Queens Quay Opinions

[taal]

Yea good points ... I tend to agree with all of them ...

I can make it much simpler to understand:

We all know how dead *central* queens quay is in the dead of winter (by central I don't mean here, I mean closer to Yonge).

In the summer, on the nicest days, the area of Queens Quay we're discussing now ... is just as dead. I've walked through it several times throughout the year and hardly ever do I see more then a couple of people on the north side of QQ in this stretch. Quite often there's more on the south side, in the parks.

The area is just dead, retail probably will never work hear.

The central waterfront area has more potential, and the small amount of retail there does seem to fair better accordingly - in the summer it can get quite busy.

But to say taxes aren't an issue everywhere is an overstatement, in other areas it's likely driving some of the smaller chains out. These smaller chains / independent stores also have no where to go as they wouldn't thrive in the strip malls of the suburbs ... or even the new mega malls of the suburbs (think all the mall like developments proposed for Markham) ... also, any *new* downtownish like development on going in the suburbs (think downtown Markham) will likely be dead for the first little while with nothing of interest ... and if it does get interesting over the years it'll be catering to the yuppy folks ... if that, ... maybe more along the lines of NYCC considering the demographics.

Completely random thought, they should build a pacific mall *like* development on NYCC, that would do amazing, Maybe Yonge and Sheppard / Yonge and Find.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Again, five seconds of actually visiting Queen's Quay will show you that it's not devoid of people on the street, except east of Yonge, where it's also devoid of developments.

Retail obviously does work on Queen's Quay...note the, gee, I don't know, how about the retail on Queen's Quay. We're talking about the absence of anything but Rabbas and dry cleaners and sad sushi shops and the presence of a few perpetually brown-papered storefronts in newly developed areas. We're also talking about how to get people from outside the area as well as the thousands of people who live above these sad stores to patronize them, or why it will or won't happen, and whether or not streetscaping and architecture can assist this. The city has an obligation to help Queen's Quay - they're mandating the street retail and pushing for Queen's Quay to be a mixed use main street - but streetscaping is one step forward after ten steps back.

Suburban strip malls are loaded with independent stores and restaurants, but because they're not downtown, they're dismissed as not cool and not trendy and not interesting, unless they're being featured in an ironic magazine article. Some could also use a renovation...better lighting, better seats, etc.

The retail condo model could work in places other than Asian developments...there's not much that's better for a neighbourhood than entrepreneurial migrants and retail condos are ideal for them. Still, while that might ensure higher and quicker occupancy in new developments, it won't guarantee more interesting or vibrant retail. Three tiny dry cleaners instead of one larger dry cleaner is not an improvement.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Some great points but I still think they are mostly rooted too much in the world of physical observation. Who's livelihood is invested in the street? Who makes the decisions when and where and why changes need to occur? Design and aesthetics do not flow from the imaginations of designers, they flow from the imaginations of designers on behalf of the imaginations of those who have a vested interest in the space.

Queen's Quay or any other street is fine the way it is because it is the way it is based on the imaginations of those with a vested interest in the space. If we wish a street to have positive attributes of other streets we need to realize that the source of the difference does not come from the physical observable it comes from the vested interests behind what we observe.

Think about a really nice building you know of in your area. Not a monumental structure, just one of the nice commericial or residential "background" buildings that define the streetscape. Think about the history of that building and why it existed and who owned, lived, operated businesses and imagined that building and why?

Now think about a building on Queens Quay and who owns, operates, lives and imagined that building? I think what we are seeing is that in many areas of the city where this forum is interested in there is a shift towards institutional ownership, professional management and transient vested interests. This has a profound influence on the character of the street that is much deeper and more important then the physical observables.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

That's all true but not rooted enough in reality if we're talking about 'what went wrong' or what could be changed or what this means for other redeveloping areas. The "physical" issues brought up by me and others (Who controls the leases? Why hide the retail behind crumbling precast pillars? Are the buildings unattractive?) are an undeniably central issue and what will definitely help hinder a condo-era retail street like Queen's Quay from ever developing the kind of atmosphere that exists along Queen (or any number of other neighbourhoods that are deemed to have character...Queen's Quay has a waterfront but few would say it has anything else).

The city has a vested interest in turning Queen's Quay into a destination, a vibrant main street, a tourist mecca, etc. Condo apartments are what people are willing to invest in today and have the density the city is looking for, but you're gonna get certain retail spaces in these buildings, especially if the retail is mandatory. Various planners and engineers and governments and institutions have a vested interest in making sure there's sufficient parking and amenities, that there's room for garbage trucks to move, room for snow to be stored, large enough planters for trees, enough trees to satisfy arbitrary canopy goals, that it meets building and fire codes (which constantly get beefed up), that it meets massing and shading and wind targets. Most of these requirements did not exist or were lower/different when they built Queen or the Danforth or Yonge.

