Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

Unless I didn't understand the word "gritty" correctly - which to me means "rough, unrefined in character", Kensington Market is pretty gritty as nothing is refined or sophisticated about it. I am not saying it is not interesting, but it is definitely not beautiful in the common sense (think St Germain blvd in Paris).

Not being gritty doesn't automatically mean bland and sterile corporate chains. People make such mistakes on this forum all the time (or deliberately dramatize things). For example, Elm st is not gritty but I don't see bland corporate chains.

I just don't want Yonge st to be a chaotic mess with rundown houses and tacky cheap stores pretending to be hip and bohemian.
 
The thing about Elm Street, Kensington and Yonge Street (in its current incarnation) is that they all support small-scale, fine grain retail in old buildings. When you get larger retail spaces in bigger, newer, multi-tenant buildings, small businesses often can't find spaces that will accommodate them and they can't afford the rent in the larger spaces. That's why instead of five or six businesses in the 5 St. Joseph project, there will be one RBC and one Aroma. Cutting down the number and variety of businesses does have a large effect on on the vibrancy of a street. I'm not saying Yonge shouldn't evolve, but it is currently the messy chaotic heart of the city, and I hope it isn't replaced by a "family-friendly', sterilized outdoor mall that you could find in any city, anywhere. We need to keep some of the city's authentic character and not replace it all with generica.
 
^ I agree with the sentiment. Sadly it is majority of Canadians customers who blindly go to Starbucks, Tim Horton's and Swiss Chalet as if that's the default choice. Don't blame chain stores or developers or banks - they are just doing business like everyone else, blame boring and conservative consumers who make them prosper.
 
I'm not "blaming" either businesses or consumers. Developers, however, should be held to a higher standard because they're the ones shaping these developments - when you are working downtown, you should be sensitive to the impact you're having on the urban condition, and some do it better than others who clearly DGAF. It's a matter of ethics, in my opinion. I also blame the impotence of government at the city planning and provincial levels (the OMB being the most culpable) which has of so long heavily favoured short-term, low-budget political expediency over any long-term vision.
 
UrbanFervour said:
Developers, however, should be held to a higher standard because they're the ones shaping these developments
Click to expand...

The developers often have to deal with financing these projects. And those financing these projects prefer blue chip type tenants (Starbucks, Tims, banks etc.). Much more complicated then just blaming the developers.
 
Maybe it's time we consider a size limit (say, 10-13 meters) to retail frontage in downtown Toronto, like they have in certain neighbourhoods in New York. It won't necessarily prevent the banalification of retail, however it will prevent monolithic bank blocks in podiums.

We could also incentivize leasing to "independent" (small, locally owned) retailers by allowing the developer's Section 37 funds to go towards rent subsidies for qualified businesses. Keeps the pedestrian realm interesting and lively, and encourages local entrepreneurship.... what's not to like?
 
UrbanFervour said:
I'm not "blaming" either businesses or consumers. Developers, however, should be held to a higher standard because they're the ones shaping these developments - when you are working downtown, you should be sensitive to the impact you're having on the urban condition, and some do it better than others who clearly DGAF. It's a matter of ethics, in my opinion. I also blame the impotence of government at the city planning and provincial levels (the OMB being the most culpable) which has of so long heavily favoured short-term, low-budget political expediency over any long-term vision.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to make of that OMB comment. It's the one planning authority we have where good planning doesn't take a back seat to good politics, and unlike the planning process at either the City or even the Province, it's completely open to the public.

The City, however, certainly could pay more attention to what goes in at grade at these buildings, to the fine details of the building podiums, the quality of the streetscape, and the ongoing maintenance of these elements. Instead, we get a lot of hand-wringing over height.
 
torontologist said:
Maybe it's time we consider a size limit (say, 10-13 meters) to retail frontage in downtown Toronto, like they have in certain neighbourhoods in New York. It won't necessarily prevent the banalification of retail, however it will prevent monolithic bank blocks in podiums.

We could also incentivize leasing to "independent" (small, locally owned) retailers by allowing the developer's Section 37 funds to go towards rent subsidies for qualified businesses. Keeps the pedestrian realm interesting and lively, and encourages local entrepreneurship.... what's not to like?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure a one-size-fits-all solution would work well. It would also discourage lots of uses that are desirable (e.g. grocery stores). I agree with the principle, however, that City planning should give some thought to how the retail will work in any given development.

I don't agree that the City should be using Section 37 funds to subsidize rents. If we as a City wanted to incentivize leasing to small, independent retailers on our major thoroughfares, we would press harder to have the Province eliminate the property tax incentives to landlords to keep retail units empty while they wait to see if they can lure chain tenants.
 
Skeezix said:
If we as a City wanted to incentivize leasing to small, independent retailers on our major thoroughfares, we would press harder to have the Province eliminate the property tax incentives to landlords to keep retail units empty while they wait to see if they can lure chain tenants.
Click to expand...

Agreed, in spades. Too often landlords in the core seem to be profiting from empty storefronts. It's maddening.
 
Bottom line. The market rules. I will be happy to see Yonge st. ' improve' . Define that as you wish. All cities have and perhaps need a 'gritty' area. It is what it is and is defined by the individual and his/her perceptions.
 
UrbanFervour said:
The thing about Elm Street, Kensington and Yonge Street (in its current incarnation) is that they all support small-scale, fine grain retail in old buildings. When you get larger retail spaces in bigger, newer, multi-tenant buildings, small businesses often can't find spaces that will accommodate them and they can't afford the rent in the larger spaces. That's why instead of five or six businesses in the 5 St. Joseph project, there will be one RBC and one Aroma. Cutting down the number and variety of businesses does have a large effect on on the vibrancy of a street. I'm not saying Yonge shouldn't evolve, but it is currently the messy chaotic heart of the city, and I hope it isn't replaced by a "family-friendly', sterilized outdoor mall that you could find in any city, anywhere. We need to keep some of the city's authentic character and not replace it all with generica.
Click to expand...

I think a good solution to this would be to allow more retail to open on streets that are currently 100% residential. I don't know what the current regulations allow/prevent, but I can imagine that smaller retail spaces (e.g. converting old houses) would be cheaper for the smaller, independent businesses that can't afford to remain on a revitalized Yonge street. Many of the neighbourhoods and streets that people on this site (including myself) love are in fact old residential areas converted to retail/mixed retail-residential. Why not create some more of those?
 
TDotTeen said:
I think a good solution to this would be to allow more retail to open on streets that are currently 100% residential. I don't know what the current regulations allow/prevent, but I can imagine that smaller retail spaces (e.g. converting old houses) would be cheaper for the smaller, independent businesses that can't afford to remain on a revitalized Yonge street. Many of the neighbourhoods and streets that people on this site (including myself) love are in fact old residential areas converted to retail/mixed retail-residential. Why not create some more of those?
Click to expand...

Definitely. Downtown has too many 100% residential streets. Berverly st for example is likely a highway for cars. We just have too little retail downtown compared with a real vibrant city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top