East Bayfront: Bayside (Waterfront Toronto/Hines/Tridel, Pelli Clark Pelli et al)

[SP!RE]

I love the massing of this neighbourhood, except for the long, sweeping podium that those three residential buildings sit above. They did everything so right to visually break up space, and then they stuck this long, sweeping glass podium along the water. How sterile that would be instead of continuing the residential blocks down to their logical conclusion at ground level along the waterfront promenade. I hope that this changes, as the design is still preliminary. I imagine it will.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If you really want to make it work even better - designate that waterfront edge retail area as a low(er) rent zone and hand pick the retailers for maximize the impact of said retailers as "attractions" And breaking up the mass of the low rise retail block would add to that - something like a commercial version of this with maybe a slightly wider frontage (25% more?) better ground level and upper level street engagement, etc.

AoD

 

[metathustra]

I think the zoning of the plan makes a lot of sense. Retail will probably not do very well on the waterfront because it will be a quieter place in general without auto-convenience (on-street parking) and as a time-tested rule of thumb, the most successful retail zones are double-loaded (both sides of a street). I think cultural and civic uses are the best idea on the waterfront- a branch library, a yacht club, a health club with stunning views of the water: imagine workin' it on the treadmill with a winter view of the lake- that's a great juxtaposition. Excited to see this move forward- I'm crossing my fingers for the council meeting...

 

[unimaginative2]

You make great points, AoD. Those ideas would all go a long way to helping. Perhaps they could go with an approach of retail units between the lakefront and a road parallel to the water. That way they could have streetfront entrances with road access and entrances onto the waterfront promenade.

I think the zoning of the plan makes a lot of sense. Retail will probably not do very well on the waterfront because it will be a quieter place in general without auto-convenience (on-street parking) and as a time-tested rule of thumb, the most successful retail zones are double-loaded (both sides of a street). I think cultural and civic uses are the best idea on the waterfront- a branch library, a yacht club, a health club with stunning views of the water: imagine workin' it on the treadmill with a winter view of the lake- that's a great juxtaposition. Excited to see this move forward- I'm crossing my fingers for the council meeting...

I don't know...in any other city in the world, direct waterfront real estate would be massively in demand. One would hardly need to compromise on uses just to get something in there.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You say it won't be successful, yet you can't describe what it would take for to be successful - if you can't asses that you really have no idea how it's going to turn out.
You can't create a Queen W or a Kensigton by drawing a site plan - these things evolve naturally overtime ... the bones are there ...

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it hasn't been described to you.

How do you 'create' a vibrant, organic neighbourhood? For starters, you don't have one devleoper master plan black after block of condos with a few non-condo uses squeezed in. Land uses are being checked off in a row like a game of urban Yahtzee or a list of Seinfeld episodes...The beach, The office building, The College Campus, The Park, The Shopping Street, The Neighbourhood. When does that ever work? Queen West or the Annex or wherever actually got built and were up and running in less time than a big development like these raillands/Portlands sites, but the 'instant neighbourhoods' we got back then are not what we get now. The simple nature of the tenure, huge condos and a few retail spots owned by condos, will prevent the area from evolving over time in the way other areas did. We're trying to recreate the 'person' of successful neighbourhoods while neglecting the bones themselves.

On the other hand, a vibrant neighbourhood wouldn't be needed if we were building a cultural extravaganza, but we're not doing that, either.

Though I do think building CityPlace-By-The-Lake is less of an issue here than it is on a more central site like where Pier 27 will squat.

 

[taal]

First of all, I'm not sure how you can reach the conclusion there are a few retail spots ... there are quite a few, just not on the water, and that's a separate issue.

What's this notion that all condo retail is bad ... it can be bad it can be good, it's not doomed to fail either way - there's a building in NYCC that really exemplifies this - it has small retail (which can be good and bad) and is mainly populated by small restaurants, some of your typical condo fair, a few retail outlets ... anyway, it works ... I agree, in many places it doesn't, but not for the reasons you cite - it doesn't typically work because there's very little in the way of retail in the area anyway so it attracts your bank branches / dry cleaners / so on ... or there's just about no pedestrian activity.

