Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

[adma]

People like me huh? Thst post wins my personal award for most judgmental of this young year for sure. Where did I ever express a remote hostility to all heritage properties? This block is hardly akin to a row of Victorians in Cabbagetown afterall nor is the streetscape worth salvaging much in my opinion.

Ah, but you're still speaking from an untutored, underconditioned standpoint. Maybe not re *all* heritage properties (after all, my original "McMansion-mentality" barbs were directed more the obtuse Borat-enciagas who *would* dispense w/said Cabbagetown Victorians)--but in the end, aside from degrees of gentility and gentrification (look: it's a workhorse commercial row, not a residential street), not to mention the whole "real estate pressure" thing, what *is* so different or significantly more dispensible here compared to Cabbagetown?

As I see it, this blockfront might, as a unity, actually be the *most* salvage-worthy of all along Yonge. And it's because...miraculously, and in a strategically *very* prominent location, it all still exists. Yeah, well-worn, a little frayed or retrofitted in spots; but even through its disparate increments, solid and consistent in overall effect. True, none of it (except for the Second Empire flamboyance of Frogleys/Cookbook Store at the N end) really ventures far from a High-Late Victorian Italianate/Romanesque commercial-row paradigm--but why should it? It's about the sum rather than the parts here.

And what makes it even more interesting is that it's by far the major surviving element of the commercial heart of the old Village of Yorkville (whose municipal offices were half a block north, remember). As such, maybe it really shouldn't be thought of in terms of "just another humdrum Victorian block on Yonge"; but more akin to the grand Ontario-heartland commercial rows in places like Milton or Mount Forest. One might even invoke the row's "cultural undercurrent" (including in more recent times, the Issacs and Carmen Lamanna galleries) on its behalf.

It's a very rich, interesting, powerful row--and a powerful urban foil for Moriyama's Library across the way. The trouble is that common Toronto affliction of mercenary historical amnesia--as with so many recognizing-our-heritage listing gestures in 70s Toronto (cf. the Reynolds Block), the story and stories here have become mute over the years. And while the fact that nothing much has been done to the block over the succeeding four decades hasn't hurt, from a drawing-attention standpoint it hasn't helped, either. It isn't that it's looked at w/hostility as a dispensible old crock (no matter what the Balenciagas would tell you); rather, it's been taken for granted. But at this juncture, it deserves more. (And I wouldn't just say that about any old/aged Yonge row--I'm more of a fence-sitter re some of those threatened further south, Isabella, Dundonald, etc.)

Though of course, advancing such a case here might, at least to the development-fanboy crowd, be like shouting in vain across a municipal committee room.

Most notably though, I can hear and appreciate your (incredibly self righteous) opinions without insulting you. Perhaps you should try a little tenderness sometime. It would go much farther in the virtual & the physical realms.

Well, the "self righteousness" doesn't come without foundation. So may I offer that you should try a little tenderness in the way you regard and approach Toronto's existing built fabric.

And, read this article.
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2013/01/10/no-mean-city-ada-louise-huxtable-and-building-for-the-future/
Though if you never heard of her, much less read her work, before now, it says plenty. (Well, maybe you're more likely than Balenciaga...)

 

[balenciaga]

In terms of aesthetics, it's totally different. Many families value the fact that you can live in a charming Victorian 2-storey house so close downtown and not be forced into a shoebox condominium.

many families value the fact they can live in a charming Victorian house so close to downtown they inherited from their parents and grandparents. which average middle class can never afford to buy or move in.

be careful. the ability of living in those 2 storey houses near downtown comes at the cost of other people having to live much farther away from downtown because all the land within comfortable commute to downtown has been occupied by selfish low density housing.

Do a calculation. Detached houses average about about $830k in Toronto and semis at about $640k. Much more expensive anywhere within 5km away from the core I would say. Yes, these houses are charming and have fantastic location offering both quiet ambiance and proximity to the centre, but what the percentage of our population can afford living in them, when the median household income is something in the line of $55K a year?

