Too Many Condos?

[RC8]

Torontovibe, Queens Quay tried becoming a retail strip and there's almost nothing there that's not a corporate franchise or an underwhelming piece of retail. Integrating retail into buildings and making them front the street is far from enough. Almost all Cityplace buildings offer some sort of retail, but spaces are relatively vacant still. Only way they could have made it work would have been by having a cobblestone Fort York Boulevard with a mixture of heritage recreations and modern glass-steel retail pieces, or something along those lines.

St. James town was made up of all rental buildings with few amenities and all the towers were completely isolated from roads and thoroughfares. There was originally no retail whatsoever in the area, and the units were very basic, with kitchens were below the standards for back then, and no laundry facilities ensuite. The floors are hard to customize and the balconies are dark uninviting spaces clad with metal sheets. It was a recipe for disaster from day one, and I believe that only one or two towers from their 60s/70s era have escaped becoming lowest-class housing, even if the buildings were standing alone in very successful neighbourhoods full of retail and whatnot.

St. James town is a story of failure not just from an urban design perspective, but also from an architectural standpoint. The architecture at Cityplace is, unlike in those towers, capable of offering very high living standards comparable to those you'd get in any other contemporary type of housing.

 

[Torontovibe]

Torontovibe, Queens Quay tried becoming a retail strip and there's almost nothing there that's not a corporate franchise or an underwhelming piece of retail. Integrating retail into buildings and making them front the street is far from enough. Almost all Cityplace buildings offer some sort of retail, but spaces are relatively vacant still. Only way they could have made it work would have been by having a cobblestone Fort York Boulevard with a mixture of heritage recreations and modern glass-steel retail pieces, or something along those lines.

St. James town was made up of all rental buildings with few amenities and all the towers were completely isolated from roads and thoroughfares. There was originally no retail whatsoever in the area, and the units were very basic, with kitchens were below the standards for back then, and no laundry facilities ensuite. The floors are hard to customize and the balconies are dark uninviting spaces clad with metal sheets. It was a recipe for disaster from day one, and I believe that only one or two towers from their 60s/70s era have escaped becoming lowest-class housing, even if the buildings were standing alone in very successful neighbourhoods full of retail and whatnot.

St. James town is a story of failure not just from an urban design perspective, but also from an architectural standpoint. The architecture at Cityplace is, unlike in those towers, capable of offering very high living standards comparable to those you'd get in any other contemporary type of housing.

But there are 2 things that make all the difference. Density and concentration of retail. Queen's Quay first of all, does not have enough density, right in the neighbourhood. It always needed people to come from outside the neighbourhood, to support its retail. What does it have, besides Harbourfront, to bring in people? In winter, that's a big problem. Cityplace has some SERIOUS density and a captive, year round population.

Secondly, you can't have bits and pieces of animation or retail. I've noticed in Toronto (and my travels) that the most successful retail areas are strips that have a long stretch of stores all together, along the sidewalk. (or other services/attractions) Queen's Quay does not have that. You have a few stores near Yonge, then the street-killing hotel. Followed by nothing, then more retail near Harbourfront, then after the Rabba strip, nothing for a while. You can't have small clumps of retail here and there, with nothing in between. It just doesn't work to fully animate the street. The city has to decide which streets are dedicated retail/animation and then zone ALL the street frontages as retail. It doesn't work with a half-hearted attempt. (don't forget, you also need the population density)

Can you tell me an area that has a high population density and a large number of stores all grouped together, in a row, that doesn't work, in Toronto? It works on just about every high density street in downtown Toronto. It would DEFINITELY work in cityplace, if they did it right.

It might not be super successful from day one. It takes a bit of time for any new development to take off but in a short space of time, it would have worked. That's why The Distillery District is now working. It needed a high concentration of art galleries, retail, restaurants and attractions, all in one area. With its new density, it will be even more successful. I think it almost always works. It's the half-assed attempts that fail. You need to either make a serious commitment to retail/animation or forget it. That's why retail fails so many times in Toronto. I'm no expert, I'm just very observant.

Was St. Jamestown really that different from other rental buildings. No buildings back then had laundry in each unit. Even today, few do. They have one shared laundry room. There is no reason that SJT turned out the way it did, except bad planning and design. I think it's as simple as that.

 

[RC8]

Was St. Jamestown really that different from other rental buildings. No buildings back then had laundry in each unit. Even today, few do. They have one shared laundry room. There is no reason that SJT turned out the way it did, except bad planning and design. I think it's as simple as that.

Please give me examples of other rental buildings from the same time which, in a different environment, managed to thrive and remain successful. I can only think of a couple in Yorkville, and they are still by far the cheapest/poorest in the whole area.

