Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

[AlvinofDiaspar]

isaidso

For a lot of people, that's the goal. Heritage protection is important, but not if it gets in the way of smart urban design/planning.

Actually smart urban planning will accommodate diverse needs with complexity and grace - and good urban design highlights the importance of urban, human scale. Stupid urban planning is what you've suggested - i.e. taking an existing site with potential and reduce it to a carte blanche. Doing so in the name of progress is ironically quite regressive - stuff from the 50s-early 70s - and we all know just how smart that era was.

The low rises on Yonge are completely the wrong scale for modern Toronto; they're not even of much value architecturally. Urban planning can't be about turning Toronto into a working museum. Yonge has always been an utter embarrassment and I can't wait for the day that every last one of those 3 storey buildings get flattened.

Don't confound architectural value to urban design values - individually they might not be significant - but taken as a whole the streetscape certainly is. Just because the buildings and streetscape is in a degraded state doesn't mean there is no worth - and FYI, good urban planning is about accepting that there are competing interests and coming up with a solution that is acceptable to most, financially viable and aesthetically pleasing.

5ive is a fabulous attempt to maintain the 3 storey frontage and meet the demands of modern Toronto, but it's wrong headed and falls so short of what this city really needs. These buildings are 3rd rate Victorian era housing stock and their time has passed. Save the best and get on with the job of re-inventing Toronto

I don't think you have presented any planning rationale as to why the 5ive model isn't what Toronto needs, as opposed to mass produced housing blocks achieving the same planning objectives (i.e. increased density) that require a carte blanche to execute.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

As much as I admire 5ive, it's a ridiculous compromise and will looking absurd in about 30 years.

Huh? 5ive is enlightened design, not ridiculous! You yourself 'admire' it. How can it be wrong or look absurd when so much of the good design in Toronto right now is taking this same approach to new developments that involve heritage components, as with in the Distillery for example? This strategy adds density and height where needed while maintaining a more traditional heritage, pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Where is the loss in any of this?

 

[Automation Gallery]

How can it be wrong or look absurd when so much of the good design in Toronto right now is taking this same approach to new developments that involve heritage components, as with in the Distillery for example? This strategy adds density and height where needed while maintaining a more traditional heritage, pedestrian-friendly streetscape. Where is the loss in any of this?

Strange i guess, some individuals here in Toronto would just rather see older derelict structures stay put and rot, than have that type of development incorporating heritage with new.

 

[canmark]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but The Grid has an article and a map of the former 'seedy' side of Yonge. We're seeing in Toronto the kind of gentrification that took place in Times Square. Where porn theatres used to line 42nd St., now you see hotels, offices and Disney. Not that I think pleasure palaces shouldn't exist (I think they should, esp. in major cities), but they don't need to be on Yonge St. as it goes upmarket with condos, offices and retail. There's not much left of the original character of Yonge St. anyways (my parents tell me of the days when you could go out to clubs on Yonge for live music, dining and dancing; not to mention it's history of live theatre, movies... which has returned with the Elgin, Canon and AMC). So, I'm not as concerned with 501 looming up at street level so long as there is a good mix of retail, restaurants, offices (doctor/dentist and other small business perhaps?) and the building offers an appealing street presence. The historical Yonge St. of five-and-dimes, Timothy Eaton, soda fountains, mom-and-pop stores: that's gone. Yonge is our main street and it needs to keep up with the times... and be Toronto's version of Broadway, cutting through the heart of the city.

Map

 

[Jonny5]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but The Grid has an article and a map of the former 'seedy' side of Yonge. We're seeing in Toronto the kind of gentrification that took place in Times Square. Where porn theatres used to line 42nd St., now you see hotels, offices and Disney.

What are you talking about? Yonge Street is not and has never been like the pre-Guiliani Times Square of porn-theatres, strip clubs and open air drug dealing in the midst of a massive crack epidemic. There is no similarity at all.

Not that I think pleasure palaces shouldn't exist (I think they should, esp. in major cities), but they don't need to be on Yonge St. as it goes upmarket with condos, offices and retail.

There are two strip clubs on Yonge, compared to hundreds of restaurants and retail businesses. The Brass Rail stands in the way of nothing.

