Toronto Pinnacle on Adelaide | 144.47m | 46s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

unimaginative2 said:
There are also some restaurants in the area, so I wouldn't really say that it's any less active than most other neighbourhoods in the city in the hours between the closing of the offices and the opening of the clubs. I walk in the area all the time--I live here. I'm just not convinced that the kind of "mixed use" neighbourhood that we're talking about--one with dozens of ultra-high-rise condos with retail podiums--leads to any more active neighbourhoods. We're creating a condo monoculture. On Peter from Wellington north to Queen, Second City is being torn down for a condo, north of there is another condo application. Across the street, Gretzky's will be torn down for another condo just north of the existing Icon condo. North of there is a parking lot and the warehouse that used to have the Indian Motorcycle cafe--it will become several more condos. Further north there is a condo application for the warehouse on the southeast side at Adelaide. North of there the Adelaide St. Pub is coming down for another condo. At Peter and Richmond, the old Tonic/Cantina Charlie's building will become yet another condo. I don't see how this is mixed-use. These neighbourhoods haven't worked on Bay north of Queen, or on Bremner. I don't see why it will in the entertainment district, and in this case it would be replacing an established neighbourhood.

I just don't subscribe to this theory that every neighbourhood has to be "mixed use" (which typically means lots of condos added to downtowns) to be successful. I don't think condos are detrimental to a neighbourhood, as long as it doesn't become a monoculture and doesn't come in the form of superblock projects. I also agree that an office monoculture is unhealthy and in a feeble American downtown, condos can add much-needed life. But in any truly large city, you are going to see neighbourhoods that specialize. I lived in Berlin, a city often prized by these "mixed use" theorists. Yet around Warschauer Strasse, you'll find a club district vastly larger than our own entertainment district. You'll also find primarily retail neighbourhoods, and primarily office neighbourhoods. Not necessarily exclusively, but definitely predominantly. There's nothing wrong with it. It's natural in any large city and I don't think these neighbourhoods would benefit from shoehorning in condos so that theorists can call it mixed-use.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was trying to say.
 
I'm really not sure, a lot of American cities subscribe to this district idea it's quite common to have a shopping district an entertainment district so on so forth. I'll argue for the most part it doesn't work, at least not in American cities. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the European cities you cite so it may be different there.

Though I agree not every area has to be mixed use, generally speaking what happens is you get just about know one actually living downtown and that makes the majority of it very sterile outside the core shopping district. Sterile / poor / and generally crime ridden. Again though this is from many American cities and there may be other factors at play.


But my main point would simply be; Why do you think these condos won't bring more retail / restaurants / pubs / lounges in their base ! Okay we replace a restaurant but what if one comes back, there are many such condos downtown that are built like this ! Retail at the base of condos works. I can see why your hesitant as there are many areas where we've seen the opposite i.e. Cityplace and the like ... but this has to do with its surroundings more then the condo base it self. There are many condos in Yorkville / North York, other parts of downtown that fit well into the streetscape and add retail. If we get this what is being lost ?
Again King east is a perfect example, all the new condos in the area have a ton of retail at the base. Okay yes, its sterile, but that has nothing to do with the buildings, it is furniture central and has always been ...

Also you really can't argue more people living in an area makes it more vibrant; I agree you can argue that it can lead to more pressure to have a less active night seen and that's not ideal.

So simply put, if we make sure the base meets the street well, adds retail (and hopefully office use in the podium as well) it can work out.
 
taal said:
I'm really not sure, a lot of American cities subscribe to this district idea it's quite common to have a shopping district an entertainment district so on so forth. I'll argue for the most part it doesn't work, at least not in American cities. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the European cities you cite so it may be different there.

Though I agree not every area has to be mixed use, generally speaking what happens is you get just about know one actually living downtown and that makes the majority of it very sterile outside the core shopping district. Sterile / poor / and generally crime ridden. Again though this is from many American cities and there may be other factors at play.
Click to expand...

You bring attention to some very good points here. I think that one of Toronto's biggest problems is that we're absorbed by American culture and therefore we look at fashionable American solutions to the problems of American cities, without recognizing that we've already solved a lot of those problems and really should be comparing ourselves to healthier cities, like those of Europe. Of course a few condos would be fantastic for bringing 24 hour life to an office ghetto like downtown Cleveland. Nobody would dispute that. Of course gimmicky "entertainment districts" don't work in an otherwise dead downtown and just wind up reinforcing the danger stereotypes. Light rail lines are a great way to get people to notice and consider transit in cities that have a total transit ridership smaller than that of individual Toronto bus routes. But we don't have those problems. We have a downtown that's packed with people at all hours, including (especially!) in areas that don't have a lot of residences around. We have a subway that has been at capacity for decades. We need to look at how other cities, particularly European ones, have solved these problems.

