Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

[Tulse]

I doubt we will ever get sections that just run with art and no retail… other than the section under York Street that is tying into Union Station. The PATH is incredibly expensive to build under streets, and the only way to make it affordable through streets is to make its square footage an invaluable part of revenue for the buildings it runs through, ie. the retail space, mostly a level below ground.

PATH is also safer for pedestrians to use if there is retail providing eyes on the "street" -- I really wouldn't want long sections of tunnels with bare walls.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that PATH is somehow ruining street life. It seems to me that in many cases, PATH is providing retail opportunities that simply wouldn't exist at street level, and in properties that would far too expensive to house them at street level. (Just how many noodle kiosks or salad bars would TD Centre have at street level?)

 

[adHominem]

Sure let's ruin Yonge all the way up to Bloor the way PATH did to Yonge south of Dundas.

From Dundas to Queen you've got the Eaton Centre, which I'd say was far more of a factor in killing Yonge's street life (let's be honest, the PATH has never been destination retail, while the EC always was), and then The Bay south of that. Then you're into the financial district, where Yonge is faced by office towers with typically poor street-level engagement. PATH might be a factor, but it's far from the only one, and far from the largest. I think it should be more than possible for the two (PATH underground, vibrant street above) to coexist, primarily if we see more Five-style development that adds density while preserving & enhancing the historic storefronts along the street. Those storefronts become a destination in themselves, and can host cafes & restaurants, etc, while the more boring services (that we all need, and that we all complain about) like dry-cleaners and nail salons can hunker below-ground with the CHUDs and Morlocks.

 

[maestro]

Too many developments in the way to run the PATH to Bloor without the City tunneling under Yonge. It's just not going to happen.

 

[ksun]

From Dundas to Queen you've got the Eaton Centre, which I'd say was far more of a factor in killing Yonge's street life (let's be honest, the PATH has never been destination retail, while the EC always was), and then The Bay south of that. Then you're into the financial district, where Yonge is faced by office towers with typically poor street-level engagement. PATH might be a factor, but it's far from the only one, and far from the largest. I think it should be more than possible for the two (PATH underground, vibrant street above) to coexist, primarily if we see more Five-style development that adds density while preserving & enhancing the historic storefronts along the street. Those storefronts become a destination in themselves, and can host cafes & restaurants, etc, while the more boring services (that we all need, and that we all complain about) like dry-cleaners and nail salons can hunker below-ground with the CHUDs and Morlocks.

Yeah, it is the backward planning of the entire sterile financial district that kills street life, not PATH itself.
Ideally, all the office towers should have department stores, restaurants and shops on the lower levels - like things are in Shanghai, Hong Kong or Tokyo - yet we deliberately choose to design it in a way where retail is extremely hard to be found on the street level. Go to Fidi on a weekend, it is practically an abandoned town.
There are four office towers that is part of the Eaton Centre and I think that works perfectly. I would hate to work in First Canada Place.

 

[milanista]

Yeah, it is the backward planning of the entire sterile financial district that kills street life, not PATH itself.
Ideally, all the office towers should have department stores, restaurants and shops on the lower levels - like things are in Shanghai, Hong Kong or Tokyo - yet we deliberately choose to design it in a way where retail is extremely hard to be found on the street level. Go to Fidi on a weekend, it is practically an abandoned town.
There are four office towers that is part of the Eaton Centre and I think that works perfectly. I would hate to work in First Canada Place.

As someone who actually worked in First Canadian Place, you could not be more wrong. Street life is one thing but the Financial District is not Queen West or Yorkville. Its street life IS the PATH.
Speaking of which, it goes both ways. Take a walk down Queen around Shaw on a Monday morning, especially in the winter...not too much going on. (Trust me, I live a few blocks from there). Weekends? Very busy.
The exact opposite is true for the Financial District/PATH. Empty on weekends but very busy at almost all hours between 8am-6pm Mon-Fri.

