[agoraflaneur]

Originally Posted by agoraflaneur
I don't think that Yonge will become Bay street simply because things are redeveloped.

Originally Poster by AlphaTO
What is your basis for making this assertion? It seems to be counterintuitive. If you impose a Bay Street plan with a corrdidor of tall towers along Yonge, isn't it reasonable to expect the same result of a deadening of the street?

This is indeed a complex issue and I don't want to give the impression that I am simply stating this as fact. My main reason for believing that Yonge will remain a vibrant retail strip is its current character. Perhaps I am mistaken since I have only been in Toronto a few years, but I believe Bay street was never a retail strip - Yonge always fulfilled that role.

So, I assume that new developments will include retail. If they don't, I don't support them. As I mentioned, a 5ive-style development is my preferred option, where brick heritage buildings remain to preserve the character and experience.

However, I believe that Yonge in run down right now - and not even in a good way (ie I love Queen and Dundas and Bloor where they are run down because interesting retail appears there to offset the general poverty and cheap businesses). The current businesses are not that much better than the Bay street cleaners in many cases.

So, I would say that fresh retail could provide new energy in the area in a way that would be different than Bay: retailers would want to locate on Yonge and the demand would be met by developers. The potential for Yorkville to move to Yonge is enticing for me; even better would be more artistic Queen-style establishments. Still, anything other than strip clubs and cheap dollar stores everywhere would be better (not that some won't remain).

In the end, the historic position of Yonge as a retail strip combined with its current inability to function as an interesting central arterial for the city lead me to believe that a revitalization with development is possible. Everyone knows Yonge and goes there when they come to Toronto - most are just disappointed with its lost potential. I think it will become MORE of a destination, not less. But the community needs to push for as much heritage and streetscape improvements as possible.

 

[caltrane74]

I think it's working out as a trade-off of sorts. The developers get to build they condos in the sky, and in return Yonge Street gets upgraded retail facilities, with the side effect of creating a more desirable shopping district in the downtown Toronto context, to compete with Yorkville, Dundas Square-Eaton Centre, and Queen West. This part of Yonge needs a serious overhaul. Lots of homeless kids, crackheads, and small-time retail. This is a chance to bring what's happening at Yonge and Dundas, or Yorkville and bring some of this nicer retail to the northern part of the strip. Keeping it's character but improving it's economic impact for the district. - Height is not the problem, the problem is maintaining the lower scale podium in relation to the existing structures and businesses.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I'm not sure I follow you. First, what is willy-nilly?

Definition of WILLY-NILLY
1: by compulsion : without choice
2: in a haphazard or spontaneous manner

Do these buildings contravene the planning policies (genuine question)? It seems to me that next to our busiest subway, tall buildings are allowed - is this incorrect?

This section of Yonge is in a grey zone, it's currently zoned for low rise but any developer can apply for added height which is very common across the city. A North Downtown Yonge Planning Framework is currently in progress which was initiated by the numerous high rise building applications received over the past several years - http://www.toronto.ca/planning/northyongeplanningframework.htm

Second, I stated that I am open to cogent arguments against tall buildings here - but what are they? Why do tall buildings not respect the neighbourhood? My experience living at Sherbourne and Carlton when I first moved to Toronto was that, yes, there are cute little houses dotted in the area that add significantly to its desireability, but the dominant built form is taller towers - though, to be sure, the range is more 20 to 30 storeys right now. Are there shadowing issues? You just don't think a tall building is nice? Blocked views? Seriously, Charles street is budding with 40s + proposals, and Casa is really nice - it doesn't destroy anything in my opinion. Please, tell me why you believe they do. Are 30s towers more appropriate?

I honestly have no love loss for either of these properties, they serve the function as retail establishments well but beyond that they're disposable buildings. I don't buy the "blocked views"/"lost views" argument except in extreme cases where buildings go up metres away from one another, Uptown and Crystal Blu are good examples of that. My concern here is with the low rise charactor along this greatly neglected stretch of Yonge Street and the great walk-ability factor that is found along here. Many late 19th/early 20th century buildings also sit on this stretch just begging for restoration (read: many are not in good shape), some have had shameful faux restorations completed ruining entire blocks and yet other sections or buildings are disposable but to me that doesn't mean tear down and build 60 storeys on Yonge. I support most of the 'off-Yonge' projects, where appropriate, such as Casa/BSN/FIVE/Karma etc. I'd really like to see the low rise charactor of the Carlton to Bloor stretch of Yonge retained with tax incentives or the like to encourage landlords to restore the fronts (and interiors) of the older building stock along here. Re: Charles Street, there is no low rise neighbourhood north of there to block sunlight so IMO it's a great street to build high, unfortunately many projects along there in the past 5-7 years came at the expense of losing some great old housing stock.

