Downtown Yonge

[Ryan_T]

Bad analogy. Small electronics companies would lack the resources necessary to craft things of Apple's caliber. Or if they can, it'll be so expensive, it'll appeal only to a select few.

 

[DtTO]

DtTO:



Actually, since when does height equate to vision? How would adding tall but architecturally indistinct (if not downright architecturally bankrupt) buildings while removing the existing built heritage be "visionary" and speak to the historical importance of the street (as opposed to an important condo, perhaps)? How does a vision of conserving and restoring that built heritage and creating a pedestrian oriented realm in an otherwise rapidly densifying area be any less visionary, any less special, any less forward thinking? I don't know about you, but my vision for the street is more than some third-rate architect coming up with a third-rate retail podium with third-rate workmanship hosting third-rate retail outlets with third-rate signage. And yes, instead of a few storefronts worth of it, we have an three floors of an entire corner of that. Congrats.

AoD

I think some clarification needs to be made as to the current state of this particular stretch of Yonge. Can the current architecture (for the most part) even be classified as third (or even fourth) rate? I actually happen to prefer Aura to the tiny shops and houses that are currently there. Are the current "podiums" (the current buildings' Yonge frontage) all that great? What about the horrible retail that calls the area home? Yes, I do see your point that it could become much nicer if more developers took the "Five" route, but again, that is a matter of personal preference. I think we need to aim higher than simply repurposing the entire stock of older buildings in this case.

I'm not saying that Yonge should look like Bay v2.0 either. I think Yonge can be both modern AND different from Bay. Why doesn't the city take measures to actually make Yonge a premier shopping destination, instead of letting the name do all the work? In addition to mandating certain minimum requirements for new development (2s retail, double floor heights, etc.), they could also increase commercial taxes specifically for the area. How would developers possibly get away with Aura level retail if that were to happen? They would have no choice but to cater to higher end retailers.

The question is, should our city be pursuing a vision of Yonge where the current built form is maintained (and restored), while adding density in the back, or something entirely different? In my opinion, the latter is a better option.

* Revitalized Yonge St. podium (FIVE Condos), Source: buzzbuzzhome.com

* Michigan Ave (Chicago), Source: Google Maps street view

 

[egotrippin]

Agree with you if you were talking about Canadian Tire, Walmart kind of large retail stores. They are all the same in any part of the country.
However, when it comes to higher end department stores, such as Holt Renfrew, Nordstrom etc it probably makes less sense. These stores usually focus a lot on the appeal of display windows and usually makes a street look more sophisticated. Plus they are probably unwilling to be located in the basement due to an image issue.

I'd like to repeat again that small retail isn't necessarily more interesting and exciting. Yonge st between Gerrard and Bloor is an example. Most stores sell generic or tacky products/food. I won't consider them to be better than the Bay or Macy's at all.

High end retailers yes, and they have attractive store fronts on Bloor; it wouldn't make sense for them to set up shop on Yonge since they're already a stone's throw away. Yonge is more of a street for "the people", and sure it needs some cleaning up, but the last thing it needs is to be homogenized.

I'll take the redevelopment at 5ive Condos over the shot posted of Michigan Avenue anyday (save for the old water tower). Besides, that's not really the right comparison since it's Bloor between Church and Avenue that is considered our Magnificent Mile. To answer DtTO's question above: yes to maintaining the current built form, while sensitively adding density behind. Absolutely, and personally I don't even think any other option should be considered.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think some clarification needs to be made as to the current state of this particular stretch of Yonge. Can the current architecture (for the most part) even be classified as third (or even fourth) rate? I actually happen to prefer Aura to the tiny shops and houses that are currently there. Are the current "podiums" (the current buildings' Yonge frontage) all that great? What about the horrible retail that calls the area home? Yes, I do see your point that it could become much nicer if more developers took the "Five" route, but again, that is a matter of personal preference.

Actually it is not "personal preference" - we have been through this debate before - one can prefer all they want, but at the end of the day, there are reasons why Foster creates masterpieces while G+C doesn't. Five is nice, but not every site have the same flexibility as the site for Five offers, considering the setback of the tower from the Yonge Street. And lest we think Five is the perfect model - even the restored buildings couldn't escape being converted into the ubquitous RBC.

As to the substandard retail in little shops, I see it as a transient presence that will be replaced - hopefully with more of an eye towards the Queen Street W model (as imperfect as it maybe). Tearing them down doesn't do the history of the street justice, nor the architecture, much less land use.