The reason why St. James failed is simply because all there is in the whole neighbourhood are these hideous towers that no one likes, and there's lots of them. Most towers like the ones in St. James town are occupied by lower class recent immigrants, but because the towers are not that common they only create small pockets of poverty... put them all together and you just get a disaster.

As for Queens Quay - its retail is just as consistent as, say, King St. West. which is by all means a huge success.

Cityplace seems a lot safer to me than Danforth or even Yonge and Eglinton. Much much safer, actually.

The distillery district is successful because of its heritage buildings first and foremost. Liberty village, without a 'wall of retail' is doing really well too. Give me an example of a modernist non-core successful wall of retail in Toronto.

 

[hawc]

I see certain similarities between Cityplace and St. Jamestown...

Oh brother, not the Jamestown thing again.

 

[Torontovibe]

Please give me examples of other rental buildings from the same time which, in a different environment, managed to thrive and remain successful. I can only think of a couple in Yorkville, and they are still by far the cheapest/poorest in the whole area.

The reason why St. James failed is simply because all there is in the whole neighbourhood are these hideous towers that no one likes, and there's lots of them. Most towers like the ones in St. James town are occupied by lower class recent immigrants, but because the towers are not that common they only create small pockets of poverty... put them all together and you just get a disaster.

As for Queens Quay - its retail is just as consistent as, say, King St. West. which is by all means a huge success.

Cityplace seems a lot safer to me than Danforth or even Yonge and Eglinton. Much much safer, actually.

The distillery district is successful because of its heritage buildings first and foremost. Liberty village, without a 'wall of retail' is doing really well too. Give me an example of a modernist non-core successful wall of retail in Toronto.

Toronto doesn't have many high density areas. If you look at Parliament, Sherbourne, Jarvis and Church Streets, none of those streets have high density, except the St.Jamestown area. Toronto is just now starting to build some serious density, which is why I want the city do it right.

There are also few good retail strips on those streets but where they work best, is where the retail is tightly packed, like on Parliament, north of Gerrard and Church, north of Carlton. There are really no other decent shopping strips on those streets.

King East is another street that works pretty well and that's because it is a destination for anyone buying furniture. The large concentration of retail makes it attractive. It really only took off fairly recently. The new residential density (and furniture/condo shoppers) will only make it better.

"Please give me examples of other rental buildings from the same time which, in a different environment, managed to thrive and remain successful."

Off hand, I can't tell you because I can't think of anything off the top of my head. What do you mean by "successful"? Fully rented? Well maintained? Cool and trendy? The buildings in Thorncliff Park seem successful. (those great big tall ones) What about the ones in Don Mills, along Lawrence or all the rental buildings at Yonge & Eglinton. My brother lived there for years and loved it. Toronto has lots of successful rental buildings. What about those buildings on Jarvis near Isabella? I have friends who live there and it seems like a good place to live. It's well maintained and clean. All these buildings are probably over 30 years old and still well maintained.

Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't call Liberty Village a successful retail area as yet. Much of it, is pretty crapy and from what I have read, there are many empty retail spaces. I know the dollar store is not doing well at all. So far, there is not much demand for retail spaces and that strip mall is, let's face it, rather pathetic. Of course, with enough density, even a decentralized district can have success. I just don't think it's there yet.

 

[greenleaf]

I'm not sure where to put this link, but it seems relevant and interesting to compare the freedom that developers have in terms of creating unit sizes here to what is law in NYC. (They want more tiny units!) Also interesting to note that 17% of dwellings have children under 25. Councillor Vaughan's goal of creating 10% family size units seems very appropriate considering that after living downtown many people in their 20s and 30s will want to stay downtown with thier children.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/realestate/posting-diversifying-the-citys-housing-stock.html

"IS there a mismatch between the housing New Yorkers need and the housing that gets built? Only 17 percent of dwelling units in the city are occupied by parents raising children under 25, according to the nonprofit Citizens Housing and Planning Council, but most new homes are designed with such traditional families in mind.

What is missing, housing advocates say, are homes for people who can afford only a little bit of space; living quarters large enough for four or more unrelated adults to share; and “accessory dwellings” for people who want to live close to family members who own single-family houses.

The absence of affordable housing for artists, actors, musicians and writers hoping to gain a foothold in New York is of particular concern. “We’re losing a lot of creative people to places like Buffalo and Berlin,” said Matt Blesso, a developer.

But developers like Mr. Blesso say city and state laws make it difficult to diversify the city’s housing stock. For example, it’s illegal to build units without kitchens and bathrooms or smaller than 400 square feet; and by law no more than three unrelated people are allowed to share a dwelling in the city."

 

[freshcutgrass]

Please give me examples of other rental buildings from the same time which, in a different environment, managed to thrive and remain successful.

High Park, Yonge & Davisville, Yonge & Eglinton, St Lawrence.