I agree mostly with what UD said, except that I don't see many 7s podiums on Yonge. I think the 3-4s that is the dominant form would be ideal to preserve. There are indeed many squat modern buildings that have little redeeming value, and I hope that they are all developed eventually to meet the street better while allowing for small retail.

There are maybe a dozen mid-rise office/hotel/apartment/condo buildings that dot the Bloor to Carlton corridor on Yonge, most everything else is in the two or three storey range. UD noted the Scientology building at St. Mary street, imagine if you can that building stretched out horizontally six times, that's a pretty close guide to what is proposed for the block between Alexander and Maitland Street for the 501 project.

UD's point against those who suggest that the businesses are worth saving is apt: these can relocate elsewhere if the demand exists, but otherwise they are not adding a lot to the culture of Toronto. I don't think that Yonge will become Bay street simply because things are redeveloped. The strip under question here is absolutely terrible almost anything will be better. Retail frontage must be insisted upon by the city, though.

You don't like what's along here, that's fine, it clearly doesn't please everyone. I think this stretch rocks and I'll take it over the Eaton Centre any day. No doubt there are a few junk stores along here but it's also dotted with plenty of alternative retail, food and drink establishments that you won't find in any shopping mall hence the massive draw to the area for those to shop for the unusual and enjoy the many great eateries here, not to mention how well these establishments serve the surrounding communities. Retail on Yonge Street constantly evolves too. A walk down in, say, 2009 is a very different walk in 2011.

 

[agoraflaneur]

Definition of WILLY-NILLY
1: by compulsion : without choice
2: in a haphazard or spontaneous manner

Um, right, I don't know the definition. My question had to do with why exactly these towers constitute a willy-nilly approach. Certainly they are not of the same built form as the rest of the area, but there is another 60s tower proposed just south and across the street, while a 70s will be at Bloor. The towers would taper off in height from Yonge toward Jarvis and Parliament. That seems apt to me - and the opposite of willy-nilly.

You don't like what's along here, that's fine, it clearly doesn't please everyone. I think this stretch rocks and I'll take it over the Eaton Centre any day. No doubt there are a few junk stores along here but it's also dotted with plenty of alternative retail, food and drink establishments that you won't find in any shopping mall hence the massive draw to the area for those to shop for the unusual and enjoy the many great eateries here, not to mention how well these establishments serve the surrounding communities. Retail on Yonge Street constantly evolves too. A walk down in, say, 2009 is a very different walk in 2011.

I would like all the brick buildings saved. I don't dislike all the retail - in fact some of it is quite good. I think diversity is good. But we have to be honest, that as this area gentrifies, the dollar stores and money marts and strip clubs will likely relocate. I like some of the clothing stores and many of the restaurants, and I wouldn't dictate what would be there, I am just saying that obviously new condo owners will change the face of Yonge. I believe that heritage restoration a la 5ive is worth the loss of those stores that serve the lower income clientele who do populate the area. As of now, the rents - or the property owners - don't seem to justify the restoration.

 

[TonyV]

WRT the 501 Yonge project specifics, I feel that the following issues should be addressed in the interests of quality city-building:

- Let's get a high-profile discussion about land use going. I feel that the peeves about the parking garage are absolutely valid (and in a previous post I wrote that the parking structure should just be scrapped).

- Most of us have grasped that the podium design and usage can make or break this development. Well, there is a front and a back to that podium: Yonge, and the laneway. Such a preoccupation with the Yonge side, while ignoring the laneway? It's sort of fatalistic to be saying, at the start of things, "well, a laneway is a laneway". The city should push for, as much as possible, a seamless flow from this development to the existing neighbourhood, and that effort will be won or lost by treatment of the laneway. Clearly, the backside of this development is an opportunity to integrate into the older parts of the neighbourhood. Less than this approach is sort of crass, and it smacks of ignoring the city-building agenda. (I know that I should repeat: the final plans are not yet released).

- I have no problem with heights proposed, so much as I would have a problem with bad (or clumsy) proportioning. I'd ignore the "all development is bad" knee-jerk reaction of some residents, and focus on getting some quality here. Somewhere down the road, more development proposals will come up; this one should set a precedent. I am darned certain that aA can produce awesome stuff ...not sure about the developer anymore, although I don't wish to tar them.

