[Urban Shocker]

There is a touch of Foster's Leslie Dan Pharmacy Bldg about it as well.

... and more than a touch of the Oslo Opera House with all those wide, processional steps.

 

[TonyV]

All good, valid points. I love Yonge Street downtown, have for decades. I guess I just have to get my head around the inevitable change that will come and I worry about the fate of many of the buildings that line this stretch.

I would have to tell you, dt, I took a lovely long walk down Yonge, starting from Bloor, today. I love the part of Yonge north of Wellesley. I wouldn't want to lose 'any/most' of the old buildings in those blocks (and there would be big fights about it anyway) -- but I wish that the environment could be sparked up somehow -- street lamps and plantings. It's time for Toronto to get into that, although the electorate seems to be pulling in the other direction. So please, rest assured that some things are sacred with me.

I think the condo nodes should be concentrated at intersections like Yonge/Bloor, and Yonge/College - and let's keep the historic, or what's left of it, north of Wellesley, please! I just can't stand those folks who think that everything should be new -- that would be boring !!!

I really do think that Yonge below approximately College is in for wholesale change ....

 

[adma]

A dumpy, seedy Yonge Street, not for me.

Yeah, but said "dumpy, seedy Yonge" includes items like John Lyle's Thornton-Smith Building (the new Salad King location); the old Lou Myles building just north of the Zanzibar; and the Gerrard Building and Lyle's Dominion Bank at Yonge + Gerrard. If you're eager to toss those particular items out with the bathwater, then...

 

[Bayer]

There are interesting buildings on Yonge Street that should be preserved. But as for the rest of it, from Paris, where I'm staying in April, any hand-wringing about Yonge Street, of all places, seems utterly ridiculous. This new Ryerson building cannot possibly be worse than what it is replacing.

 

[condovo]

Yeah, but said "dumpy, seedy Yonge" includes items like John Lyle's Thornton-Smith Building (the new Salad King location); the old Lou Myles building just north of the Zanzibar; and the Gerrard Building and Lyle's Dominion Bank at Yonge + Gerrard. If you're eager to toss those particular items out with the bathwater, then...

No, I'm not. Yonge has some worthy buildings that should stay. I'd love to peal away all the crap covering some less obvious gems too, like the Pizza Pizza monstrosity at Yonge and Elm, which may be concealing an intact Vitrolite storefront. I mean, Yonge St is just so degraded at this point. I'd no more feel nostalgia here than a favela in Rio.

 

[Tewder]

There are interesting buildings on Yonge Street that should be preserved. But as for the rest of it, from Paris, where I'm staying in April, any hand-wringing about Yonge Street, of all places, seems utterly ridiculous. This new Ryerson building cannot possibly be worse than what it is replacing.

They do all kinds of hand wringing about these things in Paris, which is the point after all.

 

[Bayer]

They do all kinds of hand wringing about these things in Paris, which is the point after all.

Of course, but what they have to preserve is in another league altogether.

 

[paul]

I don't really get why Ryerson is building this. They have huge shortages in residence spaces, it seems like they have more need of classrooms, there is already a student centre attached to Oakham House, there's a library and a grad student study-building already for studying.

Why are they building what is basically eight stories of foyer? Why aren't they building a residence? Or a residence/classroom mix, in the style of older colleges.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I feel that the commercial activity of Yonge in the area will not be adversely impacted by this one more institutional element.

On the larger philosophical question about the street and dumpiness. I think we should not forget the human element. The human element, the interconnecting layers of responsibilities and ownership matter. I think some of the "worst or ugliest" streetscapes are intrinsically the most human because you as a person are free and invited to participate in being part of the street. The larger, more institutionalised, more subject to laws and preservation a street becomes, the less human it is. Normal people in a city-scape where all the buildings are large, professionally managed, historically preserved, expensive, etc. are really just tourists in their own communities. You might call some areas of the city dumpy but they are still places where a person can imagine themselves owning a business, buying the building or live in a place they can call their own. But people are intrinsically conflicted, messy, subject to emotions, subject to irrational behaviour, change over time, have different tastes and priorities. etc. In other words they are non-uniform. To get a uniform aesthetic you have to take the human out of the street.

 

[Tulse]

I don't want uniform, but I don't necessarily want strip clubs and dollar stores, either.

 

[Tewder]

Of course, but what they have to preserve is in another league altogether.

Yes, but in that sense it's even more worthy of hand-wringing in Toronto than in Paris. The nice thing about heritage, as opposed to natural/geographic assets, is that any place can choose to have a built heritage one day, even Toronto. We have to choose to care though like the French do.

 

[junctionist]

The larger, more institutionalised, more subject to laws and preservation a street becomes, the less human it is. Normal people in a city-scape where all the buildings are large, professionally managed, historically preserved, expensive, etc. are really just tourists in their own communities. You might call some areas of the city dumpy but they are still places where a person can imagine themselves owning a business, buying the building or live in a place they can call their own. But people are intrinsically conflicted, messy, subject to emotions, subject to irrational behaviour, change over time, have different tastes and priorities. etc. In other words they are non-uniform. To get a uniform aesthetic you have to take the human out of the street.

Leaving aside the issue of uniformity, why would you want the negative aspects of human psychology reflected in streets? Preserved streetscapes are emblematic of work towards a common good: preserving the cultural history that everyone shares.

 

[3Dementia]

Toronto ain't Paris or London. There will never be another Paris.

What Toronto is.. is barely organized mayhem of bad choices, daring choices that often fail, daring choices that work, classic timeless choices (Victorian architecture) that are the foundation of the urban fabric... and god knows what is coming next choices, as we grow.. up.

And that's pretty cool. Perhaps unique. I like Jackson Pollock.

I want Yonge to have a great strip club. And this Ryerson piece of suprise and urban drama. And 1 Bloor.

This total, ever-changing mess called Toronto is truly one-of-a-kind. And I love it. Better than TV.

 

[Tulse]

I want Yonge to have a great strip club.

I'm perhaps not the best judge of these things, not being a frequenter of the establishments, but I doubt that either the Brass Rail or the Zanzibar count as "great" strip clubs. They sure ain't the Moulin Rouge.

I do like texture to the urban landscape, and I'm not at all against strip clubs, dollar stores, cheap electronics shops and the like. But this is Yonge Street, which, as the main north-south downtown artery, ideally should have an environment fitting its iconic status.

 

[3Dementia]

^ your comment confuses... Yonge Street's "iconic status" as you put it, was built on an urban stew of music clubs/stores, strip clubs, head shops, buy anything et al... Yonge Street is Fun Street.