This is unfortunately weaker urbanism than is already there. The retail units are shallow and it's a pretty fat strip of main street with only one facade. This would be well suited for the parking lot across the street, but it is a pretty chunky building for the location. The building down the street at palmerston is a shorter version of what we would see in terms of scale and street presence. It's going to be tough for the general public to get behind this one given the attachment to the area. I don't hate the building, but even if a music venue stays it will suck the life out of that corner for at least a decade. It would be much better to change the building code so we could see these lots developed individually.
I agree the facade could show more variation, particularly at the podium level.
The overall building presentation, some flaws aside really isn't bad.
I'm amused to see the mixed reaction with some heaping praise and others calling it garbage.
I would say, mostly above average but with material flaws.
***
Redeveloping the individual lots would pose challenges that vary (for the smallest, I would suggest it just wouldn't be economic; while some of the larger buildings could up redeveloped but without a larger footprint there are many challenges.
Eliminating parking, eliminates a parking ramp and makes more possible; but if you want an internal garbage room, you need a fair amount of space, plus a lane-way or access configuration that supports the turning movement.
I don't want to see all block-long monotonies in the city.
But at the same time, one must understand the practical limitations of retaining truly small lot sizes.
I think, in the alternative, asking/requiring developers to retain the illusion of small lots in the way they articulate facades would probably be the more practical ask.
gleanernews.ca