Yes, it is about economics. If only a small percentage, the privileged few can have access to these charming houses you love so much, that is a problem. A city is not about looking pretty and attractive. It needs to allow people to live in it without too much stress of commute and high housing price. Why Torontonians have one of the longest commute time in the world? because anywhere near the city center is occupied by charming 2 storey houses only people with rich parents can afford.

 

[jje1000]

many families value the fact they can live in a charming Victorian house so close to downtown they inherited from their parents and grandparents. which average middle class can never afford to buy or move in.

be careful. the ability of living in those 2 storey houses near downtown comes at the cost of other people having to live much farther away from downtown because all the land within comfortable commute to downtown has been occupied by selfish low density housing.

Do a calculation. Detached houses average about about $830k in Toronto and semis at about $640k. Much more expensive anywhere within 5km away from the core I would say. Yes, these houses are charming and have fantastic location offering both quiet ambiance and proximity to the centre, but what the percentage of our population can afford living in them, when the median household income is something in the line of $55K a year?

Yes, it is about economics. If only a small percentage, the privileged few can have access to these charming houses you love so much, that is a problem. A city is not about looking pretty and attractive. It needs to allow people to live in it without too much stress of commute and high housing price. Why Torontonians have one of the longest commute time in the world? because anywhere near the city center is occupied by charming 2 storey houses only people with rich parents can afford.

And so what? Is there an imperative that everyone be able to live close downtown? Does every person deserve, or desire to live close downtown? Why would you not want to intensify north of Eglinton instead?

In the end, most of the issues you list could easily be solved by intensification elsewhere in the 416 and better overall transit. Attacking the built form does not help.

Best said here:

Not likely. Those streets are vibrant because of the style of retail development along old thoroughfares. Smaller store fronts, more businesses within a certain radius. Newer development, even the better midrises, present large expanses of street-life killing larger stores; often antiseptic chains that you can find everywhere else. In addition higher lease rates for business and rents/prices for new condos would push out all of the variety, leaving us with a retail environment similar to a shopping centre.

Streets like Queen, Dundas West, Ossington and neighbourhoods such as Kensington thrive because of their varied, and human-scaled buildings and retail environments. You can't honestly think that if we razed Kensington and replaced it with a series of 8-12 storey buildings (or even 4-6 as you've mentioned) that it would become more vibrant. You would completely destroy the environment that draws people in the first place.

 

[adma]

Not likely. Those streets are vibrant because of the style of retail development along old thoroughfares. Smaller store fronts, more businesses within a certain radius. Newer development, even the better midrises, present large expanses of street-life killing larger stores; often antiseptic chains that you can find everywhere else. In addition higher lease rates for business and rents/prices for new condos would push out all of the variety, leaving us with a retail environment similar to a shopping centre.

Streets like Queen, Dundas West, Ossington and neighbourhoods such as Kensington thrive because of their varied, and human-scaled buildings and retail environments. You can't honestly think that if we razed Kensington and replaced it with a series of 8-12 storey buildings (or even 4-6 as you've mentioned) that it would become more vibrant. You would completely destroy the environment that draws people in the first place.

Well, a funny thing is that by balenciaga's estimation, Western visitors to Beijing or Shanghai ought to be appalled and disgusted about anything in those cities that doesn't meet so-called "modern western urban standards". But as I see it, au contraire--Westerners more often than not would find those as-yet-untrammelled Sino-equivalents of Kensington and Queen to be a *draw*. *Not* a turn-off. And so what if they're so-called more worthy of a rural village/small-town/whatever.

Meanwhile, the ones that *would* share balenciaga's disgust are, more often than not, the jet-setting nouveau riche casino class. And they're the ones who'd be as obtuse t/w their own home domains as they are t/w the domains they're visiting. Just because they're "visitors from abroad" doesn't make them "enlightened", no matter how much moolah they may be carrying and flaunting...

 

[balenciaga]

Not likely. Those streets are vibrant because of the style of retail development along old thoroughfares. Smaller store fronts, more businesses within a certain radius. Newer development, even the better midrises, present large expanses of street-life killing larger stores; often antiseptic chains that you can find everywhere else. In addition higher lease rates for business and rents/prices for new condos would push out all of the variety, leaving us with a retail environment similar to a shopping centre.