St Lawrence being the huge winner and followed a drastically different planning criteria, but the others didn't go down the toilet, and are more successful now than they ever were, despite being basically the same as St Jamestown. They could have ended up just like St Jamestown...or Flemo Park, or other high density apartment clusters of the era...but they didn't.

Some of it has to do with the fickle nature of the demographic, economic and geographic market dynamics, but mostly I think it is attributed directly to management. If your market rent building turns into a run-down, low rent crime infested building....then the fault lies with the owner.

 

[44 North]

Interesting idea for a thread. I think it's a good basis for an argument about the largest development this city will ever see: the Waterfront. A one thousand acre blank canvas with no preexisting neighbouhood to provide character.

I know the renderings on WT's website are simply that, renderings. But even with the blank templates for zoning and building heights, it's still obvious what will exist: Mid-rise and highrise glass condos... More than likely with heights that will be taller than first stated (a la everything built in Toronto in the last decade).

I'd like for the city to save one part of the waterfront - perhaps the Portlands - as an area of townhouses, low-rises, and a few mid-rises. A neighbourhood with real character: narrow streets, an identifiable building style, a soulful place to raise families. I don't want to bash Cityplace, but IMO the city really blew its chance at creating a neighbourhood with soul or an identifiable character.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Design and planning. I still think you guys are banging your heads against the wall on these issues. Yes they matter but they are at best fine-tuning tools. Ownership division, who is made responsible, mundane tax and regulatory clauses, these are the powerful forces that shape cities.

Think about what a condo is. Why are we presently building condos and not rental? For example as a thought exercise change a few mundane ownership, responsibility, tax or regulatory rules and not one condo unit will ever be built in the city again.

 

[CanadianNational]

Are we building too many condos? If they are to the exclusion of other kinds of developments, we might be.

I think the city would benefit from more rentals, as mobility of place can be an asset. It definitely needs more rent-geared-to-income housing, with the current wait list being about seven to nine years. Functional cities benefit finely-grained different economic strata existing in close quarters - along with, of course, alleviation of harsh poverty.

My biggest worry for Toronto is cultural buildings and spaces. I worry that even as people pour into the core, we're not developing the street level jumble of uses and scales that will give people places to enjoy themselves. I especially would like to see the new development zones at Cityplace-Fort York, St. Lawrence - Lower Donlands and Regent Park use what space they have left to ensure that there's a good mix at street level of places where you can let your hair down.
A cultural center for Regent Park is all well and good - but there's no place in view to get a bite at an attractive restaurant, go dancing, or see a movie. Same goes for the Fort York area - which gets dead at night, except for polite intermittent foot traffic. From River street at Queen, back to Sherbourne - it's oddly dead. The St. Lawrence area seems to be doing the best as an established area so far, what with King Street taking off to the North, the Distillery to the East the core close by westward, and WaterfronToronto's interventions to the south.

I'm a bit worried too, about the waterfront. It looks alright in the renderings. Sherbourne Park is fantastic, as is Sugar Beach. But this, too, is an area that is really crying out to be a waterfront boulevard destination in the summer. That means, in addition to the planned amenities - entertainment. Clubs like Guverment have been wildly successful despite being in the worst of locations in the harshest of environments. In lousy old buildings, to boot. I would like to see more clubs comparable in scale and use to Guverment (along with a mix of other entertainments) along Queen's Quay though this area. That looks dubious, though, given the definite planning guidelines formulated for the buildings here.
I don't see plans for any theatres anywhere in the new zoning guidelines. I don't mean the "meaningful cultural" kind of theatres, either. I mean more, neighbourhood, hole-in-the-wall or even local small multiplex kind of theatres. Movie going is a popular thing in a winter city - and it's a good thing having it available down the street and around the corner, instead of having to transit to it somewhere. The same for dance clubs and bars. Also, you don't hear much about new places of worship going up. That's interesting.


I like how Ossington's taken off in the last few years. It's a cool street to walk up now. That's the reverse effect of a planned neighbourhood - success with condos, economics and population increase spilling out to enliven an area. Maybe this will start to happen on Queen East, around River.
Can that sort of ad-hoc success be duplicated in new development? I tend be pessimistic and think it can't. It tends to take time.
But, regardless, I think we should be doing everything we can to produce streets as interesting as Ossington, Queen West, etc., in our new developments. Because if we don't even try, they'll be that much harder to convert to enjoyment down the road.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Can that sort of ad-hoc success be duplicated in new development? I tend be pessimistic and think it can't. It tends to take time.

That's a good question. My answer is that it can happen, because I've seen vibrancy and independent retail/restaurants spring out of nothing in condo neighbourhoods in Vancouver and Portland. The old excuse that it is the rate of business taxes that kills streetlife - which, we all know, was advocated by Glen - is sort of a red herring because independent businesses seem to set up quite spontaneously and frequently in the storefronts of old, established Toronto neighbourhoods, and the ones that set up in condo towers in Vancouver do so in a city where business taxes are 6 times higher than property taxes for the same square footage. I don't know why Toronto's condo neighbourhoods have been such a dud in attracting independent retail, but I think the layout and size of the retail may have something to do with it*.

