Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI

I don't have an issue with D+S, or development.

Sorry - that is just not patently true - this is what you've said just a few posts ago:

I have no issue with in-fill and the Pantages and St. Michael's additions are perfectly fine, but I'm not sure that anything Diamond will offer up in exchange for what he is tearing down will have anything near the same degree of character. Shame.


I stand by my comments AoD. My issue is not with D+S per se. If this were on an empty lot we would not be having this conversation, even if I do not particularly like this design of theirs for this location (which I don't). This doesn't mean I dislike all of their designs whatever the context, which simply isn't the case.


If we are talking about tearing down the HNR building proper, I'd agree with you - but just how would saving the brick mid-rise in this development change that? At best you'd get a facadectomy of a building that is arguably quite Modern in design vocabulary already (embellishments are minimal), scrubbed free of grime and grit. It would have added absolutely nothing in terms of complexity and interest.

This is more than an issue of design 'complexity'. The interest here is in the building's texture and scale, but more importantly in its relationship to the rest of the block - including the HNR building - all of which define the character of this stretch of Victoria Street. Simply put, the loss of this building further erodes the character here. I'd prefer to see a design approach that would add height and density yet preserve the existing character.

Cities are by default creatures of constant destruction and rebuilding. There is nothing "enlightened" about slapping a heritage label to each and every old building that comes along pretending that somehow it will make us unique among the cities of the world - it won't. Raise the level of planning vision and the design quality for new buildings and you'd get a far better outcome than nuanced rhetoric.

AoD

We must not view heritage preservation as an obstacle to visionary planning and quality development. It should be an integral part of it... and nor should this mean that we reduce heritage preservation to isolated examples, or relics, that ultimately are disconnected from any relevant contexts that have been established over time. It is this very approach that leads to:

What could have been our "Old Montreal":

CN002876-1-1.jpg


Became this:

lookingeast-1-1.jpg


Apparently we've learned nothing from these mistakes?

... and to suggest that heritage preservation threatens to stymie development in Toronto is rich: it's not as though there aren't enormous - no, stunning - opportunities for new carte-blanche design and development literally everwhere in this city, cause there are!
 
Re The Star's article regarding demolition stopped due to concern of radioactive contamination - I find it really disturbing that this issue is only coming to the forefront now given that this project has been in the works for 5 years. Why does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have to get involved? Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the developer.

I am sure it will turn out to be a waste of time and the building will be demolished eventually.
The contamination is limited, probably not more than cellphones, microwaves or airplanes. But people knowing nothing about nuclear love to freak out every time hearing the word "radiation".
 
This is more than an issue of design 'complexity'. The interest here is in the building's texture and scale, but more importantly in its relationship to the rest of the block - including the HNR building - all of which define the character of this stretch of Victoria Street. Simply put, the loss of this building further erodes the character here. I'd prefer to see a design approach that would add height and density yet preserve the existing character.

Just how does a design approach add height and density yet preserve the "existing character" and relate to the rest of the block, which isn't JUST HNR...but also includes Opus, Pantages, etc? And how would an appropriately handled design not be able to replicate the "existing character", given your willingness to add height and density? Are you saying that we can't use brick as a building material in a manner that is comparable to the mid-rise that is? Is the building in question so replete with architectural features that make or break the character of the area?

We must not view heritage preservation as an obstacle to visionary planning and quality development. It should be an integral part of it... and nor should this mean that we reduce heritage preservation to isolated examples, or relics, that ultimately are disconnected from any relevant contexts that have been established over time. It is this very approach that leads to:

Funny you didn't show me an example of say New York and a current photo of what stands (or substitute that with pre-Haussman Paris, Chicago, etc). I have a feeling one wouldn't be wax-poetic about heritage then, given what came after. And if one really wanted to be honest about it all, one can show us a photo of St. Lawerence/West Don Lands as it currently stands - like those taken by Razz - I have a feeling it's a lot more informative than showing us the state of empty parking lots that no longer are and using it to make a point. No one would vote for parking lots, so that really isn't the argument here.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Just how does a design approach add height and density yet preserve the "existing character" and relate to the rest of the block, which isn't JUST HNR...