Streets like Queen, Dundas West, Ossington and neighbourhoods such as Kensington thrive because of their varied, and human-scaled buildings and retail environments. You can't honestly think that if we razed Kensington and replaced it with a series of 8-12 storey buildings (or even 4-6 as you've mentioned) that it would become more vibrant. You would completely destroy the environment that draws people in the first place.

I mostly agree with you on your points, but I fail to see how 4-6 storey houses can't offer the same human scaled street life those 1-2 storeys do.
Speaking of chain, yes, Queen West (between Bathurst and University) are full of them, despite being mostly low rise. Shoppers, Gap, Club Monaco, Tim Horton's, everything you can think of. It is really not that different from the Eaton Centre or Yorkdale in terms types of retail. To think just because the houses are lower and small, they will be interesting, that's day dreaming.

European cities are mostly midrises, with very few 1-2 storeys, did it affect their street life and make everything sterile and antiseptic? No one is advocating 45 storey condos with a BMO at the podium here. I am just arguing buildings much taller than 2 storeys make a lot of more sense. Queen West would be perfect if all those houses are updated, and we add 3-4 storey on top of each of them while keeping whatever is there on the first 1-2 floors.

Nothing is taller than 3 storeys at King/Spadina, or Queen Bathurst. really? that's the best we can do with our land?

 

[balenciaga]

And so what? Is there an imperative that everyone be able to live close downtown? Does every person deserve, or desire to live close downtown? Why would you not want to intensify north of Eglinton instead?

Best said here:

Good question.
But following the same logic, why do we need to protect the 2 storey houses closer to downtown more than those farther away? I am sure you can find the types of houses at the Annex somewhere farther in the GTA. If we can intensify areas north of Eglinton, why not intensify south of St Clair and make it easier for everyone to live closer to downtown and reduce the need to commute? What is it that make houses near the centre more precious? It is not Paris or Prague where every building has significant architectural value and cannot be touched.

 

[jje1000]

I mostly agree with you on your points, but I fail to see how 4-6 storey houses can't offer the same human scaled street life those 1-2 storeys do.
Speaking of chain, yes, Queen West (between Bathurst and University) are full of them, despite being mostly low rise. Shoppers, Gap, Club Monaco, Tim Horton's, everything you can think of. It is really not that different from the Eaton Centre or Yorkdale in terms types of retail. To think just because the houses are lower and small, they will be interesting, that's day dreaming.

European cities are mostly midrises, with very few 1-2 storeys, did it affect their street life and make everything sterile and antiseptic? No one is advocating 45 storey condos with a BMO at the podium here. I am just arguing buildings much taller than 2 storeys make a lot of more sense. Queen West would be perfect if all those houses are updated, and we add 3-4 storey on top of each of them while keeping whatever is there on the first 1-2 floors.

Nothing is taller than 3 storeys at King/Spadina, or Queen Bathurst. really? that's the best we can do with our land?

Modern construction tends to create retail this way. Argue all you want about legislation, but it's a trend in most mid-rise and high-rise construction these days. Moreso, their owners, typically larger corporations, tend to be overly cautious than smaller, independent owners in selecting their retail. Large chains are stable, safe. Smaller stores are not. Combine overly cautious owners with large building footprints, and you end up with redevelopment that attracts bland retail.

Queen Street W between University and Spadina gained its chain stores because it's a popular street. Ditto with major streets in Paris, and London and any other European city, which are all overrun by chain stores (surprisingly enough). Interesting retail is found where building are not owned by larger corporations, mirroring the case today on the more interesting streets in Toronto these days.

Good question.
But following the same logic, why do we need to protect the 2 storey houses closer to downtown more than those farther away? I am sure you can find the types of houses at the Annex somewhere farther in the GTA. If we can intensify areas north of Eglinton, why not intensify south of St Clair and make it easier for everyone to live closer to downtown and reduce the need to commute? What is it that make houses near the centre more precious? It is not Paris or Prague where every building has significant architectural value and cannot be touched.