Once regulation and engineering and market forces are factored in, there's virtually no room for imagination in new developments, on either the designers' side or the clients' side. The best hope for Queen's Quay would be to wait 30 or 40 or more years for the buildings to begin falling apart so that they can be renovated and reimagined. Maybe rents would drop by then, attracting a different crowd. Maybe some critical mass of residents and tourists would be reached that would permit restaurants and bars and patios to thrive. Unfortunately, there's so many "physical" obstacles - some very specific and some intended to benefit a neighbourhood - that the situation may not change. When people worry about the precedent it sets for future Avenues, their concerns are valid. Sure, it's not hard for Avenues-style projects to succeed on infill blocks of King or Mount Pleasant or Avenue, but what about the backyards at Sheppard & Morningside or the industrial properties on Finch West or the parkland on Don Mills? The vision for any place that doesn't already have a base stock of pre-war commercial buildings may not be attainable.

Note that I did talk earlier about much of what you did in terms of who is living in and using the buildings, not just about urban design, though I was focusing on details. A condo full of yuppies may have no physical or emotional connection to Queen's Quay beyond the 5 minutes a day they spend walking their dog or the view out their window (assuming they're ever at home). How can this complete with block after block of entrepreneurial migrants living above their store or restaurant or zones with established eating/partying/shopping identities like Yorkville or the bubble tea belt around Markham? If it can't compete, perhaps the city should turn to a different vision...like the reimagined Don Mills, or Downtown Markham, or Woodbine Live, or something a bit less organic (Queen's Quay is far too sterile). Perhaps we should just redo the streetscaping and hope for the best...the condos and the retail are mostly finished west of Yonge so there's not we can do, if we wanted to do something. If the people who actually own and live on Queen's Quay don't want or need to change their street, well, it is their street.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

A walking tour of QQ retail -- not so bad, after all?

As a 'tourist' (albeit of the very short haul type), we headed down to Harbourfront on Sunday to take advantage of the non-thunderstorm. After a quick pause at Sherbourne Park to show the girls (I have 13 and 10 year old daughters) the fancy new waterfall-in-the-making, we drove down to the west end of the Music Garden, parked, and strolled back to Harbourfront.

Since I've been following this thread, I took stock of the current situation and there were many positives, but mostly from a tourista point of view. There's a huge new Shopper's Drug Mart at QQ and Spadina (NW corner) where we picked up some ice cream cones. It looks really good and there were lots of shoppers. It's definitely a boon for condo dwellers.

We also spent time looking at the indoor and outdoor exhibits at the Centre, and ended up buying a clock at the little design store at the NE corner of Harbourfront Centre. I'd forgotten that there's a big outdoor marketplace in the summer on the west side of Harbourfront Centre as well (just empty tents as of yet, but opening soon.)

The restaurant scene is solid as well, with the big new decks facing the boardwalk at QQT, Pier 4, Shoeless Joe's at the Radisson, and more than a couple of places westward beneath the condos.

The biggest problem, at the moment, is how disconnected retail on the north side is from the strollers on the south side. I'm hopeful that the QQ redesign will make the north side no longer a 'No Go' zone. But, I think we'll end up with much more retail aiming at tourists than retail aiming at owners or downtown hipsters... because that's the group that comes here for a stroll.

 

[Glen]

Here is what Toronto's planning department said in regards to the role of taxes..

The development industry, in its response to the City, has identified a market performance problem with respect to the sale or leasing of at-grade detail and service use space in multi-storey mixed use or office developments. In some such developments, the City has required the inclusion of such at-grade space in the zoning by-law. The development industry feels particularly aggrieved where the space has been required by the City and then sits vacant for long periods of time. They assert that the inequitable tax structure with respect to retail uses is a primary reason that this space remains vacant.While no actual statistics are available to confirm the difficulties in the sale or lease of at-grade retail and service use space, anecdotal observations do confirm that in some areas of the City vacancies in new mixed use developments do exist. While it is likely that the greatest deterrent in these circumstances is the level of property taxes as it relates to projected market returns, staff has considered, but rejected, as discussed below, development charge relief to support the objective of creating shopping streets along major roads.Street-related retail and service uses are desirable in many multi-storey developments on shopping streets to help animate and revitalize the street and create a safer, more diverse, attractive and interesting pedestrian environment. The presence of such retail and service uses also improves the quality of the residential and/or work environment in adjacent neighborhoods.Staff has considered the possibility of development charge relief in order not to exacerbate market performance problems where in fact such problems may exist. The real reasons for any poor market performance appear to be the inequitable property tax structure and, in some locations,lack of effective market demand. Unfortunately, a development charge exemption will not alter this reality because the development charges are not a significant factor in the cost of constructing the retail space.Citywide, a market performance problem for retail and service use space in general has not been identified

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/council/cc040622/pof5rpt/cl001.pdf

 

[savevp]

Now that we have gotten that sorted out, would anybody care to comment on the types of businesses that a 'world-class' street must have (besides the obligatory cafes and restaurants)?

 

[urbandreamer]

A world class street must have 10 Mcdonalds, a Tim Hortons (now that they've announced plans to expand internationally), at least four Starbucks, a Gap and Gap kids, Topshop, a newstand or two and of course some indie shops and good French restaurants.

Wait a second, doesn't this list describe Yonge St, Queen St, Bloor St, etc?

What QQ really needs: trees, cars moving slower, more condos that meet the street better, and art galleries!