There's not much left of the original character of Yonge St. anyways (my parents tell me of the days when you could go out to clubs on Yonge for live music, dining and dancing; not to mention it's history of live theatre, movies... which has returned with the Elgin, Canon and AMC). So, I'm not as concerned with 501 looming up at street level so long as there is a good mix of retail, restaurants, offices (doctor/dentist and other small business perhaps?) and the building offers an appealing street presence. The historical Yonge St. of five-and-dimes, Timothy Eaton, soda fountains, mom-and-pop stores: that's gone. Yonge is our main street and it needs to keep up with the times... and be Toronto's version of Broadway, cutting through the heart of the city.

There is a whole lot of the original character left. It is contained in the buildings that exist there, not in what businesses they house. The low-rise, small storefront design is what creates the character. Your parent's Yonge Street was a place for dining, dancing and entertainment precisely because it was keeping up with the times. That is what replaced the "five-and-dimes". And it will continue to keep up with the times without it's character being permanently destroyed for something that could exist many other places.

I think there could be valid arguments for a permanent change to Yonge, but what you've wrote is really nothing more than change for the sake of wanting something shiny and new and hoping to be a part of something "upscale". Some of us want to consider what we are losing in order to create the next Kardashian Street. I also believe we can get a best of both worlds scenario.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

It is worth noting that when Yonge was the nucleus for dining, dancing, and entertainment it was because, in those times, it was the only street in Toronto where there was any action happening at all. The rest of the city was strictly dullsville.

I don't see the merit of the small storefront form on Yonge either. Those small stores are prevalent all over town. In the present day context they seem out of place on Yonge. On my way to work I walk along Alexander. As I approach and move through the intersection of Yonge & Alexander/Grosvenor, I momentarily feel as though I am passing through downtown Sarnia. Then, in a few moments, I am back in the city again.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Sarnia? Come on. So you'd pass a shushi & Tai restaraunt with nice outdoor patios, a Marriott Hotel, Curry's Art Supplies, a gay live theatre - among several other retail & eating establishments along with a steady flow of pedestrians walking in both directions and you'd feel like your in Sarnia?
Yonge Street works fine. It's not packed with foot traffic from Bloor to Queen on any given day because it's "dullsville". Think about it.

 

[SP!RE]

Sarnia? Come on. So you'd pass a shushi & Tai restaraunt with nice outdoor patios, a Marriott Hotel, Curry's Art Supplies, a gay live theatre - among several other retail & eating establishments along with a steady flow of pedestrians walking in both directions and you'd feel like your in Sarnia?
Yonge Street works fine. It's not packed with foot traffic from Bloor to Queen on any given day because it's "dullsville". Think about it.

+1

To call that stretch of Yonge Street "dull" or like a small town makes me wonder if that poster has ever walked along it. Or been to a smaller city like Sarnia. Thanks for pointing out the reality of the situation, dt_toronto_geek.

I don't think Yonge Street is perfect and it's not my favourite area of Toronto, but I can certainly recognize that it's not "dullsville" and its charm certainly grows over time. If we changed it too much, it would certainly be missed. Lots of little hidden treasures.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

I was referring to the built form of the area. Within the downtown core, it is on Yonge that you encounter the long stretches of two and three story storefronts. Mostly degraded boilerplate Victorian stock, or later el-cheapo utilitarian structures. My point was that this is much more similar to what you would encounter in a typical provincial town in Southwestern Ontario than what you would expect to find in the dead centre of a city with a metropolitan population of over three million. If Sarnia is too extreme a comparison then say London, or Guelph for example.

And, having lived in London, ON for four years I wouldn't hesitate to compare Yonge from College to Bloor, with Richmond from York st. to Oxford. They're pretty much the same in both scale and character.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

From what I recall from my visits to London is the downtown is not dullsville, but sadly, deadsville - but it's been probably 15 years since I was last there.
There are some mediocre buildings from the 50's-70's that fill gaps where something once stood and no one would argue that many building exteriors need some work. My question is what is the downside of having a low-rise, walkable shopping district loaded with charactor that offers shopping, cafe's and food alternatives than what you'd find in a mega-mall? Judging by the foot traffic it seems to work. I fear that putting up mega highrise complexes like 460 & 501 Yonge will destroy these areas and move northward like a virus.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

From what I recall from my visits to London is the downtown is not dullsville, but sadly, deadsville - but it's been probably 15 years since I was last there.
There are some mediocre buildings from the 50's-70's that fill gaps where something once stood and no one would argue that many building exteriors need some work. My question is what is the downside of having a low-rise, walkable shopping district loaded with charactor that offers shopping, cafe's and food alternatives than what you'd find in a mega-mall? Judging by the foot traffic it seems to work. I fear that putting up mega highrise complexes like 460 & 501 Yonge will
destroy these areas and move northward like a virus.