The problem is that houses in the Annex are not found elsewhere in the GTA. They were built in a specific era of time and in a specific style that likely never is going to be perfectly replicated again (cost, type of material, return-of-investment, labour, etc.). Most cities recognize this, that there's no going back after the International Style became prevalent.

If Paris or Prague protects their historical stock, why can't we do the same? Why can't we carefully develop the downtown and heavily develop the suburbs instead? There's really no space issues that would force us to do so- Toronto is not on an island or surrounded by mountains.

 

[balenciaga]

Modern construction tends to create retail this way. Argue all you want about legislation, but it's a trend in most mid-rise and high-rise construction these days. Moreso, their owners, typically larger corporations, tend to be overly cautious than smaller, independent owners in selecting their retail. Large chains are stable, safe. Smaller stores are not. Combine overly cautious owners with large building footprints, and you end up with redevelopment that attracts bland retail.

Queen Street W between University and Spadina gained its chain stores because it's a popular street. Ditto with major streets in Paris, and London and any other European city, which are all overrun by chain stores. Interesting retail is found where building are not owned by larger corporations, mirroring the case today on the more interesting streets in Toronto these days.

Good point and I totally agree.
But since Queen W between University and Spadina is mostly chain stores anyway despite being low rises, following your rationale, there is no benefit from keeping them 2 storeys any more, since been small didn't make them any more interesting. Why not add some floors or replace them with larger midrise buildings with equally homogeneous retail? At least it comes with the benefit of providing more housing and retail space and therefore most tax revenue for the city. The same for Dundas West and Yonge st. Neither have much interesting retail that's not part of a bland chain.

What happens west of Bathurst, I don't care. They can be all 1 storey or half a storey if they want. My issue is that downtown streets should not be low rise.

 

[jje1000]

Good point and I totally agree.
But since Queen W between University and Spadina is mostly chain stores anyway despite being low rises, following your rationale, there is no benefit from keeping them 2 storeys any more, since been small didn't make them any more interesting. Why not add some floors or replace them with larger midrise buildings with equally homogeneous retail? At least it comes with the benefit of providing more housing and retail space and therefore most tax revenue for the city. The same for Dundas West and Yonge st. Neither have much interesting retail that's not part of a bland chain.

What happens west of Bathurst, I don't care. They can be all 1 storey or half a storey if they want. My issue is that downtown streets should not be low rise.

Redevelopment of Queen Street W between University and Spadina is inevitable, why we can't also keep the buildings that do well?

Looking at this particular area: https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=queen...i9FdtJ6MHlSDWEnU_HyPYQ&cbp=12,326.53,,0,-6.16

The one- and two-storey buildings should be redeveloped (along preferably with the fcuk and H&M), but there's no reason why we can't keep the remaining 2-3-storey brick buildings (which also have some independent retail) the way they are. It's not about redeveloping anything and everything, it's about choosing the right areas to do so.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Good point and I totally agree.
But since Queen W between University and Spadina is mostly chain stores anyway despite being low rises, following your rationale, there is no benefit from keeping them 2 storeys any more, since been small didn't make them any more interesting. Why not add some floors or replace them with larger midrise buildings with equally homogeneous retail? At least it comes with the benefit of providing more housing and retail space and therefore most tax revenue for the city. The same for Dundas West and Yonge st. Neither have much interesting retail that's not part of a bland chain.

What happens west of Bathurst, I don't care. They can be all 1 storey or half a storey if they want. My issue is that downtown streets should not be low rise.

He's made a big deal of putting me on his ignore list so any attempt to quell this on my part will go unnoticed, but could a mod (or someone with similar powers) please get him to stop? This myopic, tear-it-all-down dreck (likely an attempt to establish himself as some sort of authority figure) has clogged up five or so threads now and it's getting pretty tiring.

 

[someMidTowner]

He's made a big deal of putting me on his ignore list so any attempt to quell this on my part will go unnoticed, but could a mod (or someone with similar powers) please get him to stop? This myopic, tear-it-all-down dreck (likely an attempt to establish himself as some sort of authority figure) has clogged up five or so threads now and it's getting pretty tiring.

