The decay of downtown Queen Street East

[adma]

But again, as with Spain - where yes the first line started in the 80s but most was completed only in the last while, and again their whole country has less than 2 times the population of Shanghai - we need the political will, which simply means we need majority support.

And on top of that, consider Spain's current economic straits--which by association (rightly or wrongly), tars the wisdom of their subway ambitions...

 

[maestro]

But again, as with Spain - where yes the first line started in the 80s but most was completed only in the last while, and again their whole country has less than 2 times the population of Shanghai - we need the political will, which simply means we need majority support.

You do realize Spain is part of the European Union which has a transfer payment policy for improving infrastructure in countries that do not meet the minimal standards? Political will is nice however, billions in German Euros earmarked for infrastructure improvements is much nicer. I think even Canadians could get on board with that.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Yeah, imagine the gall it takes to want add some civic improvements to a completely desolate and depressed area. Damn yuppies.

"Civic improvements" are all relative. For many "damn yuppies" it often means ridding the streets of scary poor people. Queen street east is not desolate at all. The streets and parks are always filled with people. Most of the storefronts have businesses in them. In many ways a street like Bay is more desolate. It has long stretches without street front retail, and people rarely hang out in those "public" spaces built in front of the condos.

 

[agoraflaneur]

You do realize Spain is part of the European Union which has a transfer payment policy for improving infrastructure in countries that do not meet the minimal standards? Political will is nice however, billions in German Euros earmarked for infrastructure improvements is much nicer. I think even Canadians could get on board with that.

The example was mostly to show that democracies - whatever their particular position - can execute infrastructure build-outs as well as autocracies, as Balenciaga was complaining about our slow development here by blaming it on the democratic process.

Yes Spain received assistance, but its government also committed to the project as a nation-building exercise. Rail travel is part of Spanish culture, and the initiative was well-received.

Toronto has the financial capacity to build more subways: we could simply issue bonds (Toronto bonds and Federal bonds at all time lows, which indicate a nice return on borrowed capital) or implement user-based taxes - such as tolls, a sales tax, or demand-driven policies like parking or bringing back vehicle registration fees, or increasing residential rates in Toronto that are comparatively low (and yes I am a "taxpayer") - in order to build out. That, coupled with federal and provincial monies would put us nicely in the right direction. I know the province especially is in a deficit, but what can we do to get out of it but go forward with nation-building infrastructure that increases growth and efficiency? We don't need Germany, just ourselves.

The reason we don't is that the federal government simply doesn't care about urban Canada (whether Liberal or Conservative, the former because it was the base and they always had to fight over the suburbs; the latter because their base is so entrenched and they fight over the suburbs as well - which bizarrely view transit expansion as a negative). Ontario and Canada suck dollars out of Toronto (the GTA plus Hamilton represent about 25% of GDP but you would hardly know it from government investment levels).

Why is this? Most people seem to think that driving is always the best way to go and that building public transit or rail is a waste of money. Suburbanites like to pretend that their huge houses are economic and that those who live in a different situation or who chose not to drive are less deserving of investment - while most don't want to give up cars as a method of travel, much less pay their fair share to build the infrastructure that keeps us moving. Why are roads always supposed to be free? They are very expensive in reality, and we chose to build those instead, in addition to the sewer, power and other infrastructure that supports low density neighbourhoods and is subsidized. The fact is it is political, and public opinion in the crucial suburbs skews agains rail and subways at this time.

So, I would certainly contend that we have the resources to build, we simply don't. Not only that, we would gain GDP in efficiency and spin-offs. Political will is all that is holding us back.

However, the only high speed we could do from an economic perspective is Toronto-Montreal/Quebec, with US connections to Detroit/NYC if the US would build the high speed lines. I am not saying we can build something from Vancouver to Calgary or some nonsense. Spain ran into economic reality and had to pull back their overly ambitious plans.

But we could built the economically viable rail lines - and if we don't move on subways in Toronto soon, something is really going to reach an inflection point, if it already hasn't.

 

[UserNameToronto]

Wow, I leave the thread for a few days and this happens!

 

[Hipster Duck]

One thing we have to remind ourselves is that this area feels forlorn and on the periphery because, increasingly, it is. Toronto's centre of gravity continues its 200 year move westward and nowadays Spadina*, not Yonge, feels like it's the north-south axis that roughly cuts through the"central" part of Toronto. Queen Street East is still "downtown" but only in a nominal sense. Yonge, itself, is no longer really the city's "main street" but just another downtown commercial street that, in some cases, comes distressingly close to serving as its eastern edge (at least between College and Adelaide). With all the focus moving westward, it doesn't surprise me that this area has been left in the dust like it is. We just have to readjust our notions of where "downtown" really lies.