Another poisonous idea is this bizarre principle that no neighbourhood should be a "destination" and instead people should just do all of their business in a few block radius of their home. Leaving aside the fact that this isn't the 50s and dual-income homes might require one household member to work far away from the other, every great city is completely reliant on an enormous (in some cases global) catchment area to support its businesses. In our own city, it's not like the stores of Queen West or restaurants of Ossington and Dundas are populated exclusively by the walk-up traffic from the surrounding neighbourhood. Besides, if I wanted to just stay within a few block radius, I'd have moved to a small village--it'd be a lot cheaper. But because of this strange theory, you look at a neighbourhood like Queens Quay or Bremner. We build tens of thousands of condo units and then bang our heads on our desks with confusion at why they haven't become thriving and interesting neighbourhoods. It's because even thousands of people aren't enough to support a successful urban commercial area if you don't draw from anywhere else, and because those buildings' residents are going up to Queen or College rather than hanging around their buildings.

But my main point would simply be; Why do you think these condos won't bring more retail / restaurants / pubs / lounges in their base ! Okay we replace a restaurant but what if one comes back, there are many such condos downtown that are built like this ! Retail at the base of condos works. I can see why your hesitant as there are many areas where we've seen the opposite i.e. Cityplace and the like ... but this has to do with its surroundings more then the condo base it self. There are many condos in Yorkville / North York, other parts of downtown that fit well into the streetscape and add retail. If we get this what is being lost ?
Again King east is a perfect example, all the new condos in the area have a ton of retail at the base. Okay yes, its sterile, but that has nothing to do with the buildings, it is furniture central and has always been ...
Click to expand...

I completely agree that when you build a condo along an existing retail strip, it will tend to be better than if you build it in the middle of nowhere. But part of the problem is that a city needs more than just 15-foot deep standardized retail units. Condo boards also are extremely unwilling to rent to most independent business or to any kind of business that is thought likely to contribute noise, mess, or too many people. Their ideal is a fast food restaurant, a grocery, or a dry cleaner's that will reliably pay the rent and be an amenity for the residents rather than for the street. Furniture stores, yes, also fit the bill of a quiet, inoffensive use. We need diversity, though. A purely condo neighbourhood will mean, in most cases, identical retail units. They're not very adaptable, unlike older buildings that can change from a store to a restaurant to a nightclub back to a store at will. Another problem--and I know this is complete and utter heresy on a forum like this--is that a lot of people just simply like walking down streets with three or four storey buildings rather than lines of 50 storey buildings that block out the sun. No European city has a shopping district with skyscrapers and even in New York, many of the shopping areas are comparatively low-rise.

Also you really can't argue more people living in an area makes it more vibrant; I agree you can argue that it can lead to more pressure to have a less active night seen and that's not ideal.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant "don't make it more vibrant" and actually, in some cases, I would argue that. You can put up tens of thousands of residential units, but if those residents just leave their buildings and get right on the streetcar (or in their cars) to some place more interesting, it doesn't really do much for vitality.

So simply put, if we make sure the base meets the street well, adds retail (and hopefully office use in the podium as well) it can work out.
Click to expand...

You make lots of good points, and in this I hope you're right. I don't have a problem with condos and I think there are cases where the retail is done very well. I just don't think that a condo monoculture like we will see in the entertainment district will generally lead to an interesting or vibrant neighbourhood.
 
Last edited:
Thanks unimaginative2, I actually have a better understanding from where your coming from now.

Regarding the constant comparison to American cities I agree that in many ways that's just setting up for disaster. If anything other Canadian cities would make for much better comparison / learning ...


I think your fear / hesitation is centered around what you believe (and rightfully so in many cases) the majority of retail / commercial space will be geared toward small laundromats and the like.

Lets look at other examples, even Queen Street / Yonge street - most of the building have residential units on top (some nicer then others) ... and it works great. A lot of the other cities you cited (at least New York) are similar as well in that sense. So we're just putting 500 units on top as opposed to 50 :) It's as simple as that if we get the retail right.


I'll make one last point; In your favor :) Though what I describe sounds great to me, thinking about it for a minute, how many other comparable areas have a plethora of giant condo buildings while at the same time having greatly successful and vibrant retail strips. Not many, the examples I do have are generally more commercial buildings on top. Lastly, even with the example I can think of, it's never vibrant in terms of night life (and hear I specifically refer to clubs) ... so yes, we're going to lose that here.
 
Last edited:
Pic taken May 20/11


5741061524_af14520b21_b.jpg
 
They're keeping and restoring that building, right? Please tell me we're not tearing down more of our heritage..
 
They're moving it across the street while they excavate and get the site back up to grade, and then they're going to move it next door to the pub Daniels was using as a site office
 
I've stopped trying to keep track of all the projects in the downtown core. The pace and numbers are insane.
 
This block is going to be incredibly dense with TIFF, Pinnacle, and Cinema Tower. That's approximately 1500 (+) units in one block!
 
^ The Hooters and Active Green + Ross on the north west corner are so ugly and out of place - I've wanted to see that site redeveloped for ages, yet it stubbornly hangs on with no proposal in sight. Very frustrating.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top