Downtown Yonge

[ttk77]

I suspect that once the buildings attached to Five are finished being restored a lot of the Yonge st. haters will be changing their tune and calling for more rehabilitation rather than demolition. One only has to look at some of the many historical photos of Yonge st. that have been posted here to know how great this area could look if some cash were spent on restoration.

We can have our increased density without destroying our history. I don't understand the drive of some here to make us look more like a European (or Asian) city...we're not a European city. We're not the product of many hundreds of hears of imperial pageantry, nor do we exist in an area where land was scarce. Instead, we're a grown up frontier town of a former backwater colony that was located in a land of vast unused space. Current realities are different than past realities, but that doesn't mean we should be erasing our past. A long avenue of low rise restored Victorians backed by modern mid-rises and skyscrapers would make for a unique and impressive area I think.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You're right. This is so much better: https://www.google.ca/maps/preview#...1!2m3!1sdnQX9uw-P8qXKwpQ8rBt-g!2e0!7e11&fid=5

If you can't think of the potential when the buildings are restored (a la Five) coupled with selective demolition of non-heritage buildings - it would suggest a lack of imagination, not lack of worth.

This is just it, though. In the case of Yonge, we do. Nothing on that street is really all that unique. One can find many architecturally similar buildings, with similar massing in other areas of the city.

Can we? With such details and heritage (and dare I say - history)?

I disagree. Yonge is important simply because of its location.

Is it? Just what is so important about its' location such that the commercial enterprises are lackluster relative to similarly scaled main streets in Toronto (like Queen, for example)?

By what standards is Bay a failure? Sure, it isn't what it could've been, but it's far from a failure. Anyways, one only needs to look at Cityplace, the Entertainment District, and St. Lawerence to see that development in Toronto has evolved far beyond the simplistic one use model that Bay was built upon. In fact, some of the newer developments on Bay are a perfect embodiment of that evolution; all you have to do is compare the old (ex. ROCP) with the new (ex. Burano).

That's laughable - no offense, Cityplace is a sleepy residential enclave (like, just who would go there for the sake of going there?), the Entertainment District was literally built on the bones of its' historical buildings, and St. Lawrence was built out of a more or less empty industrial, contaminated lands with an eye to human scale (and from a planning perspective, the antithesis of Bay). The latter two areas also predated the current crop of towers on Bay. RoCP and Burano - for all their architectural differences aren't all that different in terms of built form - podium w/ retail at grade + point-ish towers set upon fallow sites. A singular example of well-intentioned preservation on a street with precious little fabric left is by no means comparable to the situation on Yonge. All these talk about "perfect embodiment" is pretty meaningless without that comparative context.

AoD

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

That's laughable - no offense, Cityplace is a sleepy residential enclave (like, just who would go there for the sake of going there?), the Entertainment District was literally built on the bones of its' historical buildings, and St. Lawrence was built out of a more or less empty industrial, contaminated lands with an eye to human scale (and from a planning perspective, the antithesis of Bay). The latter two areas also predated the current crop of towers on Bay. RoCP and Burano - for all their architectural differences aren't all that different in terms of built form - podium w/ retail at grade + point-ish towers set upon fallow sites. A singular example of well-intentioned preservation on a street with precious little fabric left is by no means comparable to the situation on Yonge. All these talk about "perfect embodiment" is pretty meaningless without that comparative context.
AoD

Well stated. I started to go there but was too tired to finish it off so I didn't.

 

[adma]

In the end, Yonge is only as undesirably sloppy a no-go zone as the signature events that take place there.

This machine kills La Defense.

 

[adma]

Though it's funny w/ DtTO's preference of La Defence-esque ultramodernity over "diseased, mainstreet-fronting townhouses--maybe it's a "cultural thing", or a "milieu thing"?

Maybe it's a little like, well, take this image

Now, I'll assume that the overwhelming majority of us on UT who are in any way urbanistically sensitive would opt for what's on the left, and find the notion of what's on the right replacing what's on the left to be altogether abhorrent. Yet maybe to DtTO and his realm, what's on the right = "progress", and what's on the left = an "unimportant" and "diseased" artifact. And the fact that they come across as boneheadedly philistine bozos is beyond them...

 

[Dan416]

Hmm well I like the one on the right. Not because it's super pretty, but because it's bigger and looks newer.

 

[adma]

but because it's bigger and looks newer.

A usefully blunt metaphor for what all too many Yonge-bashers find to be "desirable urbanity".

 

[Register123]

Downtown Los Angeles is not dominated by 1 to 2 stories buildings, so unless you no what constitutes downtown la you shouldn't make misinformed statements. For your info Hollywood is not downtown.

 

[RC8]

Downtown Toronto is not dominated by 1 to 2 stories buildings, so unless you no what constitutes downtown TO you shouldn't make misinformed statements. For your info Oakville is not downtown.

 

[adma]

Besides, I'm not sure how much you know about La Defense, but I assure you that the area was not as barren (before it was modernized) as you seem to suggest.

So, back to this:
La Defense still sounds pretty barren to me.

 

[nfitz]

So, back to this:
La Defense still sounds pretty barren to me.

Indeed!

 

[diminutive]

So, back to this:
La Defense still sounds pretty barren to me.

I'm not familiar with Paris itself, but a lot of the complaints about London's Canary Wharf (which shares a similar dynamic) seem misplaced. It's kind of deserted after work hours, but the City's pretty empty at the same hours once all of the business types clear out to. Even though the City notionally developed 'organically' (which is a weird word to use in the context of central Haussmann-land, err, Paris), it's always seemed just as sterile and lifeless as Canary Wharf to me.

Even in Toronto, areas like King East can be pretty quiet once the furniture shops and offices close.

I think it's inherent to having a large density of 9-5 workers in any one area.

 

[khris]

We're very luck actually, because a lot of downtown remains fairly active well after 5 pm. A lot of big cities become ghost towns.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

We're very luck actually, because a lot of downtown remains fairly active well after 5 pm. A lot of big cities become ghost towns.

Very true, but mostly in the US. Across the ponds large cities are also alive and vibrant at night too.

 

[ssiguy2]

Yonge Street is Yonge Street and shouldn't try to become a street that it's not.

It will never have the intimacy of many other neighbourhoods, not the ambience and will always have the fun/sleazy/gritty feel that made it the city's main drag and that is a good thing. The problem with Yonge is that despite having very high pedestrian traffic which is primarily for taking in the street life and people watching it has very few places to do it. Toronto should never try to change the soul of Yonge which makes it a street to be both avoided and embraced all at the same time.

The problem with Yonge is that despite all the people, it is one of the most pedestrian unfriendly streets in the city. Yonge is probably the only street in the city where you can't even sit outside to have a coffee little alone a meal to enjoy the people watching. From Bloor to Union, Yonge is completely devoid of any outside patios. Of course the reason for this is an obvious one........the sidewalks are simply too thin.

Nobody ever uses Yonge as a commuter route or main thoroughfare so why does the city treat it as such? The overwhelming majority of traffic on Yonge is pedestrian yet the city treat it like any other street. People who do still "cruise" Yonge are usually looking for a slow ride to take in the sights and not a fast one. Yonge is 4 lanes and should only be 2. Use all that extra space for sidewalks to allow a nice streetscape where restaurants and cafes can add to the urban mania that the street will {hopefully} always have.

To be quite honest, I think Yonge would be better served by having it as a pedestrian only route from Bloor to Front.