I'm not saying that Yonge should look like Bay v2.0 either. I think Yonge can be both modern AND different from Bay. Why doesn't the city take measure to actually make Yonge a premier shopping destination, instead of letting the name do all the work? In addition to mandating certain minimum requirements for new development (2s retail, double floor heights, etc.), they could also increase commercial taxes specifically for the area. How would developers possibly get away with Aura level retail if that were to happen? They would have no choice but to cater to higher end retailers.

These things takes time? And you must realize that the city does NOT have the authority to set commercial tax rate specifically for the area, save TIF (and that's usually not a recommended tool, and the context which it applies to doesn't exist either). One simply can't force these things.

The question is, should our city be pursuing a vision of Yonge St where the current built form is maintained (and restored), while adding density in the back, or something entirely different? In my opinion, the latter is a better option.

I support the former - density is already increasing significantly along Yonge (even if it doesn't directly abutt it) - there is no overriding rationale for eliminating a strip that has significant heritage significance and dare I say charm. Besides, the track record of the "something completely different" is neither any different from what's happening all over the city, nor particularly impressive, where it did. On top of all that, what's been proposed really doesn't prevent rebuilding where appropriate - it just sets up some framework to see how everything would fit into the vision,

Quoting Michigan Avenue as a model is pretty pointless - Yonge isn't Michigan in Chicago, and if you want an analogue, it'd be University Avenue or Bloor.

AoD

 

[DtTO]

egotrippin, while that area may be considered magnificent mile, I purposely chose a shot of the "lower end" retail in the area. I do realize that Louis Vuitton, Holt, etc. are not going to open up second stores less than 1km away from their central locations on Bloor, but that doesn't mean we can't have grande plans for relatively lower-tier retail.

AoD, thanks for your feedback. I wasn't aware that the city didn't have such flexibility with taxation. I'm sure there must be other ways of encouraging better retail though (I hope).

 

[urbandreamer]

You do realize that red brick Victorian architecture "defines" Toronto. \

So you want everywhere to look "new?"

You're living in the wrong city.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm not sure I agree. Why do we need another Queen Street when we already have a Queen Street, and several other areas that are similar (Roncesvalles, Junction etc)? Yonge Street is the main 'big city' thoroughfare in Toronto and the stretch of it that runs north of Dundas to Bloor is prime for large-scale retail, connecting as it does to Yorkville, Bloor Street and an ever-developing and intensifying Yonge/Bloor node. With the Eaton Centre to the south this is the logical place for mid-level retail, and is indeed analogous in many ways to areas along 5th in NYC or Michigan in Chicago that segue into more exclusive higher-end retail.

How is higher-end retail incompatible with what heritage buildings that exists on Yonge currently? If this is the argument, one would think Yorkville wouldn't have existed at all. Beyond the nature of the street itself (which doesn't resemble either the 5th or Michigan), the section of Yonge south of say Gerrard would be a far better location for retail at the scale you're talking about - and beyond that, it wasn't like Bloor is berefit of such opportunities for redevelopment either. Not to mention, selective demolition of non-heritage structures would also have served this need - tacking on a tower on top has nothing to do with higher-end retail.

5ive is an amazing project that I love and saving these buildings along with others that are exemplary adds character, diversity and interest to the area, no doubt, but fundamentally this stretch of Yonge needs to develop, and in so doing needs to change... heck, Yonge Street has already changed drastically from the Yonge Street of arcades, head shops and clubs we knew in the past, and continues to change thanks in part to the spread of Ryerson. Design and architecture is a concern of course but why not just facilitate the eventuality of change better with certain standards in mind?

Don't equate the need for change and development to the form of the development. Besides, are we suggesting selective development of insensitive sites at a scale exemplified by the Ryerson SLC? That's not the impression I've received during this debate.

AoD

 

[bleu]

Log telephone polls 'define' Toronto too, but that doesn't mean that's what we should be employing going forward. Those red Vics served Toronto well for a century, but their presence on Yonge is unworkable going forward. Sometimes it's wise to recognize when a clean slate is needed. Toronto has tens of thousands of Vics, we don't need them on our main high street.

