had leased it for even $1, that's $1 more than they would've made leaving it empty (yes I know that's a bit superfluous to say, but still......).
 
DevDudeToronto said:
It's so bizzare that they'd keep those spots vacant instead of just lowering the rent. It doesn't even make financial sense to hold out for higher rent since the original leases would have expired by now. If they had leased it for even $1, that's $1 more than they would've made leaving it empty (yes I know that's a bit superfluous to say, but still......).
Click to expand...
Welcome to the real estate greed-fest that is Toronto.
 
DevDudeToronto said:
It's so bizzare that they'd keep those spots vacant instead of just lowering the rent. It doesn't even make financial sense to hold out for higher rent since the original leases would have expired by now. If they had leased it for even $1, that's $1 more than they would've made leaving it empty (yes I know that's a bit superfluous to say, but still......).
Click to expand...
same situation with several new condo developments on Yonge - storefronts empty for years. the city needs to charge real estate companies an empty storefront tax similar to the vacant home tax.
 
DevDudeToronto said:
It's so bizzare that they'd keep those spots vacant instead of just lowering the rent. It doesn't even make financial sense to hold out for higher rent since the original leases would have expired by now. If they had leased it for even $1, that's $1 more than they would've made leaving it empty (yes I know that's a bit superfluous to say, but still......).
Click to expand...
Must be some kind of tax write-off. They wouldn't have kept it vacant for so long otherwise. Revenue Canada should close this loophole and the city should impose a punitive vacant commercial property tax.
 
busybeaver said:
same situation with several new condo developments on Yonge - storefronts empty for years. the city needs to charge real estate companies an empty storefront tax similar to the vacant home tax.
Click to expand...
At the Liberties (Bay & Gerrard), most of the commercial spaces remained empty for at least a decade. But to be fair, there were a lot fewer people living in the neighbourhood in the early 1990s.
 
DevDudeToronto said:
It's so bizzare that they'd keep those spots vacant instead of just lowering the rent. It doesn't even make financial sense to hold out for higher rent since the original leases would have expired by now. If they had leased it for even $1, that's $1 more than they would've made leaving it empty (yes I know that's a bit superfluous to say, but still......).
Click to expand...
My understanding is that if they lower the rent, the valuation of the property goes down, so they’d rather just maintain the value of their asset than rent it out.

Greedy? Yes. Bad for the city? Yes. But it does make sense.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top