*Of course, that doesn't mean that Spadina is the new "main street" of Toronto. We don't have a principal main street anymore because we're a) too big for one, and, b) if we were a big city with a street that is so clearly the centre of everything - like Michigan Ave in Chicago - it would have to be because we had devoted so many architectural and commercial resources over our long history to securing one incredibly grand street, which we certainly haven't done with Yonge.

 

[Register123]

I can't find the thread on this but since it's in the area, was the construction of the new bike lanes on sherbourne contracted out or were they built by the city? What a piss-poor job. I can't decide what is worse, the poor design of the new lanes or execution of contruction. Sometimes it feels like Toronto is 30 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to infrastructure design and building.

 

[Lenser]

One thing we have to remind ourselves is that this area feels forlorn and on the periphery because, increasingly, it is. Toronto's centre of gravity continues its 200 year move westward and nowadays Spadina*, not Yonge, feels like it's the north-south axis that roughly cuts through the"central" part of Toronto. Queen Street East is still "downtown" but only in a nominal sense. Yonge, itself, is no longer really the city's "main street" but just another downtown commercial street that, in some cases, comes distressingly close to serving as its eastern edge (at least between College and Adelaide). With all the focus moving westward, it doesn't surprise me that this area has been left in the dust like it is. We just have to readjust our notions of where "downtown" really lies.

I don't see this assumption holding true at all (though I agree that Yonge stopped being a main street, in any meaningful sense, a long time ago). With the multiple developments that will eventually be coming to the truly massive area that is the Portlands, the continued build-out in Corktown, the Distillery and Lower Don areas, the new complex that will be going into the huge tract of land where Lever Bros. stands, and busy development going on along Queens Quay, density and new growth will in fact be expanding eastward as well as westward.

'Downtown' is perhaps becoming ever more amorphous a term, especially considering all of the vertical growth in Southcore, at Yonge and Eglinton, and in North York. Uptown, midtown and downtown are all districts competing for attention. Few can agree on what constitute downtown's boundaries. In a sense, attempting to nail the theoretical parameters of downtown is not a terribly relevant discussion. The city is bursting with growth and many neighbourhoods and districts are benefiting from that.

Downtown Queen Street East will eventually change, as it must. In the meantime, there's already been such dramatic changes in much of the city over the past couple of decades - in a sense we have become accustomed to unreasonably expecting rapid change everywhere we look. Many cities have dead zones which, in time, become gentrified - Toronto is no exception. Queen East will have its day.

 

[balenciaga]

One thing we have to remind ourselves is that this area feels forlorn and on the periphery because, increasingly, it is. Toronto's centre of gravity continues its 200 year move westward and nowadays Spadina*, not Yonge, feels like it's the north-south axis that roughly cuts through the"central" part of Toronto. Queen Street East is still "downtown" but only in a nominal sense. Yonge, itself, is no longer really the city's "main street" but just another downtown commercial street that, in some cases, comes distressingly close to serving as its eastern edge (at least between College and Adelaide). With all the focus moving westward, it doesn't surprise me that this area has been left in the dust like it is. We just have to readjust our notions of where "downtown" really lies.

*Of course, that doesn't mean that Spadina is the new "main street" of Toronto. We don't have a principal main street anymore because we're a) too big for one, and, b) if we were a big city with a street that is so clearly the centre of everything - like Michigan Ave in Chicago - it would have to be because we had devoted so many architectural and commercial resources over our long history to securing one incredibly grand street, which we certainly haven't done with Yonge.

I doubt Spadina is more like the centre now, because that assumes there are plenty of commercial actitivies west of Spadina, but is it true? Maybe in the case of area south of Queen st. Has Bathurst become a vibrant street, or Ossington (some, but hardly comparable to Yonge), or Dufferin? Fact is, north of Queen st, nothing west of Spadina is as lively as Yonge st. The area remains largely quiet and residential, except a few busier spots such as Little Italy/Kensington Market, both are relatively small in scale. At present, still no other NS street come close to Yonge st in terms of street life. Spadina itself is so messy and broken that it doesn't serve any specific purpose - south of Queen, between Queen and College and north of College are like three separate streets.