 

[greenleaf]

Most of us have grasped that the podium design and usage can make or break this development. Well, there is a front and a back to that podium: Yonge, and the laneway. Such a preoccupation with the Yonge side, while ignoring the laneway? It's sort of fatalistic to be saying, at the start of things, "well, a laneway is a laneway". The city should push for, as much as possible, a seamless flow from this development to the existing neighbourhood, and that effort will be won or lost by treatment of the laneway. Clearly, the backside of this development is an opportunity to integrate into the older parts of the neighbourhood. Less than this approach is sort of crass, and it smacks of ignoring the city-building agenda. (I know that I should repeat: the final plans are not yet released).

Perhaps the best case scenario for the laneway might be a covered Colonnade style back lane, which might create a wider space for cars, trucks, service, and pedestrians.

edit: the more I think about, the more I think this project in this location could repeat exactly what the Colonnade does for the first 3 levels very, very successfully:same amount of retail on main level, retail and offices on 2nd & 3rd level via cut in mid block to break up the long block, building lobby is accessible via covered laneway) with parking starting on the 3rd to fifth level, for example. And then instead of a 16s slab, two point towers.

 

[AlphaTO]

Perhaps the best case scenario for the laneway might be a covered Colonnade style back lane, which might create a wider space for cars, trucks, service, and pedestrians.

edit: the more I think about, the more I think this project in this location could repeat exactly what the Colonnade does for the first 3 levels very, very successfully:same amount of retail on main level, retail and offices on 2nd & 3rd level via cut in mid block to break up the long block, building lobby is accessible via covered laneway) with parking starting on the 3rd to fifth level, for example. And then instead of a 16s slab, two point towers.

I'm not sure I'm understanding how a Colonnade approach to Maitland Terrace would resolve its narrowness and the difficulty of traffic passing both ways and the traffic of cars, delivery and maintenance vehicles backing up onto Maitland Street.

 

[greenleaf]

I'm not sure I'm understanding how a Colonnade approach to Maitland Terrace would resolve its narrowness and the difficulty of traffic passing both ways and the traffic of cars, delivery and maintenance vehicles backing up onto Maitland Street.

It would add another lane parallel to the current lane.

 

[AlphaTO]

It would add another lane parallel to the current lane.

I'm not understanding. How would this be done? There are buildings on the other side of Maitland Terrace. The only way to expand the lane is by Lanterra pulling back its project by at least 3 meters - something I think is unlikely to happen.

 

[TonyV]

An idea from TonyV ...

I’ve really been busting my brain over this. Perhaps my idea here is a win-win. I believe there is at least some elegance in what I have outlined below, and even some polish. Mostly, it says “city” all over it. For the first time I wish I had rendering software…

I am a former resident of the neighbourhood east of this proposal and I think I have a feeling for what would be a true enhancement that may just be win-win.

So, hold on to your hats, hairpieces, whatevah …

In Brief:

• No height restrictions (with some conditions, please read on)

• No above-grade parking in this development (if the developer finds a way to dig under the Yonge subway for parking, then congratulations are due)

• The establishment of a small new covered public area between the towers that will make the residents east of this development, and Torontonians in general, kneel in thanks.
​

Ok, architects and developer, I’ve got your attention. Here are the details:

1. Condo towers should be emaciated. That is to say, e-m-a-c-i-a-t-e-d. I don’t care if they go 120+ floors, for heaven’s sake, as long as they are pencil thin.

2. The condo towers should be bridged together, not with parking, but with a suspended structure, allowing a two-storey high outdoor space beneath it. (Architects, think of the east-west structures to be suspended at right-angles above the north-south oriented buildings at Pier 27, and play on that).
​

The suspended structure:

• Allows for a public space below it .. go crazy thinking of its uses

• The suspended structure could be one or two storeys in and of itself, no more (think of OCAD)

• Should have a restaurant on top that is open-air in summer and enclosed in winter

• Principally makes this area of Yonge “permeable” to what is behind it, gets rid of the laneway effect behind the proposal, and integrates Yonge to the neighbourhood to the east.
​

The condo towers:

• Should be at the extreme north and south ends of the site

• Should have an east-west orientation in order to keep the slenderest possible elevation facing Yonge

• Should have inward faces (under the “bridging structure”) featuring cool stuff – coffee shops, what-have-you, accessible only from outdoors.
​

The covered square:

• Should contain some art.
​

Lastly ...

Residents will not like some of the Saturday night rowdyism that will inevitably take place in the square, but that is not a bad tradeoff compared to being walled out of the area as per the current proposal. In other words, this above solution would result in integration, not isolation. Employ security.

Other posters are invited to embellish my idea. I've no claim on these (although they came from my brain) ...go crazy. Most of all, think urban!

Frankly, it is the parking structure which is killing any appeal that this proposal may offer. Do away with the parking and get with the urban program. This effort introduces a break in "the wall" of Yonge that just may be a welcome variation. Try to keep an open mind.