Agreed! It is getting really difficult to suppress my rage. (as a bonus, he has to see your post since I quoted it)

 

[egotrippin]

I mostly agree with you on your points, but I fail to see how 4-6 storey houses can't offer the same human scaled street life those 1-2 storeys do.
Speaking of chain, yes, Queen West (between Bathurst and University) are full of them, despite being mostly low rise. Shoppers, Gap, Club Monaco, Tim Horton's, everything you can think of. It is really not that different from the Eaton Centre or Yorkdale in terms types of retail. To think just because the houses are lower and small, they will be interesting, that's day dreaming.

European cities are mostly midrises, with very few 1-2 storeys, did it affect their street life and make everything sterile and antiseptic? No one is advocating 45 storey condos with a BMO at the podium here. I am just arguing buildings much taller than 2 storeys make a lot of more sense. Queen West would be perfect if all those houses are updated, and we add 3-4 storey on top of each of them while keeping whatever is there on the first 1-2 floors.

Nothing is taller than 3 storeys at King/Spadina, or Queen Bathurst. really? that's the best we can do with our land?

Is the only thing you see the height of any given building? You completely ignore the importance of retaining a variety of buildings from different eras, as we'll never see anything like the architecture from the late 1800s through early 1900s again. In addition to providing contrast and texture to the urban fabric, the buildings you apparently deem a waste of space can be continually updated for modern use, all while providing a "living" link to our history (which is worth much more than a few more storeys).

I don't want to use subjective points to support my argument (I happen to love the gorgeous detailing and masonry work that defines a lot of our old retail streets), but again, tearing these structures down is completely disrespectful to the city as a whole and those who built it. You're citing vibrant midrise European cities that have centuries of development on Toronto, whose retail and residential environments have evolved organically. Blank slate redevelopment is the exact opposite of what you're citing, be it 4 storeys or 40.

Please explain how building higher for the sake of "using land better" would make for a better city. Your suggestion that I think the older houses are interesting because they're 1-2 storeys is completely missing the point, and not even correct for that matter. What I'm saying is that the pre-existing built form of our older residential and commercial neighbourhoods is what makes up the backbone of this city, and provides a vibrancy that very few large-scale modern developments can provide (even the most sensitive developments, due to the nature of the cost of new construction).

 

[Ramako]

He's made a big deal of putting me on his ignore list so any attempt to quell this on my part will go unnoticed, but could a mod (or someone with similar powers) please get him to stop? This myopic, tear-it-all-down dreck (likely an attempt to establish himself as some sort of authority figure) has clogged up five or so threads now and it's getting pretty tiring.

Yup, I don't mind him having an unpopular view, but he derails every single thread he posts in. I'm tired of reading page after page of this tired debate in every thread.

 

[balenciaga]

He's made a big deal of putting me on his ignore list so any attempt to quell this on my part will go unnoticed, but could a mod (or someone with similar powers) please get him to stop? This myopic, tear-it-all-down dreck (likely an attempt to establish himself as some sort of authority figure) has clogged up five or so threads now and it's getting pretty tiring.

Who is "he"? I hope it is not me, since I never put you on my ignore list, and I never propose a "tear-it-all-down" approach, which is uneconomical. Adding a few floors makes more sense.

 

[AlbertC]

Kudos to adma, that's a very well written response at the top of this page.

After taking a road trip to Buffalo and Hamilton last weekend, it has made me appreciate how vibrant and consistent our downtown is. Although both those cities featured enviable collections of architectural pieces, the lack of activity and low retail unit occupancy rates made their downtown areas quite lifeless and dull. The Victorian storefronts on this block along with countless others scattered throughout our main streets are a vital component to our dynamic streetscapes and urban fabric. I'd rather the developers make it a priority to apply the Five St. Joseph concept here, maintaining the Victorian buildings along Yonge. The healthy mix of retail usages in these buildings have not been successfully replicated by any uniformed high-rise podium in the city to date. I'm generally a pro-development person but the alarming trend in recent years is that new condo activity has pushed creative class out of neighbourhoods.