AoD, in fact we are seeing great examples of this all over Toronto! The most obvious example I can think of is with Five on Yonge where a tower that adds height and density is being inserted into an existing context such that the emerging relationship between both the old and new will be extremely engaging. I agree that the existing building stock needs to be adjusted significantly to accommodate the evolving demands of development but the essence remains, and in a case such as this it is less about museum-quality heritage 'preservation' so much as preserving scale, street-level vibrancy, the character of the area, the evolving layers of urban development etc.

Is the building in question so replete with architectural features that make or break the character of the area?...

No, and again I am not arguing for museum-quality heritage preservation here. It is about the wider context. At Five for example they are taking great pains to preserve what is essentially a back alley lined with brick walls that they could easily have raised without so much as a whimper from anybody. The fact that that they are preserving this minor streetscape, along with the major streetscape that fronts Yonge, all the while adding density and height with a modern tower is commendable, imo, and an example of enlightened urban development.



Funny you didn't show me an example of say New York and a current photo of what stands (or substitute that with pre-Haussman Paris, Chicago, etc).

... but we know better now, don't we? I would indeed love to see more of medieval Paris or colonial New York saved. Those were fairly small areas compared to the larger cities that emerged around them. Those heritage areas would in no way have precluded Haussman from making his mark, for example.

AoD, I grant you that these are difficult choices to make, and all the more so because we want to push the city further with good design... and you are right that cities absolutely must continue to evolve. My concern though is that we make an effort to evolve in an enlightened way, and not in the way of the 1960s where it was acceptable to bulldoze over city blocks and lots without much thought at all. Most cities these days - including Pari, NYC and Chicago - understand the assets they have in their heritage and their traditional built environments and are guiding development with these things in mind. Toronto must do this too. We have to stop viewing our city as a disposable frontier town.
 
Tewder:

AoD, in fact we are seeing great examples of this all over Toronto! The most obvious example I can think of is with Five on Yonge where a tower that adds height and density is being inserted into an existing context such that the emerging relationship between both the old and new will be extremely engaging. I agree that the existing building stock needs to be adjusted significantly to accommodate the evolving demands of development but the essence remains, and in a case such as this it is less about museum-quality heritage 'preservation' so much as preserving scale, street-level vibrancy, the character of the area, the evolving layers of urban development etc.

Except that scale, street level vibrancy, character can all be replicated and better yet - extended with authenticity. Preservation of a facade is one of the least imaginative, least authentic way to do so, and besides one has to question whether it is worth the effort in this case. This wasn't a case of contiguous streetscape/block like along Yonge in the case 5ive, nor is the building architecturally significant compared to the facadized warehouse in said case.

No, and again I am not arguing for museum-quality heritage preservation here. It is about the wider context. At Five for example they are taking great pains to preserve what is essentially a back alley lined with brick walls that they could easily have raised without so much as a whimper from anybody. The fact that that they are preserving this minor streetscape, along with the major streetscape that fronts Yonge, all the while adding density and height with a modern tower is commendable, imo, and an example of enlightened urban development.

I beg to differ - in the case of 5ive, the warehouse in question is far more intricate in scale and in execution. Personally I would have favoured complete preservation and restoration instead of facadization. And unlike Victoria St., which is fairly degraded - St. Nicholas St. (at least the stretch close to Yonge) constitute a fairly intact stretch of historical architecture.

... but we know better now, don't we? I would indeed love to see more of medieval Paris or colonial New York saved. Those were fairly small areas compared to the larger cities that emerged around them. Those heritage areas would in no way have precluded Haussman from making his mark, for example.

Of course, but that's just it, isn't it? That we don't really mourn (much) what was lost if the end product is greater and more amouring.

