Toronto Bathurst College Centre | ?m | 4s | RioCan | Turner Fleischer

Grimace said:
^^I don't understand this. Bathurst north of Queen (hospital excepted) is mostly ill-placed victorians with a smattering of commercial and light industrial, and Bathurst south of Queen prior to recent development was mostly ill-placed light industrial with a smattering of commercial and victorians. The only appropriately urban parts of Bathurst were the intersections at King, Queen, College and Bloor.

Our downtown is doing just fine. The problem with Bathurst is that its historic built form does not match what the street should currently be, which is a predominantly commercial street with some midrise residential. The outer parts of downtown such as this site will not be assisted by the likes of this development.
Click to expand...

sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough.
What I meant was the area between Queen and Bloor on Bathurst is the problem area (when i said it is what really matters). I totally agree with you that Bathurst should be predominantly commercial with some midrise residential, unlike the current suburban life state with nothing but crappy two storey houses, which makes it look more like Scarborough than downtown.
 
hawc said:
You could drop a bomb on this section of Bathurst and it would look better!

I hope no one on UT is going to say this should be preserved as a Heritage Building like the Hearn Generating Station. :p
Click to expand...

Or the entire Bathurst st north of Queen for that matter.
 
balenciaga said:
sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough.
What I meant was the area between Queen and Bloor on Bathurst is the problem area (when i said it is what really matters). I totally agree with you that Bathurst should be predominantly commercial with some midrise residential, unlike the current suburban life state with nothing but crappy two storey houses, which makes it look more like Scarborough than downtown.
Click to expand...

Scarborough would be so much better to have "crappy two storey houses" like those on Bathurst right now. Have you even been to Scarborough? I grew up in a typical 1970s-1980s suburban house that you are deriding, it's like night and day compared to what you want replaced. What's on Bathurst is very much urban; they have minimal front yard setbacks encouraging more eyes on the street and interaction with neighbours and passer-by-ers, practically no side yard setbacks allowing for a greater density of buildings, and driveways off the rear lane allowing for a safer and more pedestrian-friendly sidewalk along Bathurst (that has very good transit frequency and capacity). Most of the buildings have a third-storey loft space and been divided into 2 or 3 separate dwelling units, again increasing the density and providing affordable living quarters to many current students and recent graduates, among others who love the stable, residential nature of the neighbourhood. There are plenty of commercial options within walking distance and a lot more a short streetcar/subway ride away. This assessment applies to the majority of the downtown residential neighbourhoods as well, with many as very desirable places to live, and not because they are suburban, single-family dwellings.
 
marcus_a_j said:
Scarborough would be so much better to have "crappy two storey houses" like those on Bathurst right now. Have you even been to Scarborough? I grew up in a typical 1970s-1980s suburban house that you are deriding, it's like night and day compared to what you want replaced. What's on Bathurst is very much urban; they have minimal front yard setbacks encouraging more eyes on the street and interaction with neighbours and passer-by-ers, practically no side yard setbacks allowing for a greater density of buildings, and driveways off the rear lane allowing for a safer and more pedestrian-friendly sidewalk along Bathurst (that has very good transit frequency and capacity). Most of the buildings have a third-storey loft space and been divided into 2 or 3 separate dwelling units, again increasing the density and providing affordable living quarters to many current students and recent graduates, among others who love the stable, residential nature of the neighbourhood. There are plenty of commercial options within walking distance and a lot more a short streetcar/subway ride away. This assessment applies to the majority of the downtown residential neighbourhoods as well, with many as very desirable places to live, and not because they are suburban, single-family dwellings.
Click to expand...

no matter how you describe it, an entire 2km wide street with 90% buildings being 2-3 stories residential and almost zero retail, that's pretty suburban.
Bathurst is easily the most boring NS main street downtown.
 
balenciaga said:
no matter how you describe it, an entire 2km wide street with 90% buildings being 2-3 stories residential and almost zero retail, that's pretty suburban.
Bathurst is easily the most boring NS main street downtown.
Click to expand...

A 2km wide street! I agree with you. That's very bad urban planning. How many lanes wide does a street have to be to take up 2km? More seriously, what you deride as boring and suburban (though it is not like any suburb in the GTA that I am familiar with) is home-like and intimate to others. Not everything below Bloor St. needs to be condos, offices and retail. Perhaps the land is so valuable that those two and three storey houses will not last much longer, but there are many other areas that need redevelopment before that stretch of Bathurst.

PS. There is a good deal of retail, including a number of good but reasonably priced restaurants on the east-west streets in the area.
 
Last edited:
balenciaga said:
no matter how you describe it, an entire 2km wide street with 90% buildings being 2-3 stories residential and almost zero retail, that's pretty suburban.
Bathurst is easily the most boring NS main street downtown.
Click to expand...

It seems like your definition of urban is very narrow with little understanding of the preservation of existing, stable, healthy neighbourhoods. Anything less than 3 storeys does not equal suburban. Want to talk about boring? Try Bay Street north of Queen.
 
balenciaga said:
no matter how you describe it, an entire 2km wide street with 90% buildings being 2-3 stories residential and almost zero retail, that's pretty suburban.
Bathurst is easily the most boring NS main street downtown.
Click to expand...

It's also ugly and the houses are very poorly maintained. It's probably Toronto's worst street in the core. I really hope Bathurst gets redeveloped, and SOON!
 
marcus_a_j said:
It seems like your definition of urban is very narrow with little understanding of the preservation of existing, stable, healthy neighbourhoods. Anything less than 3 storeys does not equal suburban. Want to talk about boring? Try Bay Street north of Queen.
Click to expand...

Bay Street north of Queen is so much nicer than Bathurst. It's much more animated and interesting to walk on. The buildings are also MUCH better maintained and nicer. It's not even a close comparison. Bathurst has to go higher density.
 
Torontovibe said:
Bay Street north of Queen is so much nicer than Bathurst. It's much more animated and interesting to walk on. The buildings are also MUCH better maintained and nicer. It's not even a close comparison. Bathurst has to go higher density.
Click to expand...

agree.
Bay st is kind of boring due to the lack of retail, but it is in much better condition. Plus there are some nice new buildings going up such as Sick Kid's research center, Murano etc. It feels a lot more urban.

Bathurst on the other hand can be a street in Thunder Bay and no one can tell the difference. All we see are residential houses and cars going through. It definitely has to go higher density, preferably rezoned as a mixed use midrise neighbourhood with a few towers. It has a great location with a dedicated bus. We are not making good use of this street.
 
^^ Not only that but Bay Street at least has a good number of sidewalk patios, that are frequently filled with people, which brings some animation to the street. There is not a single patio on Bathurst, north of Queen. The foot traffic alone is about 10 to 1.
 
The two streets have entirely different contexts. It's a bit bizarre to see such broad comparisons paraded as helpful.

It's also strange to see Bay north of Queen held up as an exemplar.

42
 
Bay Street immediately south of Bloor should be held up as an example of how not to develop a street.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top