What you say might ring true for some of the other office towers, but not for First Canadian Place which has Reds and Cactus Club on the ground floor on the Adelaide side, a Harry Rosen on the Bay side (slightly inside), and a bank branch and Vertical restaurant on the King side along with direct outdoor access to the food court, which is rare. Take a few steps inside and there are many more (Birks, Starbucks, Indigo etc on the ground level and of course dozens more on the PATH level). Sure there could be more but this place was built in the 70s so lets cut it a little slack.
As a financial district lifer, First Canadian Place is one of the better office towers to work in because of the PATH, not in spite of it.

 

[Uptowner]

Yeah, it is the backward planning of the entire sterile financial district that kills street life, not PATH itself.
Ideally, all the office towers should have department stores, restaurants and shops on the lower levels - like things are in Shanghai, Hong Kong or Tokyo - yet we deliberately choose to design it in a way where retail is extremely hard to be found on the street level. Go to Fidi on a weekend, it is practically an abandoned town.
There are four office towers that is part of the Eaton Centre and I think that works perfectly. I would hate to work in First Canada Place.

As someone who worked in Shanghai for 3+ years, and other parts of China for even longer than that, I can say that though there are many good parts to emulate they have just as many problems with their commercial buildings in Shanghai, in the respects we are discussing, as we do here. Shanghai is obviously huge and has many amazing areas for walking but overall I would certainly compare it negatively with HK, Seoul and Tokyo (though only there a few days).

My main point, though, is that I don't think Toronto's FD is comparatively all that bad as very few places have amazing retail at the base of all their financial towers. Lower Manhattan certainly isn't all great retail (or really any to speak of) at the bases of many towers over what, in Toronto, would constitute large areas.

Edited for grammar.

 

[ksun]

My main point, though, is that I don't think Toronto's FD is comparatively all that bad as very few places have amazing retail at the base of all their financial towers. Lower Manhattan certainly isn't all great retail (or really any to speak of) at the bases of many towers over what in Toronto would constitute large areas.

The point is it should be better, and should start to allow more retail nearby, the ones that actually face the streets and invite people to go inside, rather than a store inside the office building at some corner nobody knows about. There ARE restaurants too, but they are all boring - mostly steak houses and all the mainstream Canadian food with little variety, because they only cater to business people. Does it have to be the case? It is the best location in Toronto, with several subway stops, and I don't see why it should not be vibrant on the street level. To be completely deserted at night and weekends is such a shame and waste of opportunity.

In response to the claim that Fidi is vibrant in the PATH, I don't quite agree. Yes there are quite many people on the PATH, but is that "vibrancy"? Those are simply people who work in those towers. They are there because they need to work there, not because they want to eat and shop there or even they want to be there. They walk there mostly to get to another office tower, or have a lunch. Considering the sheer size of employees during the day time, of course PATH is busy, but there are hardly anyone who deliberately would go to the PATH at Bay/Adelaide just to try a restaurant or buy something (well, maybe with a couple of exceptions).

It is almost safe to say that if one doesn't work in the financial district, he almost never has the need to ever go there in this life. I live within 15 minutes walking distance to King/Bay and I can count the times I go there as a destination (not passing by) with one hand. I don't call that success planning.

 

[WislaHD]

I'm not an expert but I think a 18" would make a significant difference. Very often sidewalk bottlenecks are because one large, slow moving person is difficult to get around on either side. Or slow moving couples. Sometimes you only need an extra foot or so to break the impasse. Adding 18" turns a 6" gap into a 2-foot gap.

As it so happens, I am reading this comment from the perfect vantage point:

Spoiler: Large

I think 18" could make a significant improvement.

 

[grey]

Yeah, it is the backward planning of the entire sterile financial district that kills street life, not PATH itself.
Ideally, all the office towers should have department stores, restaurants and shops on the lower levels - like things are in Shanghai, Hong Kong or Tokyo - yet we deliberately choose to design it in a way where retail is extremely hard to be found on the street level. Go to Fidi on a weekend, it is practically an abandoned town.
There are four office towers that is part of the Eaton Centre and I think that works perfectly. I would hate to work in First Canada Place.

I work in FCP as well. To mirror milanista's comments, it's a major PATH focal point. It really feels like this is where all of the action is.