AoD, I grant you that these are difficult choices to make, and all the more so because we want to push the city further with good design... and you are right that cities absolutely must continue to evolve. My concern though is that we make an effort to evolve in an enlightened way, and not in the way of the 1960s where it was acceptable to bulldoze over city blocks and lots without much thought at all. Most cities these days - including Pari, NYC and Chicago - understand the assets they have in their heritage and their traditional built environments and are guiding development with these things in mind. Toronto must do this too. We have to stop viewing our city as a disposable frontier town.

Which is why I think this is a far less controversial case than say Gehry's project - this only involves selective demolition in a small site. Given the existing commitments of the project (preservation of HNR and commercial component), it can only add complexity to what's an underutilized space. I don't think anyone here is proposing that we revert to the planning regime of the 50s/60s en masse (okay, except for very limited cases like Gehry)

AoD
 
I am sure it will turn out to be a waste of time and the building will be demolished eventually.
The contamination is limited, probably not more than cellphones, microwaves or airplanes. But people knowing nothing about nuclear love to freak out every time hearing the word "radiation".

So they stop demolition, clean up the site, then resume when it's done. What am I missing?
 
I apologize if this has already been covered earlier on in this thread, but considering the obscurity surrounding the developer/sales any chance this might be a rental project?
 
Those 2 narrow north facing blank walls are perfect for backlit ads or billboards facing Dundas Square. Ads on various surrounding buildings including on top of 277 Victoria Street (NE corner of Square) would go a long way to further creating more of that intimate big city times square type feeling.

In that vein, it's funny how what was once derided on UT is that which now some see as an asset:

dundassquareadszi3.gif


Brilliant .gif c/o MetroMan circa 2008

I mentioned this a while back but I still think that this project (and all of Dundas Square's surrounding buildings) should be clad with ads. This is the right place for this sort of in-your face urbanism/commercialism. Although Times Square is a totally different beast, a glimpse at how profitable building ads have become:

Ads, Not Tenants, Make Times $quare (Eliot Brown, Wall Street Journal) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323476304578199310470733342.html


Ads, Not Tenants, Make Times $quare By ELIOT BROWN

When the Times Square ball drops New Year's Eve to ring in 2013, it will do so over a Manhattan office building that is mostly empty.

Yet, it is minting cash.

The 25-story tower is doing a booming business as a billboard, its exterior cloaked with advertisements that can be seen each year by hundreds of millions of television viewers and passersby.

Documents connected to a recent refinancing of the building give a glimpse into the lucrative trade of owning sign space in Times Square, which has boomed as the count of tourists and office workers in the once-seedy neighborhood has swelled.

From sign rentals alone, the small trapezoidal building at One Times Square takes in more than $23 million a year in revenue, the documents say.

For example, Dunkin' Brands Group Inc. pays $3.6 million a year for a Dunkin' Donuts digital sign that often shows photos of fans who send images to the company's Facebook FB -0.82% page. Anheuser-Busch InBev pays $3.4 million a year for a sign that shows close-ups of icy bottles of Budweiser and other brands.

Other companies with signs include Sony Corp. 6758.TO +1.46% and News America, which share a sign that costs $4 million a year. News Corp NWSA -1.32% . owns News America and Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, which also rents sign space on the building.

Along with rents from a Walgreen Co. WAG -0.71% store on the bottom three floors, those sums give the otherwise empty building an appraised value of $495 million, according to the loan documents. That is more than twice the sale price fetched this spring by 222 Broadway, a 31-story Lower Manhattan office building that is home to Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.58% employees and has more than six times the square footage as One Times Square.

"We've been very happy with it," said Michael Phillips, chief operating officer at Jamestown Properties, an Atlanta-based landlord that bought One Times Square through a fund in 1997 for $117 million.

Jamestown's success in turning One Times Square into a cash machine reflects the rising value of advertising in one of the country's iconic tourist destinations. More than 100 million pedestrians pass through the area a year, according to Times Square Alliance, a nonprofit business improvement organization. Foot traffic at key intersections is up about 90% since 1996, the Alliance estimates.

