[AlvinofDiaspar]

arvelomcquaig:

The area in question (not just the immediate strip along Yonge) is already quite dense - and it wasn't like densification isn't happening at sites that can accomodate it, nor was anyone against densification on this particular site in a form that is more respectful of the heritage character of the street. While it is a bit of a stretch to apply the standards from say Paris to this strip, would one argue that 6s buildings a "waste" considering the amount of infrastructure available there? And besides, if we are going to argue for densification, then why aren't we levelling the architecturally and urbanistically worthless single detached housing out at say Glencarin, where the density and usage of existing infrastructure is low and insist that dumping everything along this oversubscribed corridor is the correct planning decision?

AoD

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Your point that I agree with most is the last, that the proliferation of big new buildings like this will render the retail spaces inaccessible to more interesting, locally-owned businesses. The way I see it, I think it's more important that the most central street in the city has a built form that takes full advantage of the vertical space, and the accessibility of the place – not to mention is highly architecturally interesting – than to prevent the retail spaces becoming inaccessible. Further, I think that such new retail areas would gradually become more accessible as time went on. Basically it seems that if we were to prevent development that increases the costs of an area, we could never build anything new because that seems a necessary effect of development. And so much of the built form of Toronto – even in the core of cores, like the spot spoken of here – is incredibly wasteful and mediocre and needs to be updated as the city grows.

Allow me to throw this one out there. I was out on Bloor West last week and thought that there are two good sized, run-down retail properties at Bloor & Bathurst that are prime for development. The former Sonic Boom space and the whole north-west corner from Bathurst over to the ReMax office (where the Eve/Alhambra cinema used to be). There's no precedent for height around here, so perhaps start at 20, maybe 25 stories?

 

[arvelomcquaig]

arvelomcquaig:

The area in question (not just the immediate strip along Yonge) is already quite dense - and it wasn't like densification isn't happening at sites that can accomodate it, nor was anyone against densification on this particular site in a form that is more respectful of the heritage character of the street. While it is a bit of a stretch to apply the standards from say Paris to this strip, would one argue that 6s buildings a "waste" considering the amount of infrastructure available there? And besides, if we are going to argue for densification, then why aren't we levelling the architecturally and urbanistically worthless single detached housing out at say Glencarin, where the density and usage of existing infrastructure is low and insist that dumping everything along this oversubscribed corridor is the correct planning decision?

AoD

I do think that buildings on Yonge St. south of Bloor should be taller than six storeys, yes. It just seems like if any place in the entire country is going to have tall buildings, this should be it. I can't comprehend why they should be barred from this area, or their presence even lessened. Yonge seems the most worthy place in Canada to become a canyon of tall buildings.

And are you suggesting Glencarin is comparable to Yonge south of Bloor in its centrality? I wouldn't say that Glencarin should be devoid of tall buildings, no, but I also think it's vastly different from the situation that I'm talking about.

 

[arvelomcquaig]

Allow me to throw this one out there. I was out on Bloor West last week and thought that there are two good sized, run-down retail properties at Bloor & Bathurst that are prime for development. The former Sonic Boom space and the whole north-west corner from Bathurst over to the ReMax office (where the Eve/Alhambra cinema used to be). There's no precedent for height around here, so perhaps start at 20, maybe 25 stories?

If you mean to illustrate that such places shouldn't have tall buildings, I disagree. I'd love to see some 20-25 storey buildings in this area (being very close to where I live), although I wouldn't want to see good architecture destroyed in the process. However, there are a lot of wastefully short and mediocre buildings here that should be turned into something better, like the Pizza Pizza corner.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Allow me to throw this one out there. I was out on Bloor West last week and thought that there are two good sized, run-down retail properties at Bloor & Bathurst that are prime for development. The former Sonic Boom space and the whole north-west corner from Bathurst over to the ReMax office (where the Eve/Alhambra cinema used to be). There's no precedent for height around here, so perhaps start at 20, maybe 25 stories?

I'm not sure if you're just setting up an 'nth degree' scenario but I'd be fine with that.

If you mean to illustrate that such places shouldn't have tall buildings, I disagree. I'd love to see some 20-25 storey buildings in this area (being very close to where I live), although I wouldn't want to see good architecture destroyed in the process. However, there are a lot of wastefully short and mediocre buildings here that should be turned into something better, like the Pizza Pizza corner.

Honest Ed's?

 

[arvelomcquaig]

Of course the Honest Ed's building should be preserved. I suppose you're joking?

 

[marsh]

So why is Honest Ed's worthy of preservation but not the Victorian brick housing along Yonge Street? (just because they've been allowed to be deteriorate doesn't mean they should be destroyed - there should meaningful preservation policies). I agree that Yonge Street should be left low rise. I don't care how many urban planning experts tell me that if properly designed you won't notice a skyscraper when walking down the sidewalk - I feel the difference between walking along Yonge Street and walking along Bay Street. And I much perfer Yonge Street with its lowrise, people friendly mish-mash of stores which reflect the history of the street.