Our financial district is one of the livelier ones in North America. Due to the nature of all the businesses here, the district is highly commuter-oriented. Street level retail that you describe (in every goddamn thread) wouldn't survive here because the population mostly vanishes outside of business hours. Things are improving, however, and the city is on the right track, thanks to more urban-minded planning (another thing you fail to acknowledge in nearly every post on the topic).

 

[ksun]

I work in FCP as well. To mirror milanista's comments, it's a major PATH focal point. It really feels like this is where all of the action is.

Our financial district is one of the livelier ones in North America. Due to the nature of all the businesses here, the district is highly commuter-oriented. Street level retail that you describe (in every goddamn thread) wouldn't survive here because the population mostly vanishes outside of business hours. Things are improving, however, and the city is on the right track, thanks to more urban-minded planning (another thing you fail to acknowledge in nearly every post on the topic).

The population vanished outside business hours precisely because
1) the business there only target business people (business lunches, business attire shops)
2) they are not open outside business hours.

I fail to see if Fidi had the good retail, why people wouldn't go there outside business hours to have a good time. I think you had it backwards.

 

[grey]

In response to the claim that Fidi is vibrant in the PATH, I don't quite agree. Yes there are quite many people on the PATH, but is that "vibrancy"? Those are simply people who work in those towers. They are there because they need to work there, not because they want to eat and shop there or even they want to be there. They walk there mostly to get to another office tower, or have a lunch. Considering the sheer size of employees during the day time, of course PATH is busy, but there are hardly anyone who deliberately would go to the PATH at Bay/Adelaide just to try a restaurant or buy something (well, maybe with a couple of exceptions).

It is almost safe to say that if one doesn't work in the financial district, he almost never has the need to ever go there in this life. I live within 15 minutes walking distance to King/Bay and I can count the times I go there as a destination (not passing by) with one hand. I don't call that success planning.

The weakness of your argument is that your concept of vibrant streets depends on destination retail everywhere. This is a massive hole in your logic where you compare Toronto to cities like Paris.

 

[grey]

The population vanished outside business hours precisely because
1) the business there only target business people (business lunches, business attire shops)
2) they are not open outside business hours.

I fail to see if Fidi had the good retail, why people wouldn't go there outside business hours to have a good time. I think you had it backwards.

Exactly. The retail serves local interests, like literally anywhere worth visiting that isn't a terrible tourist trap. People who don't work near the PATH generally don't go out of their way to visit PATH retail, but on the same token, office workers aren't going out of their way to visit the mall, either. The needs of multitudes of transitional population are well-served.

If you think FD workers make a bee-line for Yonge or Queen (the only shopping streets you seem to be aware of) outside of 9-5, stop kidding yourself.

 

[Edward Skira]

The retail serves local interests, like literally anywhere worth visiting that isn't a terrible tourist trap.

Yes local interest as in the people working in those buildings. I live at King and Church (local in my mind) and it certainly doesn't serve my interests. By the time I get home from work and on the weekends the place is basically closed. That's my problem with PATH. It turns its back to anything west of University and East of Yonge.

 

[grey]

Yes local interest as in the people working in those buildings. I live at King and Church (local in my mind) and it certainly doesn't serve my interests. By the time I get home from work and on the weekends the place is basically closed. That's my problem with PATH. It turns its back to anything west of University and East of Yonge.

I agree, and I'm in the unfortunate position of defending the PATH, which inarguably kills street life, because it steals the vibrancy away from the street, but ksun's one-size-fits-all solution of "destination retail everywhere" lacks nuance and wouldn't work here for a variety of reasons that I think are pretty obvious to the rest of us.

 

[Lenser]

I agree, and I'm in the unfortunate position of defending the PATH, which inarguably kills street life, because it steals the vibrancy away from the street, but ksun's one-size-fits-all solution of "destination retail everywhere" lacks nuance and wouldn't work here for a variety of reasons that I think are pretty obvious to the rest of us.

Indeed. I am also beginning to suspect that ksun's "boring" retail is often the very thing I'm more attracted to - much more than big, shiny flagship retail.