I would argue that Yonge's status right now is still unshakable, simply because 1) our businest subway line runs underneath it 2) it has Eaton Centre, Y/D Square, City Hall, Union Station, ACCC etc and the financial disctrict. Nowhere in the city comes anywhere close to the role it plays. I don't deny the fact that the center of the city is moving westwards and Yonge is no longer the middle street. However, Yonge is still the climax, albeit being somewhat the eastern edge.

Our downtown West needs a subway line running along one of the NS street in the future, maybe on Bathurst. We already made the strategic mistake of alligning the parallelle NS line on university, which is way too close to Yonge st. You may disagree but I firmly believe "downtown" has to be extremely accessible via rapid transit - loo everywhere, dt is where subway stations are most extensive. The fact that anywhere west of Spadina is more than 15 minutes walk from any subway station make them less accesible for fun and entertainment, and therefore, less "downtown".

 

[Hipster Duck]

I don't see this assumption holding true at all (though I agree that Yonge stopped being a main street, in any meaningful sense, a long time ago). With the multiple developments that will eventually be coming to the truly massive area that is the Portlands, the continued build-out in Corktown, the Distillery and Lower Don areas, the new complex that will be going into the huge tract of land where Lever Bros. stands, and busy development going on along Queens Quay, density and new growth will in fact be expanding eastward as well as westward.

But those developments are all well south of Queen street. There is a square kilometer bounded by Queen, Jarvis, Parliament and College where almost nothing has been built in the past 14 years, and this is during a time when maybe over 100,000 condo units were constructed in the old city of Toronto. While there is some growth in areas like Leslieville, St. Lawrence and the West Donlands, it seems that the overwhelming majority of development has occurred to the west of Yonge street. During this boom, the streets and areas that have changed the most physically (eg. Bay, Bremner, Wellington, Freedville) and psychologically (Ossington, Little Portugal, Parkdale) have predominantly been on the west side. If development trajectories continue this way I wouldn't be surprised if the "centre" of activity in this city moves westward.

'Downtown' is perhaps becoming ever more amorphous a term, especially considering all of the vertical growth in Southcore, at Yonge and Eglinton, and in North York. Uptown, midtown and downtown are all districts competing for attention. Few can agree on what constitute downtown's boundaries. In a sense, attempting to nail the theoretical parameters of downtown is not a terribly relevant discussion.

It is an important discussion in the context of this thread. The whole reason this thread exists is because people wonder aloud why a part of 'downtown' has received almost zero development growth in this boom. There are other parts of this city, even the old city of Toronto that are stuck in time but they're not downtown and therefore not the source of fascination. I mean, there isn't a thread called "the stagnation of Cosburn Road" even though that title certainly applies.

Downtown Queen Street East will eventually change, as it must. In the meantime, there's already been such dramatic changes in much of the city over the past couple of decades - in a sense we have become accustomed to unreasonably expecting rapid change everywhere we look. Many cities have dead zones which, in time, become gentrified - Toronto is no exception. Queen East will have its day.

I am not certain about this at all. As I've said, we've had a boom that is almost unprecedented in scale and in duration. Areas 7 km to the west of the financial district are now forests of towers and construction cranes; there are proposals for supertalls beside elevated freeways and 60 storey towers in Mimico. However, if you walk 50 meters east of St. Michael's Hospital it might as well be 1977.

 

[Lenser]

And yet 14 years in the span of a city the age of Toronto is not a great deal of time at all. I maintain that it all can't be done at once. People have to take sufficient interest in an area before pressures build up to finally cause that change. We expect these bracing changes to take the whole city by storm but I don't think development and gentrification works that way. Nor do I see this dowdy stretch of Queen East significantly changing up in a time frame that will satisfy the majority. But I fully expect that it will - it's much too close to the city centre; land values are becoming too dear; too many people are moving into centre-core Toronto. The area simply cannot withstand pressures to change indefinitely.

 

[taal]

Why is this a big mystery ? The area bounded by Queen and maybe College to the North, Church and to the DVP (actually a little past the DVP), has always been considered undesirable due to a large amount of social housing / shelters / not so much anymore but prostitution. This wasn't so much the case to the west, though Queen W was a lot "poorer" back in the day.

