Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

I don't really define Yorkville by the retailers but, I can understand why someone would.
buildup said:
Regarding the decline in Yorkville, anyone watching the last 10 years would acknowledge the impact of Yorkdale pulling away high-end retailers in part because of a shortage of space, a dearth of large high-quality projects along Bloor, the decision of Saks to pull out of the Bloor/Yonge plan in favour of Yonge/Dundas, the large number of high-end hotels opening downtown when previously the Four Seasons was the only 5 star, the move of TIFF. And so forth.

So, yes, and 75 story Foster Tower at Yonge & Bloor with quality retail elements without question helps to reverse this trend. Why argue the obvious?
Click to expand...

Four Seasons was not 5 stars and our high end 4 star hotels were always spread between Yorkville and the downtown core.. Yorkville retail scene is definitely more luxurious than a decade or more ago.
 
5-10 years ago the top hotel in Toronto was the old Four Seasons, no-one else close. Momentum shifted south dramatically with The Ritz, Trump, Shangra-la. Thank goodness Sharp rebuilt uptown.

This back and forth started because someone objected to my suggesting that The One was going to contribute to Yorkville's continued revival following a dip that occurred after TIFF decamped.
 
The King Edward was always on equal standing with the old Four Seasons. The Royal York and Sutton Place were up there too with the Yorkville hotels. Shows how outdated our inventory was. That's just off the top my head too.

All the developments since 10 Bellair have been considerably more luxurious than what they replaced. Yorkville hasn't declined at all. If it has during this boom, I'm not sure how another high end mixed use tower development will usher in its revival. Yorkville is not defined by TIFF nor has its relocation to the Lightbox taken the celebrities away from it either.

We all like The One and hope it gets built but, let's not go overboard.
 
Historically Yorkville has done well when other areas were in stagnation.
Urban-Affair said:
Can't speak for the retail stores per se, but there are more 'quality restaurants' by which I mean higher end restos in Yorkville than there were a decade ago. Maybe there are just more wealthy people in the city (Toronto and GTA) overall, so luxury retailers have spread out to take advantage of this factor. I don't believe there has been a Yorkville decline. I suppose we could analyze vacancy rates, or FMR's across the area by looking at comps, but I have a strong feeling there has not been a real decrease in rental rates, or a major increase in vacancy in this area. I also spoke with some valuators that work on determining values for this nbhd's commercial properties, and they are telling me similar things. (For the record, I also work in valuation, but not commonly in the Yorkville area.)
Click to expand...

Vacancy is up but rents are also up. Large scale Landlords i.e First Capital purchased key properties in Yorkville and thus the rest of the property owners saw this and raised rents because they now had a legitimate excuse to do so. Many small businesses are getting pushed out of Yorkville (hair/nail salons etc) thus creating the vacancies. That being said, Landlords in Yorkville typically don't lease out retail/office spaces to just anyone. Many in the area have good portfolios so they can afford to have a space sit empty. All this of course refers to Yorkville proper.
 
On the most part, Yorkville has transformed from being a quaint 19th century village of 'painted ladies' full of artists and bohemians to a mall for the rich that could be in any large city with a segment of 'one percenters' in its population, basically any moderately wealthy city. For me the last nail in the coffin was the loss of Stollery's on the southwest corner of Yonge and Bloor, the location of this starchitect-hyped project. For years as I walked along Bloor, past the banal Hudson's Bay Centre and equally uninteresting newer counterpart on the northwest corner, I was comforted by the idea that an interesting, long-established building like Stollery's persisted. I had a similar feeling about the Uptown Theatre and the buildings around the corner by the Windsor Arms before they were uprooted and replaced. The problem I have with this trend is that there's very little that's Toronto about Toronto anymore. The two projects on the southwest and southeast corners of this intersection could be anywhere, by Square One in Mississauga or in one of China's new and empty desert cities. I have no problem seeing these buildings thrown up on vacant lots in the right contexts, but Toronto is really a city run by developers whose first concern is building as many high-priced condo units as possible as cheaply as possible. There is little respect for the original 'fine-grained' context of what many celebrated as a city of neighbourhoods. They seem to think it's their city to do with as they please, and the outcome of these development applications is always a watered down compromise that leaves the area looking more like a white-washed mall for the haves as opposed to a city for everyone. We're losing the mixed vibrancy that Jane Jacobs loved about Toronto and getting a sanitized monoculture.
 
While I share at least some of your concerns, I can't say I subscribe to so bleak a view. I believe Toronto's best years are ahead of us and I'm excited for the emergence of a built form that's distinctly big city. To speak of an emerging monoculture in one of the most multicultural cities in the world strikes me as needlessly dire. The streets don't feel any less vibrant these days than they did ten years ago; I would in fact argue the opposite. But it's interesting to see how we all regard the same city in such strikingly different ways.
 
