Toronto Bathurst College Centre | ?m | 4s | RioCan | Turner Fleischer

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Pretty junky - as expected.

AoD
Click to expand...

Architecturally not great. But not horrible. I just can't get over some of the hyperbolic statements in this CTV video: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=942357&playlistId=1.1315172&binId=1.815892&playlistPageNum=1

"Would you want a three story building over looking your house?'

One of downtown Toronto's problem is that it forgets we're a major urban centre - we're not the small provincial town Toronto was built as. The city has greatly changed (for the better).

Divorcing WalMart from this scenario - if we don't allow retail development of three storeys on streets like Bathurst - then where?
 
pw20:

Well, it is pretty "big box" horrible - the design itself is uninspired, and that has nothing to do with the height or the potential tenant. This could easily have been built in some "small provincial town" and fits right in architecturally speaking, in the pejorative sense.

AoD
 
Gross. I’m actually more disturb by its exterior than what’s inside. It looks like a rending of Yorkdale Mall. And of course, what you don't see are the sides and back which will have all the character and interest of a giant windowless garden shed.
 
Is this the best "design" they can come up with? Absolutely no regards to neighbourhood context, urban realm, or pleasing aesthetics. Though predictably awful considering the Rio Can/Turner Fleischer partnership.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
pw20:

Well, it is pretty "big box" horrible - the design itself is uninspired, and that has nothing to do with the height or the potential tenant. This could easily have been built in some "small provincial town" and fits right in architecturally speaking, in the pejorative sense.

AoD
Click to expand...

And yet... shockingly better than what is currently on the site, which is the old Kromer Radio building and some parking lots. The rendering doesn't shoe materials - remember Queen and Portland was saved by its usage of real brick. If we repeat Queen and Portland than I'll be happy.

Those complaining about the height are really no more than your average NIMBY wrapping themselves in a WalMart hued blanket.
 
I don't mind height at all, I mostly just mind the presence of Walmart, though the proposed design is hideous, too. Why do these people want to bring the worst of suburban retail downtown? Is there no other way for them to make money, or is this just the laziest possible way for them to do so?
 
Yeah, it's strange; it's as if they wanted to antagonize the community as much as possible by waving the name Walmart around as soon as possible.
 
Actually,.... it's the NIMBY-ers that are waving the name Walmart,... & Loblaws.

RIO-CAN did NOT disclose the name of the main tenant.

The City does NOT know the name of the retailer(s),... it's not in the application from the developer,... nor should it be.
 
Last edited:
The cheapness of the design is revealing, it shows that this is a development intended to suck ca$h out the the neighbourhood while giving nothing back. And why do the small malls in this city need to be so dismal? How about more Alto Palermo and less Aldo Nova.
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
Actually,.... it's the NIMBY-ers that are waving the name Walmart,... & Loblaws.

RIO-CAN did NOT disclose the name of the main tenant.

The City does NOT know the name of the retailer(s),... it's not in the application from the developer,... nor should it be.
Click to expand...

There's nothing NIMBY about not wanting a Walmart built. I don't think critics are saying "Walmarts are fine, but not here” (which is NIMBYism); I think they're saying “Walmarts are terrible in general so let's not allow this.” For it to be NIMBYism, the controversial object must be beneficial for the community but not wanted in the area by selfish locals, like wind turbines. Walmarts are bad anywhere.
 
arvelomcquaig, how do you know it's a Walmart? RIO-CAN haven't disclosed the tenants. Even the city doesn't know who the tenants are,... but of course, you would know. ;)

All we know is that the design will create more retail space. Specifically, a series of small retail stores on the first floor and larger retail spaces on the second and third floor.

Would more retail space on this site be beneficial for the community??? Of course, good urban design calls for more retails on major arteries that give people more places to go to. In contrast to putting retail on small streets like KensingtonMarket. Speaking of which,... these "selfish locals" have been very busy with this one,... thus we have NIMBYism!

Funny thing about the KensingtonMarket NIMBYers,... they argue that big box retailer will drive their moms&pops stores out of business and increase traffic in the area. But with more traffic coming into the area, you'll get more customers coming into your area! Raising tides lift all boats!
 
arvelomcquaig said:
There's nothing NIMBY about not wanting a Walmart built. I don't think critics are saying "Walmarts are fine, but not here†(which is NIMBYism); I think they're saying “Walmarts are terrible in general so let's not allow this.†For it to be NIMBYism, the controversial object must be beneficial for the community but not wanted in the area by selfish locals, like wind turbines. Walmarts are bad anywhere.
Click to expand...

I think the WalMart argument is interesting - but a lot of bluster around this development hasn't just been specific to WalMart.

There's been a lot of: "I don't want a three story "mall" near my house." "Our official plan doesn't allow large format retailers." WalMart is sort of a red herring here being used by NIMBY's in my opinion who really oppose the development

As I've said earlier - to me there's three separate things to think about with this development
1) Large format retail in general
2) The specific design
3) The tenant

Opposition to all three is NIMBY'sm...
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
arvelomcquaig, how do you know it's a Walmart? RIO-CAN haven't disclosed the tenants. Even the city doesn't know who the tenants are,... but of course, you would know. ;)

All we know is that the design will create more retail space. Specifically, a series of small retail stores on the first floor and larger retail spaces on the second and third floor.

Would more retail space on this site be beneficial for the community??? Of course, good urban design calls for more retails on major arteries that give people more places to go to. In contrast to putting retail on small streets like KensingtonMarket. Speaking of which,... these "selfish locals" have been very busy with this one,... thus we have NIMBYism!

Funny thing about the KensingtonMarket NIMBYers,... they argue that big box retailer will drive their moms&pops stores out of business and increase traffic in the area. But with more traffic coming into the area, you'll get more customers coming into your area! Raising tides lift all boats!
Click to expand...

I don't know it's a Walmart, it's just that it was reported as such over and over again. Was it never ascertained that it was indeed Walmart? If so, then I'm glad there's at least a chance they're not proposing that. All the same, it's worth letting them know it shouldn't even be suggested. And design of the retail is awful, so that should be protested as well. Furthermore, why no retail above? It seems wasteful to put a few storeys of pure retail in this spot without retail on top.

I do think more retail is generally a good thing, yes, so I'm not opposed to retail here (or anywhere, basically; the more mixed-use the better, the way I see it). Are people protesting the prospect of any retail being added here whatsoever? If so, that's ridiculous, and I agree that that would be a sort of NIMBYism.

Again I wonder, why can't they build spots for several stores rather than giant big box, car-scaled banality? I hope that's not the plan.
 
The plan is a number of smaller stores at street level, with the big box on the second and third floors.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top