Property owners in Times Square area say the rates for their signs are roughly double what they were a decade ago, although they vary widely by location. That is due in part to rising tourism to New York City—now at a record 50.9 million visitors annually.

Another factor: More owners have converted to digital billboards. Such signs are more expensive to build but can rent for five or six times as much as a static vinyl sign, according to Standard & Poor's Ratings Service, which rated One Times Square's mortgage.

Advertising-industry executives say Times Square has the highest-price outdoor signage in the world, above tourist-filled squares such as Piccadilly Circus in London. The pace of growth is well ahead of the advertising market for billboards nationally, which has seen modest growth of 3% to 4% a year, according to Matthew Chelser, an analyst at Deutsche Bank DBK.XE +1.10% AG.

Small-market billboards typically rent for $1,000 to $2,000 a month, he said.

The signage in the area was once something of an afterthought for landlords. But these days, landlords are racing to put ever-larger signs on their buildings in a bid to get the $2 million to $4 million a year, or more, such signs can bring.

Vornado Realty Trust VNO +0.48% has said it is planning a sprawling new digital sign display on the 300-foot-long base of the Marriott Marquis hotel on 46th Street and Broadway. New York developer Steve Witkoff and his partners have said they view signage as a significant profit driver in their plans to raze an office building and build a retail development on 47th Street and Seventh Avenue.

At an investor conference earlier this month, Edward Piccinich, executive vice president at SL Green Realty Corp., SLG -0.34% described the company's planned giant digital signage in Times Square as the "magnum opus" of a new development that is set to hold a flagship store for clothing retailer Express Inc., EXPR +1.37% which is also leasing the sign.

Express, in turn, could make money leasing out the sign part of the time to advertisers. "Those signs are worth a fortune," Michael Weiss, Express's chief executive, said at an investor conference earlier this year, according to a transcript. "I mean, they cost you a fortune, but they're worth a fortune."

Of course, the advertising business can be rocky. General Motors Co. GM +2.37% gave up a big sign on One Times Square, along with other leased real estate, following its 2009 bankruptcy filing. The auto maker's sign was replaced by Dunkin' Donuts.

For One Times Square, the times weren't always so great. At one point, planners called, unsuccessfully, for the building, built in 1904, to be torn down as part of a larger area redevelopment. But the district has blossomed over the past two decades, thanks in part to a state-led effort that promoted new development, and One Times Square's value gradually grew.

"That's the one that got away in my life," said Lawrence Linksman, who sold the property in the early 1980s for about $10 million after what he says was an ownership dispute. He said he avoids the area these days because the memory is painful.

Jamestown bought the building 15 years ago with New York-based Sherwood Equities, its partner at the time. This fall, Jamestown refinanced to get a $208 million mortgage from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -0.55% on the tower, which was sold off to bond investors earlier this month in the form of commercial-mortgage-backed securities.

The advertisers who take space in the tower say the prices are high, but the visibility is unparalleled.

"There's a statement we make in being there—and we think the placement we've got is outstanding,"
said Blaise D'Sylva, a vice president for marketing at Anheuser-Busch.

Still, for others, the cost has gotten too dear. Nissin Food Products Co., 2897.TO +1.68% which used to have a picture of a giant Japanese-style ramen noodle cup on One Times Square, didn't renew when its lease expired a few years ago.

"We had to sell a lot of ramen before the billboard paid for itself," said Linda Chung, assistant vice president of marketing at Nissin.

Others question whether the increase in signs throughout the area—more than 230 now—will dilute the value of existing signs.