Lenser said:
While I share at least some of your concerns, I can't say I subscribe to so bleak a view. I believe Toronto's best years are ahead of us and I'm excited for the emergence of a built form that's distinctly big city. To speak of an emerging monoculture in one of the most multicultural cities in the world strikes me as needlessly dire. The streets don't feel any less vibrant these days than they did ten years ago; I would in fact argue the opposite. But it's interesting to see how we all regard the same city in such strikingly different ways.
Click to expand...

Lenser, I appreciate your thoughts. Without being too intrusive, are you in the Arts or Academia?
 
Okay, I'll put it this way: Do you prefer CityPlace or Cabbagetown? We're reproducing CityPlace across the city. Don't get me wrong, CityPlace is fine in the former railway lands (though it's arguably another St. Jamestown in the making), but don't reproduce it in Yorkville. This project is an interesting one and very Hong Kong. It would've been great on any number of surface parking lots. What has been removed to build this is a major irrevocable loss.
 
You talking to me, Euphoria?

It's not an either / or situation in my book. The city is a mixed bag. CityPlace feels like mostly dreck. Same with Liberty Village. Much of it feels like it won't age well. St. Jamestown is an older example of the same ill-considered urges. I love Cabbagetown but when I think of Toronto as a whole, I don't think of Cabbagetown. I think of downtown. I think of the skyline from the Spit, or the islands, or from Broadview. I think of height and a staggered look, of interesting planes and a ragged line across the sky.

But neighbourhoods change, too. Once upon a time Cabbagetown was a poor working class neighbourhood. And NYC didn't get to be the way it is now without building right over the bones of older buildings, older neighbourhoods - places and edifices once beloved, once terribly missed by those with long memories. We can't have stasis and we can't please everyone as we go along. Toronto is evolving along its own organic arc. If that means part of Yorkville's charm must disappear, I'm fine with that.

Finally, tower proposals like The One are all about location. Surface parking lots elsewhere downtown are irrelevant to the discussion - we're talking Yonge and Bloor here, a premier location. Development/redevelopment is not about filling in the blanks in a city to please a bunch of urban nerds, however enthusiastic and passionate we might feel about our city, and cities in general - it's more about risk vs. reward and making a reasonable investment in a part of the city that will prove worthy of that investment.

I'd say more but gotta jet - barbie to go to. Ciao.
 
I like and agree with much of what you've said. There's much to be said for the unplanned and accidental, but I think we've drunk the Kool Aid on this justification by way of address. The developers were sneaky in their blitz removal of Stollery's and its neighbours. No doubt they're cashing in on this so-called big time address, but it smacks of more marketing hucksterism. The building will be fine and raises the design and scale of architecture in the city much the way the Gehry builds will. What bothers me is that it wouldn't have taken much to do something creative and ultra-modern that left those structures intact. BCE Place was able to do the Calatrava archway AND protect a Victorian row. Developers can do better. The city needs better protections.
 
Euphoria said:
CityPlace is fine in the former railway lands (though it's arguably another St. Jamestown in the making)
Click to expand...

That is absolutely false. Cityplace is in no way similar to what happened with St. Jamestown. This idea was promoted by people who equated tall buildings with ghettos. I don't know what their motives were, but it is completely unsupported by evidence.
 
Yeah, it's crazy that the Cityplace to St Jamestown comparison continues to persist. Even comparing the tall, spread out towers of Cityplace to the bulky forms of Liberty Village is a bit of a stretch.

Nothing quite takes the cake as comparing this single tower to Cityplace. Sounds like a bonafide height NIMBY. (that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting points made)
 
Evidence? As though aesthetics are measured in data points... When St. Jamestown was constructed people flocked there because it was considered swish. Remember Le Corbusier? Now we're trying to remediate the place. CityPlace probably has a better variety and quality of architecture. CityPlace is fine where it is. I'm talking about the needless destruction of irreplaceable structures that give a sense of permanence and place. ƒ#$% it, bulldoze Toronto and reproduce another Ordos Kangbashi. China has blueprints.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Euphoria said:
Evidence? As though aesthetics are measured in data points... When St. Jamestown was constructed people flocked there because it was considered swish. Remember Le Corbusier? Now we're trying to remediate the place. CityPlace probably has a better variety and quality of architecture. CityPlace is fine where it is. I'm talking about the needless destruction of irreplaceable structures that give a sense of permanence and place. ƒ#$% it, bulldoze Toronto and reproduce another Ordos Kangbashi. China has blueprints.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. You sound distressed.

I didn't know we were talking about esthetics. When you compared St. Jamestown to Cityplace I assumed you were suggesting that Cityplace would suffer the same fate of crime and poverty. That it would become the same kind of neighborhood. There is no evidence for this, and it is very unlikely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top