Please, enlightenment me, what would you change with the plan?

 

[Glen]

If you really want to make it work even better - designate that waterfront edge retail area as a low(er) rent zone and hand pick the retailers for maximize the impact of said retailers as "attractions" And breaking up the mass of the low rise retail block would add to that - something like a commercial version of this with maybe a slightly wider frontage (25% more?) better ground level and upper level street engagement, etc.

Just how would the city designate it a lower rent district? I agree with your previous post, regarding adding to the number of units by decreasing frontage. This area though will be the same as Bremner Blvd and QQ. Empty stores. The only difference is that Bonnycastle place might up the bar by having two floors of empty retail space vs. the usual one.

Yesterday at the Planning and growth committee developers were asking that the requirement to retain ground floor commercial space be removed, and tax rebates were deemed necessary to build retail space on Queen St. West. If you can't build it on Queen West, it will not be viable here.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Renderings notwithstanding ( that snowy nighttime scene of the park thronged with pedestrians is particularly odd ) I find this an admirable way of introducing variety of forms and uses - small roads, parks, shopping, residences, a library or whatever, and a waterfront promenade that is permitted to be a unique feature unto itself.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

First of all, I'm not sure how you can reach the conclusion there are a few retail spots ... there are quite a few, just not on the water, and that's a separate issue.

What's this notion that all condo retail is bad ... it can be bad it can be good, it's not doomed to fail either way - there's a building in NYCC that really exemplifies this - it has small retail (which can be good and bad) and is mainly populated by small restaurants, some of your typical condo fair, a few retail outlets ... anyway, it works ... I agree, in many places it doesn't, but not for the reasons you cite - it doesn't typically work because there's very little in the way of retail in the area anyway so it attracts your bank branches / dry cleaners / so on ... or there's just about no pedestrian activity.

Please, enlightenment me, what would you change with the plan?

Enlighten yourself and read the numerous posts you're dismissing.

 

[taal]

Enlighten yourself and read the numerous posts you're dismissing.

There's been nothing concrete less adding more retail, shrinking the store frontage, reorienting on the water, and adding some cultural attraction. All of which I've addressed ... anyway, I'll move on.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

If it's anything like these renders it will be very nice.

Somewhere back in a different thread someone mentioned that a good attraction for Toronto would be a movie museum/attraction. I like that idea more and more. It could have photos and memorabilia from all of the movies shot in Toronto, interactive diagrams or models of how movies are made, things like that.

The central or east waterfront would be a perfect location for it. Legit Toronto and not a knockoff from another city.

 

[grey]

Hell yeah, Toronto Film Museum... I would have a hard time deciding what to visit first. The Tommy Boy exhibit? Canadian Bacon artifacts? The Scott Pilgrim collection? The American Psycho gallery?

There should be an entire wing devoted to Brain Candy.

Rooms filled with men wearing monocles and sweaters with elbow patches observing stills of Chris Farley smashing through a coffee table.

 

[Tulse]

Hell yeah, Toronto Film Museum... I would have a hard time deciding what to visit first. The Tommy Boy exhibit? Canadian Bacon artifacts? The Scott Pilgrim collection? The American Psycho gallery?

I'd check out the Porky's interactive exhibit.

Of course, to be fair, there is a ton of Hollywood film work done in T.O. that uses the city as a stand-in for someplace else.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Hell yeah, Toronto Film Museum... I would have a hard time deciding what to visit first. The Tommy Boy exhibit? Canadian Bacon artifacts? The Scott Pilgrim collection? The American Psycho gallery?

There should be an entire wing devoted to Brain Candy.

Rooms filled with men wearing monocles and sweaters with elbow patches observing stills of Chris Farley smashing through a coffee table.

I think you underestimate the appetite tourists might have for a movie-related attraction. Much like you overestimate your talent for satire.

 

[grey]

^^^

As much as I'd love a film museum, I think a Toronto history museum should be a higher priority. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get one any time soon (much like your sense of humour).