I lived in London at about the time you were last there. It was definitely on the dull side, if not exactly dead. I have been back on occasion since then. If anything, the place has actually gone downhill in the intervening years. I would still argue that Yonge and Richmond (in London) share many of the same features and that the difference in perceived vitality has more to do with context. Yonge has the advantage of being in the middle of Toronto, whereas Richmond has the disadvantage of being in the middle of London.

There is nothing particularly bad about a low rise shopping area in itself, but I feel that it is now wrong in scale for Yonge St. The fact is that Toronto is a very big city, and rapidly becoming bigger. We should be embracing that fact with vigor. I argue that maintaining an old-timey, small town scale along Yonge denies it.

Objections to 501 have mostly been centered on it's scale because, at this point, we have little else to go on. But large scale does not equal bad. As a case in point, consider the new Loblaws complex at MLG. This is exactly the kind of large and sophisticated development we need more of in the city. Both the scale and the sophistication of this project would not have been viable in Toronto 20 years ago, to say nothing of 100 years. But Toronto has now grown into the kind of city where this is appropriate. Now Loblaws is on the scale of a Big Box store, which is presumably the worst of all possible things. But, far from being awful, it's actually great. It does not follow that large scale = anti urban. So objecting to 501 and similar developments along Yonge soleley on the basis of their scale is unjustified. Other factors need to be evaluated before a judgement can be formed but, so far, scale is the only factor we know. And as far as that factor goes, I believe that the scale of 501, while it may not be exactly right, is at least trending in the right direction for a street like Yonge in the 21st century.

 

[yyzer]

I have always loved the tacky urbanity of Yonge St. - and it has always played a big part in defining what Toronto is, for sure....but I think Mississauga Slim has raised an interesting point....assuming we have some ambitions of becoming some kind of 'world' city (whatever that means)...

Is there any 'world' city that has, as its main thoroughfare, a selection of 2 storey small shops/restaurants/etc? I would think all the big ones are much denser, even in the European capitals the storey count would be 6-7 storeys , wouldn't it?

So I wonder how this will play out in the long run....just to reiterate, I am not trolling in any way, I've enjoyed the walk up and down Yonge for decades now, just wondering if that urban model will work as the city grows in its own image of importance...I think that if we accept higher densities, we must be very, very careful to preserve the foot traffic and retail interaction that exists today.....

Just a thought..

 

[SP!RE]

Does importance have to be defined by other cities that have gone before us? What is inherently wrong with 3 floors?

I'm also not decided on the issue entirely, I just thought I'd pose that question back to you/ everyone.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Speaking for myself, I invoke no claims to importance, "world-classness", comparisons to other cities, or anything like that. My position on the matter is based only on the objective fact of Toronto's size. It is a big city, no matter how you look at it. It just makes no sense to me that, for a substantial linear potion of the exact centre of its core, the scale and character of its built form should suddenly diminish to that of a smaller town.

To return to the example of Loblaws at MLG; this works today because Toronto has now grown into the kind of city that can support it. We all (mostly) agree that this new development is a good thing and we should see more of it. It would not have worked 30 years ago. The city would not have been ready for it. So, if Toronto has changed that much in even 30 years, and its subsequent growth has created the potential for such bigger and better things, then is it not regressive to insist that Yonge needs to remain at the same scale as it has been for over 100 years?

 

[yyzer]

well, Yonge St. is one of those things which defines us as a city - so there will be a natural inclination to preserve that...not sure if that is a regressive point of view....

My point is about whether the city's ambitions will be able to incorporate a 2 storey retail strip, no matter how wonderful it is...not sure of the answer.

edit: actually you have hit it again when you talk about 'scale'...and what scale is appropriate for an alpha city of sorts, like ours, in the middle of its downtown core...

/still don't know the answer