 

[Homer]

Judging by the posts I guess I am the only one that love the stores in this area. About ten years ago I worked near Yonge north of Wellesley and I miss it. There were lots of little independent bars and restaurants we would have lunch at or meet after work at. I would stroll into a number of used CD/Movie stores. There were a couple of leather stores (for motorcycle gear), a few coffee shops. If it gets filled with retail stores and chain restaurants at the bottom of condo towers it will get ruined. Look at the Keg that was at the bottom of church, it is a chain retaurant but it had character on Church, but know in the bottom of a condo.... well just my opinions anyway.

 

[TonyV]

^Homer, I get it, I get your point. And there are things I miss a lot, for example I miss being able to see the back of the Royal York, which is beautifully detailed, and I remember my disappointment as the more recent buildings on Wellington blocked it.

In fact, I had the kind of mom who took me to see things like the Temple (IOF) Building at Bay and Richmond before it got torn down ("I wanna make sure you see this before it goes, dear"), so I guess this sort of thing is in my DNA.

Having said all of that, I embrace reality. Those stores you write about are gone, history. Toronto's official word is "change". My perspective is that citizens must insist on good, win-win change. There must have been some lessons learned by now.

 

[kkgg7]

What is your basis for making this assertion? It seems to be counterintuitive. If you impose a Bay Street plan with a corrdidor of tall towers along Yonge, isn't it reasonable to expect the same result of a deadening of the street?

Bay street is 99% residential with no life whatsoever while Yonge Street is full of various retail stores. How does a few condos towers make Yonge st what is Bay today, particularly when new retail will be added at the base?

Do you really think those crappy souvenir/discount stores, horrible sushi restaurants and "Quick Cash" offices add life and vibrancy to Yonge St? When was the last time you shopped in any of those? Yonge st is Toronto's most important street with one of our two subway lines running under it, anyone who expects it to remain in its current 2-3 storeyed low rise dominating condition must be out of his mind. It will be overhauled whether you like it or not. 2-3 storey small narrow houses will gradually be replaced by 30-80 storey towers, particularly between Gerrard and Bloor. Yonge is where high density is supposed to be. It is stupid and a waste of space for, for example, the intersection of Yonge and Maitland, to be occupied by a two storey T-shirt store and a one-storey Mexican restaurant no one ever visits.

If you prefer small lower rise "historic" houses, outside the core area between Church and Spadina, doesn't 99% of the city already looks exactly like that? Bay street is dead not because there are many high rise condos, it is due to the utter lack of any retail space. That IS a lesson we need to learn when planning for other streets.

 

[Red October]

In what universe is Bay 99% residential?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Bay street is 99% residential with no life whatsoever while Yonge Street is full of various retail stores. How does a few condos towers make Yonge st what is Bay today, particularly when new retail will be added at the base?

The greatly residential section of Bay Street from Gerrard to Bloor does have some street life, albeit limited and sporadic but to say it has no life is inaccurate.

Do you really think those crappy souvenir/discount stores, horrible sushi restaurants and "Quick Cash" offices add life and vibrancy to Yonge St? When was the last time you shopped in any of those? Yonge st is Toronto's most important street with one of our two subway lines running under it, anyone who expects it to remain in its current 2-3 storeyed low rise dominating condition must be out of his mind. It will be overhauled whether you like it or not. 2-3 storey small narrow houses will gradually be replaced by 30-80 storey towers, particularly between Gerrard and Bloor. Yonge is where high density is supposed to be. It is stupid and a waste of space for, for example, the intersection of Yonge and Maitland, to be occupied by a two storey T-shirt store and a one-storey Mexican restaurant no one ever visits.

You've listed only the worst of what can be found on Yonge Street though I could argue some of it necessary, you missed all the other great shops, services and eateries that line the strip you refer to. I personally do not like the idea of 30-80 storey buildings lining this section in the future which is why I so strongly oppose the 501 & 460 projects, dangerous precedents are being set here. The North Downtown Yonge Planning Framework project should hopefully address height, building form, save the buildings and put a stop to what you are hoping for.

If you prefer small lower rise "historic" houses, outside the core area between Church and Spadina, doesn't 99% of the city already looks exactly like that? Bay street is dead not because there are many high rise condos, it is due to the utter lack of any retail space. That IS a lesson we need to learn when planning for other streets.

The Bay Street condo corridor was poorly planned but there's plenty of retail, look at what's in the retail and that's what you can look forward to with all your 30-80 storey buildings on Yonge Street destroying a perfectly wonderful, walkable street forever if you get your wish. That is the real lesson here.