"You've probably overcooked it over there," says Neill Macklin, who oversees signage for landlord Land Securities Group LAND.LN -0.24% PLC at Piccadilly Circus.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ agreed.
Dundas Square is another lost opportunities as a result of Toronto's small-mindedness and lack of a vision. It is in the center of the city, about equal distance between Front st and Bloor st - there is no better location than this. However, both Atrium on Bay and Toronto Life Square are a bust. They are ugly and they don't work. The Square itself is about 25% of the size it should be and totally hasn't lived up to this poential or name of a "Square". That forever 21 store sitting at the NW corner is a waste of space - another two storey at Yonge/Dundas? At Dundas/Victoria, east end of the square, there is practically nothing.

The only thing that works well is the Eaton Centre itself which seems busy and vibrant all the time. I litterally sigh at Atrium on Bay and Life Square every time I pass by. They are simply a huge mess and show no attractiveness as a retail centre of a large city. The area bound by Victoria, Shutter, Bay and Edward st is can be a world class shopping and entertainment destination but it ends up being something utterly lackluster and disappointing.

AOB and Life Square are more like a strip mall in Vaughan while East side of Dundas (Hardrock cafe etc) looks more like a cozy small retail street in Niagara Falls, not in Toronto. As to the Dundas Square, I have seen many cities with 1/4 of Toronto's population have bigger square than that.
 
If anything The Eaton Centre sucked the life off Yonge Street and destroyed the west side of the street from Dundas down to Queen St. The 90's renovation to open up the mall to Yonge Street helped a bit, appalling as most of it is. Yonge Dundas Square is a wonderful plaza, I don't know how much more space is needed at this point in time though I argue what it is used for a lot of the time (product launches and such). The chopped up former Bank of Nova Scotia/retail space at the N/W corner gives the intersection a little charactor, pretty much lost at this intersection since the Eaton Centre's grand atrium was trashed in the early 00's.
 
If anything The Eaton Centre sucked the life off Yonge Street and destroyed the west side of the street from Dundas down to Queen St. The 90's renovation to open up the mall to Yonge Street helped a bit, appalling as most of it is. Yonge Dundas Square is a wonderful plaza, I don't know how much more space is needed at this point in time though I argue what it is used for a lot of the time (product launches and such). The chopped up former Bank of Nova Scotia/retail space at the N/W corner gives the intersection a little charactor, pretty much lost at this intersection since the Eaton Centre's grand atrium was trashed in the early 00's.

What do you mean "sucking life"? If people love to shop at Eaton Centre, isn't it a success? Aren't shops supposed to be attractive for shoppers?
What's your definition of successful retail, all mom/pops stores who charge ridiculous prices due to the lack of economies of scale?

If an individual store is not popular, it only means its product is not attractive enough, or its prices are set too high. You can't blame nearby business for being successful.

As to Dundas Square, I know you like it. I like the idea of it but hate its tiny size, very small-townish and probably only wow small town folks. Cities in Europe half of Toronto's size have much larger and more interesting public squares. I will give YD Square a 4 out of 10.
 
By "sucking life" he (and many others with an understanding of how pedestrians interact with streets) meant that the Eaton Centre is notorious for pulling people off of Yonge St. due to the lack of open storefronts facing the sidewalk. Most shops in the Eaton Centre are oriented inwards towards the main corridors of the mall. Although most Torontonians enjoy the Eaton Centre (myself included) it is undeniable that it detracts from Yonge's pedestrian experience between Dundas and Queen.
 
What do you mean "sucking life"? If people love to shop at Eaton Centre, isn't it a success? Aren't shops supposed to be attractive for shoppers?
What's your definition of successful retail, all mom/pops stores who charge ridiculous prices due to the lack of economies of scale?

If an individual store is not popular, it only means its product is not attractive enough, or its prices are set too high. You can't blame nearby business for being successful.

As to Dundas Square, I know you like it. I like the idea of it but hate its tiny size, very small-townish and probably only wow small town folks. Cities in Europe half of Toronto's size have much larger and more interesting public squares. I will give YD Square a 4 out of 10.

Urban economics from the least-informed poster here. Hurrah.
 

Back
Top