stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
that is very different, and seemingly less interesting.
Application to facilitate the development of a 52 storey building containing 39,375m2 of residential uses and 506m2 of street-related retail uses. A total of 596 dwelling units are proposed.
Happy to see a major development of this scale on the block, but can there not be a dialogue about 1:1 replacement of retail space? Planning has a mandate to pursue 1:1 office space replacement and 1:1 rental unit replacement. Here we're losing 8 retail units including local favourites, Sabai Sabai and Tacos 101 amoung others, for what looks like a monolithic, singular glass unit that doesn't strike me as conducive to independent and interesting retail. (I confess I don't know how many spaces are planned. I'd be happily shocked if the number was 8). Why can't 1:1 represent a planning guideline for retail replacement too?
Yeah I get that. That's why I'm suggesting 1:1 ought to be a planning mandate, rather than something left to developers and their financiers.
Happy to see a major development of this scale on the block, but can there not be a dialogue about 1:1 replacement of retail space? Planning has a mandate to pursue 1:1 office space replacement and 1:1 rental unit replacement. Here we're losing 8 retail units including local favourites, Sabai Sabai and Tacos 101 amoung others, for what looks like a monolithic, singular glass unit that doesn't strike me as conducive to independent and interesting retail. (I confess I don't know how many spaces are planned. I'd be happily shocked if the number was 8). Why can't 1:1 represent a planning guideline for retail replacement too?
The issue is with 1:1 replacement of retail is everything else that gets packed into the ground floor of new condo developments that weren't there with the smaller buildings. The existing building stock often only have (besides the shops) stairs to get people upstairs to an apartment or two.
Sabai Sabai moved to Bloor months ago.
I would like to see zoning that had maximum storefront widths. New York City manages to do that, forcing larger retailers to use ground level storefronts as entry levels for larger upper or lower level stores.That's fair. But it's not really the displacement of retail space with a building's necessary servicing/infrastructure that I'm taking aim at, so much as replacing small retail space with much larger units (typically attracting the same stodgy, institutional, often redundant retailers noted by ShonTron). To the extent that retail can, in fact, be replaced, I'd suggest that 1:1 should serve as a planning guide to try to emulate, in so far as possible, the same cadence to the street level experience that the new building is disrupting.
New York City also restricts banks at street level, which is what I wish Toronto would do!
I would like to see zoning that had maximum storefront widths. New York City manages to do that, forcing larger retailers to use ground level storefronts as entry levels for larger upper or lower level stores.