Toronto Social at Church + Dundas | 164.89m | 52s | Pemberton | RAW Design

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?
 
bilked said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they'd rather get a bank, Shoppers Drug Mart or a Rexall instead of some interesting, non-corporate tenants?

I love Tacos 101. I'd be sad to see them gone.
 
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.
 
bilked said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's finally momentum to trashing the tax break for vacant commercial units, but what also is necessary are requirements for small retail spaces, and deep commercial units, rather than wide ones, which are often partly blocked with window film, like the Shoppers Drug Mart stockpeople.
 
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. In the condos, you normally get…
  • a lobby with concierge desk, at least a couple of seats to wait in, a mail room
  • the elevator core and two sets of fire escape stairs which often have long hallways to connect them to the exterior
  • access ramp to an underground garage
  • loading for moving and for garbage/recycling pickup
All of that takes a lot of space, especially in the back, and it's rare to see deep retail spaces on tight sites. The larger the site, it easier it is, but you'd rarely find space to replace 1:1.

42
 
bilked said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sabai Sabai moved to Bloor months ago.
 
interchange42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bilked said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

42
 
interchange42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the maximum retail space and bank retail proscriptions in New York limited to a few streets/neighborhoods in Manhattan? I understand Toronto has cited NY as a precedent for its tall building guidelines on maximum lobby widths and minimum retail frontages. Would love to see a maximum unit width pilot project take root here too. But I also see the need for a more general policy requiring that developers, when dismantling an existing retail strip, to try to replicate the type of retail space that was previously there, whether that formula is 1:1 or something else, that could serve as guide City-wide, whether on Yonge Street, the Danforth, the Queensway or wherever.

But I love the NY model. I also think loosening tall building parking requirements would allow more subgrade retail opportunities for large format retailers to leave ground level room for smaller independents. That may not work well for banks, but can work for groceries and pharmacy chains, bulk barns, etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top