Agree.
Toronto indeed has tens of thousands of Vics throughout the city. I wouldn't cry over losing a few in bad shape on Yonge st to refresh the street a bit and bring it to the 21st century.
Yonge st above Dundas is an embarrassment to Toronto. Those old crappy houses may "define" Toronto, but definitely not in a positive way. Let's not pretend they are as nice and valuable as those gorgeous row houses in Bayback or Beacon Hill Boston, in which case I wouldn't trade them for everything.

 

[Ramako]

Agree.
Toronto indeed has tens of thousands of Vics throughout the city. I wouldn't cry over losing a few in bad shape on Yonge st to refresh the street a bit and bring it to the 21st century.
Yonge st above Dundas is an embarrassment to Toronto. Those old crappy houses may "define" Toronto, but definitely not in a positive way. Let's not pretend they are as nice and valuable as those gorgeous row houses in Bayback or Beacon Hill Boston, in which case I wouldn't trade them for everything.

We have thousands of Vic homes throughout the city, yes, but not thousands of Vic commercial buildings. That's what we're talking about on Yonge. I don't know why you're calling them houses. You're not going to find a tone of these kinds of row buildings in Toronto outside of a few streets like Queen, King or Yonge.

 

[Ramako]

Just to illustrate my point above, these aren't the same as these.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And beyond that point - it's not so much so the architectural value of a single heritage structure (there are exceptions) but the value of a properly restored strip north of Grosvenor.

As to the stretch of Yonge south of say Gerrard, personally I feel that it's more of a case by case basis. Something on the order of say 5s would be quite appropriate along the entire strip.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

How is higher-end retail incompatible with what heritage buildings that exists on Yonge currently?

No, I agree. Some forms of higher-end retail work better in smaller boutique-style buildings for sure (as you say in Yorkville). I'm talking about some of the more exclusive mid-level brands. A Crate & Barrel or Abercrombie & Fitch, for example, wouldn't work in a small boutique space, obviously.

... and there will be some overlap. I'm not suggesting we tear down architecturally or historically significant buildings. Again, 5ive works well. However we do need to develop around them, encouraging the larger scale retail the area is prime for.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

There are enough degraded sites along Yonge that will allow for new, mid-rise developments that can potentially accomodate these types of retail outlets. It doesn't require slapping a tower on top and basically wreck the scale of the street.

Personally I think one should look at the CB2 at Queen and Bathurst as a model that is suitable for that stretch of Yonge.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

There are enough degraded sites along Yonge that will allow for new, mid-rise developments that can potentially accomodate these types of retail outlets. It doesn't require slapping a tower on top and basically wreck the scale of the street.

Personally I think one should look at the CB2 at Queen and Bathurst as a model that is suitable for that stretch of Yonge.

AoD

CB2 is another good example... and the Empress Hotel would have been a great site for retail too (prior to destruction of course). Again, I agree with you that we shouldn't be knocking down heritage structures that are appropriate for retail, or that can be made appropriate for retail (5ive) or that are historically or architecturally significant. As you say though, there is a lot of 'junk' in and between that can be developed... and not all the 'old' buildings are gems either.

 

[DtTO]

It doesn't require slapping a tower on top and basically wreck the scale of the street.

There seems to be a serious disparity in people's opinion of the ideal scale of Yonge. In my opinion, Yonge should *not* be kept at its current scale. It's easily one of the city's main streets, why should we hold it hostage because of the success of its past? Those days are over. Yonge needs to be reimagined into a proper downtown corridor with large scale retail that is open to the street, and not closed off into little malls (Aura) nor tiny spaces at the base of highrises. We should be using the built form of Michigan in Chicago (north of the river, and south of the really high end stuff near Water Tower, which would be our Bloor) as a model. Large spaces covering buildings' entire Yonge frontage, the minimum floor heights on the first floor should be 2X the average floor heights in the building, etc. In addition, the city badly needs to figure out ways of discouraging low end retail on Yonge. AoD, you pointed out that selective taxation is not feasible, but I'm sure there are other ways of do this.

I'm going to repeat that I am absolutely not advocating the destruction of true standout heritage structures, but the ratio shouldn't be high enough where it feels like almost every old building on Yonge is considered heritage. We can use the Michigan model again for this. Sure, the particular stretch I referred to doesn't have much in the way of low rise heritage, but there are a few protected gems near WTP and obviously south of the loop, in the Monroe area. We need to emulate that kind of selective (but powerful) preservation that will actually increase the value and attention to the chosen heritage buildings, instead of diluting the street with excessive heritage designation.