*There is a condo development in NYCC that has been very successful in attracting Korean stores and restaurants to set up shop. This despite the fact that it's not on a main street (I'm not thinking of Spring Garden Rd, BTW, but some complex closer to Finch). The tiny size of the retail outlets seems to help.

 

[Glen]

That's a good question. My answer is that it can happen, because I've seen vibrancy and independent retail/restaurants spring out of nothing in condo neighbourhoods in Vancouver and Portland. The old excuse that it is the rate of business taxes that kills streetlife - which, we all know, was advocated by Glen - is sort of a red herring because independent businesses seem to set up quite spontaneously and frequently in the storefronts of old, established Toronto neighbourhoods, and the ones that set up in condo towers in Vancouver do so in a city where business taxes are 6 times higher than property taxes for the same square footage. I don't know why Toronto's condo neighbourhoods have been such a dud in attracting independent retail, but I think the layout and size of the retail may have something to do with it*.

*There is a condo development in NYCC that has been very successful in attracting Korean stores and restaurants to set up shop. This despite the fact that it's not on a main street (I'm not thinking of Spring Garden Rd, BTW, but some complex closer to Finch). The tiny size of the retail outlets seems to help.

Your evidence ignores such issues as CVA capping (which means wildly different rates for similar properties), differences in education taxes and valuing methodologies (see MPACs highest and best use for example). You should look at absolute tax burdens, not ratios.

The problem is not the size or the layouts. If so you would think that developers are incredibly stupid for continuing to build such ill suited space. The reason is costs mainly due to taxes. Old retail strips still pay only a fraction of full CVA taxes. New ones are uncompetitive by means fo paying the full CVA amount.

 

[taal]

King East has many condos full of what seem like independent outlets (though they tend to be focused on furniture and the like), how does that work ?

There are more examples of this throughout the core.

I don't buy the excuse the independent business can't thrive, they can and do, even at the full CVA rate but clearly it's a lot harder. Its not condos, it's the mix of different taxation rates in the same area that must be very painful for them though.


Also, in areas where chain retail are willing to venture that indeed drives up the rental rate for everyone else. Take Queen W, an area with very little new condo development. Interestingly enough, Queen W rental rates have been falling as of late as all those chain shops around Spadina aren't doing so great. I predict you'll see more of a mix here sooner then later.

Commercial tax rates are astronomically high in Toronto though (relative to the GTA), that's just a fact, you can't deny that (merely absolute terms, if you want to argue that's the way it should be ... fine) Also, the ratio between residential rate and commercial rate is also high compared to most of Canada.

Glen, you mentioned you were going to discuss this with the current administration, any luck with that ?

 

[CanadianNational]

I think there's the fact, too, that condo boards and management companies tend to be conservative regarding what goes in the base of their buildings. That's why we generally end up with dry cleaners, chain restaurants and small convenience stores. Predictibility.
Things like dance clubs, independent bars and restaurants, and places for the arts and music - are not only perhaps more unpredictable, but also perhaps more noisy, unkempt, crowd-attracting, etc.
This, of course, on top of high retail and taxation rates.

 

[taal]

I think there's the fact, too, that condo boards and management companies tend to be conservative regarding what goes in the base of their buildings. That's why we generally end up with dry cleaners, chain restaurants and small convenience stores. Predictibility.
Things like dance clubs, independent bars and restaurants, and places for the arts and music - are not only perhaps more unpredictable, but also perhaps more noisy, unkempt, crowd-attracting, etc.
This, of course, on top of high retail and taxation rates.

This is just not true ... how many dry cleaners do you see on King East, alas the condos which generally get such retail (i.e. dry cleaners) can't support much else, or the vicinity it self can't, at least for the time being.

In terms of noise, yes that's true, but in regards to a chain restaurant vs an independent one that has nothing to do with the fact the unit is a condo; Most retail leasing agencies would prefer clients they know can stay put for a long time. Really this has nothing to do with the fact the unit is in a condo.

In all honesty we put a lot of retail in our new condos, many of the time they're not replacing older retail strips (actually the majority of time), they either on empty plots of land or commercial industrial space. You really can't expect indpedent shops to setup in all of these.

Let's talk about banks; Sure they eat up retail space but this has nothing to do with the fact its in a condo; if empty retail was built you'd see the same thing, with cityplace there wasn't much in terms of banking options in the area so they flooded the area, this is unfortunate I agree but it's not the condos that are at fault. Maybe there wasn't enough retail overall to provide space for all the banks and other more interesting retail (which may not pop up right away).