Ryan_T
Senior Member
Bad analogy. Small electronics companies would lack the resources necessary to craft things of Apple's caliber. Or if they can, it'll be so expensive, it'll appeal only to a select few.
DtTO:
Actually, since when does height equate to vision? How would adding tall but architecturally indistinct (if not downright architecturally bankrupt) buildings while removing the existing built heritage be "visionary" and speak to the historical importance of the street (as opposed to an important condo, perhaps)? How does a vision of conserving and restoring that built heritage and creating a pedestrian oriented realm in an otherwise rapidly densifying area be any less visionary, any less special, any less forward thinking? I don't know about you, but my vision for the street is more than some third-rate architect coming up with a third-rate retail podium with third-rate workmanship hosting third-rate retail outlets with third-rate signage. And yes, instead of a few storefronts worth of it, we have an three floors of an entire corner of that. Congrats.
AoD
Agree with you if you were talking about Canadian Tire, Walmart kind of large retail stores. They are all the same in any part of the country.
However, when it comes to higher end department stores, such as Holt Renfrew, Nordstrom etc it probably makes less sense. These stores usually focus a lot on the appeal of display windows and usually makes a street look more sophisticated. Plus they are probably unwilling to be located in the basement due to an image issue.
I'd like to repeat again that small retail isn't necessarily more interesting and exciting. Yonge st between Gerrard and Bloor is an example. Most stores sell generic or tacky products/food. I won't consider them to be better than the Bay or Macy's at all.
I think some clarification needs to be made as to the current state of this particular stretch of Yonge. Can the current architecture (for the most part) even be classified as third (or even fourth) rate? I actually happen to prefer Aura to the tiny shops and houses that are currently there. Are the current "podiums" (the current buildings' Yonge frontage) all that great? What about the horrible retail that calls the area home? Yes, I do see your point that it could become much nicer if more developers took the "Five" route, but again, that is a matter of personal preference.
I'm not saying that Yonge should look like Bay v2.0 either. I think Yonge can be both modern AND different from Bay. Why doesn't the city take measure to actually make Yonge a premier shopping destination, instead of letting the name do all the work? In addition to mandating certain minimum requirements for new development (2s retail, double floor heights, etc.), they could also increase commercial taxes specifically for the area. How would developers possibly get away with Aura level retail if that were to happen? They would have no choice but to cater to higher end retailers.
The question is, should our city be pursuing a vision of Yonge St where the current built form is maintained (and restored), while adding density in the back, or something entirely different? In my opinion, the latter is a better option.
I'm not sure I agree. Why do we need another Queen Street when we already have a Queen Street, and several other areas that are similar (Roncesvalles, Junction etc)? Yonge Street is the main 'big city' thoroughfare in Toronto and the stretch of it that runs north of Dundas to Bloor is prime for large-scale retail, connecting as it does to Yorkville, Bloor Street and an ever-developing and intensifying Yonge/Bloor node. With the Eaton Centre to the south this is the logical place for mid-level retail, and is indeed analogous in many ways to areas along 5th in NYC or Michigan in Chicago that segue into more exclusive higher-end retail.
5ive is an amazing project that I love and saving these buildings along with others that are exemplary adds character, diversity and interest to the area, no doubt, but fundamentally this stretch of Yonge needs to develop, and in so doing needs to change... heck, Yonge Street has already changed drastically from the Yonge Street of arcades, head shops and clubs we knew in the past, and continues to change thanks in part to the spread of Ryerson. Design and architecture is a concern of course but why not just facilitate the eventuality of change better with certain standards in mind?
Log telephone polls 'define' Toronto too, but that doesn't mean that's what we should be employing going forward. Those red Vics served Toronto well for a century, but their presence on Yonge is unworkable going forward. Sometimes it's wise to recognize when a clean slate is needed. Toronto has tens of thousands of Vics, we don't need them on our main high street.
Agree.
Toronto indeed has tens of thousands of Vics throughout the city. I wouldn't cry over losing a few in bad shape on Yonge st to refresh the street a bit and bring it to the 21st century.
Yonge st above Dundas is an embarrassment to Toronto. Those old crappy houses may "define" Toronto, but definitely not in a positive way. Let's not pretend they are as nice and valuable as those gorgeous row houses in Bayback or Beacon Hill Boston, in which case I wouldn't trade them for everything.
How is higher-end retail incompatible with what heritage buildings that exists on Yonge currently?
Tewder:
There are enough degraded sites along Yonge that will allow for new, mid-rise developments that can potentially accomodate these types of retail outlets. It doesn't require slapping a tower on top and basically wreck the scale of the street.
Personally I think one should look at the CB2 at Queen and Bathurst as a model that is suitable for that stretch of Yonge.
AoD
It doesn't require slapping a tower on top and basically wreck the scale of the street.