Also, we have over development at the moment. The Yonge University subway line is at over capacity,the Bay bus isn't much better and our streets our crowded. We have a lack of public space in the downtown core, I could go on. Promises keep being made about infrastructure investment - but I have to see any meaningful improvement in terms of my day to day to living experience.

Lastly, there was an interesting article posted on another thread (i forget which one) about retail and condos. This article said that condo developers prefer large, national and international chain stores as opposed to local independent stores because there is frankly less risk. Hence the homogenization of neighourhoods that often occurs with condo development. Also, this has important implications for local economy as a whole if we drive out small businesses. The other issue with condos is that there is an often conflict between the condo owners and retail - for example, condo owners maybe concerned about noise and smells from restaurants or bars.

As a result, you end with the retail mess of Bay street - Starbucks, dry cleaners. medical offices and mini markets. Or simply store vacancies for long periods of times.

Frankly, I think we really need to rethink this whole mixture of Condos with retail at the base - it isn't working.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

arvelomcquaig:

I do think that buildings on Yonge St. south of Bloor should be taller than six storeys, yes. It just seems like if any place in the entire country is going to have tall buildings, this should be it. I can't comprehend why they should be barred from this area, or their presence even lessened. Yonge seems the most worthy place in Canada to become a canyon of tall buildings.

I don't believe "a canyon of tall buildings" is a valid urban planning or design goal - what is the justification? Density? Density doesn't necessitate tall towers in every spot, nor prevent exceptions to the rule where justifiable. And actually, University Ave. is a far more appropriate for a "canyon of tall buildings" given its' width and monumentality.

And are you suggesting Glencarin is comparable to Yonge south of Bloor in its centrality? I wouldn't say that Glencarin should be devoid of tall buildings, no, but I also think it's vastly different from the situation that I'm talking about.

No, but centrality is reflected by the general land use intensity of the area, we aren't suggesting that area in question shouldn't be dense. On the matter of "waste" - one can easily argue that a very narrow strip of 2s in an area that is dense in every sense of the word is a far less wasteful configuration.

marsh:

Actually if you ask me - Honest Ed is far more eligible for wholesale redevelopment than the Yonge strip, given the integrity of the latter as an extended streetscape.

AoD

 

[greenleaf]

Just tossing an idea out there: instead of hiding it under some glass wall, perhaps the above ground parking garage here should be embraced and designed such that the parked autos are showcased with some wavy/rounded aA form that would reference the balconies on their other towers (i.e. Market Wharf)? I thinking something akin to Marina City in Chicago.

 

[Miscreant]

Of course the Honest Ed's building should be preserved. I suppose you're joking?

I was just saying to my partner the other day that in, mmm, 15 years or so, if not fewer, we're going to start hearing about Honest Ed's cashing out for good and some developers wanting to get all over that much-coveted piece of real estate.

The issue is that if Honest Ed's is preserved, I can't imagine someone actually daring to stick a condo on top. But I could be wrong. Something about the flashing lights as the mini-podium just doesn't strike me as a selling point.

Either way, Honest Ed's just continues to rent out retail space because it's just not bringing in what it used to. And I don't even want to think about what it costs to run that place. It's massive.

 

[sixrings]

I was just saying to my partner the other day that in, mmm, 15 years or so, if not fewer, we're going to start hearing about Honest Ed's cashing out for good and some developers wanting to get all over that much-coveted piece of real estate.

The issue is that if Honest Ed's is preserved, I can't imagine someone actually daring to stick a condo on top. But I could be wrong. Something about the flashing lights as the mini-podium just doesn't strike me as a selling point.

Either way, Honest Ed's just continues to rent out retail space because it's just not bringing in what it used to. And I don't even want to think about what it costs to run that place. It's massive.

Keep the exterior and this is the PERFECT place for a Toronto Museum.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

sixrings:

Not really - it will forever taint the image of the city in the minds of the visitors. The sign belongs to the museum - the rest can definitely be relegated to the trashbin.

greenleaf:

Though it isn't a bad idea, I think the site and the urban context requires something a bit less direct.

AoD

 

[someMidTowner]

Honest Ed's as a museum?

With such groundbreaking exhibits as:

Back to the drawing board

 

[sixrings]

Honest Ed's as a museum?


Back to the drawing board

the entire interior can be gutted and rebuilt. If you just remove the sign with the idea of putting it up again you create another sam the record man scenario. Honest eds is close enough downtown for tourists and big enough for a TORONTO museum...

 

[Loozrboy]

The Village Green Tenant Alliance (who I believe has a representative on the working group panel) is circulating a flyer claiming that Lanterra has reduced the proposal to 48 + 52 storeys. I don't recall hearing anything about that at the last working group meeting, but I may have missed one. Unconfirmed or not, I guess it's not unexpected.