Another argument, in the core, the west side has the majority of the retail in the greater downtown core. The east side has retail south of Queen / King on the east side, and that area has seen a huge amount of development. The other retail in the east end is all the way up on the Danforth, which has seen a little development. So other then the perceived safety issues, there's also "not much to do" ... again this is all perceived (as I love Parliment street, but I can't tell you how many people aren't even aware that stretch of retail).

You can't compare development here to development on the western waterfront, folks who live there generally want the "quiet" outside of the core, but more importantly the perceived safety ... sure you can get the queit on the east side but not the safety.

I think things will change, but ever so slowly:
We already know about a couple potentially developments around Church / Queen, it'll talke a couple and they'll push further east. Also, development on Jarvis / Sherborne (north of Queen) will help.

 

[agoraflaneur]

I would echo most of taal's arguments. Despite having some of Toronto's most beautiful and historic architecture, east of Yonge has been plagued by an overconcentration of social services.

Another major factor I would add to explain the east lagging the west is the waterfront. While the western waterfront certainly has more room for improvement, the eastern waterfront was untouched by development until Corus Quay, Sherbourne Common, and George Brown moved in. I would argue that as soon as this stretch is developed as the East Bayfront, it will ignite interest in the east side (not to mention the lands east of the LCBO).

However, I would not downplay the development that has already occurred. The West Don Lands development is massively important for the area. It adds a sizeable and by all accounts fantastic park to the area; historic buildings are being kept while it appears that good contemporary midrise architecture will add to the St. Lawrence neighbourhood's existing form. Most importantly, Regent Park's regeneration - combined with the Distillery District and the West Don Lands - will shift the east's reputation in the consciousness of Toronto. Jarvis has been a recent hub of activity; George Brown continues to expand in acceptable and even distinctive ways; Ryerson has begun a cycle of development; and there is a revitalization project for Allen Gardens that will hopefully accentuate its premier status as a park in Toronto. South of Queen there is already not insignificant development: Axiom Condos; Ivory on Adelaide; King East; Post House; King Plus - and even north of Queen O2 Maisonettes. With projects like 154 Front Street, Market Wharf, 60 Colborne, 88 Scott, King Edward, Yonge and Richmond, L Tower, Backstage, etc. development has begun to seep east. Even north Sherbourne near Bloor and even Gerrard has seen a lot of activity.

In my view, as long as the necessary changes to the Don Lands, Regent Park and the east waterfront occur, the area will be absolutely ripe for development. All we need to do is to have the shelter on George Street renovated, improve social services, and to do something with Moss Park to really set the stage.

As an aside, there is a thread regarding that huge parking lot between Church and Jarvis on Queen that could really act as a catalyst for some kind of public square and landmark development to really pull some gravity to the east.

 

[diminutive]

One way to explain Queen East's relative stagnation compared to western areas may be the lack of any agglomeration benefits from the areas around it.

Put another way, the western parts of downtown have benefited from being close to other desirable neighbourhoods. Ossington for isntance clearly benefited from being close to Queen West but substantially cheaper. Likewise, I suspect Dundas West is now benefitting from being close to Ossington.

There are nice areas around Queen East, but they don't really offer the same agglomeration benefits. King East is populated mostly by furniture shops. That's great an all but I don't understand why someone would want to live near a chair shop. The Church-Wellesley area's appeal is maybe more targeted than, say, Little Italy.

So, the best way to develop Queen East may be to encourage more nightlife and entertainment along areas like King East.

 

[Hipster Duck]

One way to explain Queen East's relative stagnation compared to western areas may be the lack of any agglomeration benefits from the areas around it.

Put another way, the western parts of downtown have benefited from being close to other desirable neighbourhoods. Ossington for isntance clearly benefited from being close to Queen West but substantially cheaper. Likewise, I suspect Dundas West is now benefitting from being close to Ossington.

There are nice areas around Queen East, but they don't really offer the same agglomeration benefits. King East is populated mostly by furniture shops. That's great an all but I don't understand why someone would want to live near a chair shop. The Church-Wellesley area's appeal is maybe more targeted than, say, Little Italy.

So, the best way to develop Queen East may be to encourage more nightlife and entertainment along areas like King East.

Very good point, dimunitive. Based on your theory, Queen St. East might get a boost not from the west but, ironically, from further out east as the energy of Queen-Broadview village spills westward over the Don (maybe helped by a northward expansion of Corktown). I think this is a lot more plausible than the idea that Queen will get a boost from downtown expanding eastwards from Church.