At ground level, Toronto’s soaring skyline is a dud
At ground level, Toronto’s soaring skyline is a dud
Feb. 09, 2016 By MARCUS GEE http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...m-masthead.png Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28682510/ Quote:
http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/fdb...NVIRONMENT.JPG |
This is true in some areas and not true in others.
Bloor and Jarvis - true Wellington / Portlant / Bathurst / King - not true |
Translation: Toronto is a lot like every North American city I've visited.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The writer touches on one of the downsides of new construction... new buildings tend to eliminate small, old retail spaces in favour of much larger ones. The downside to that is that the smaller mom and pop operations that infuse urban streets with character disappear, and only larger corporate chains can afford to fill the bigger spaces that replace them.
In Toronto, that might mean that a space which once housed ten small businesses gets replaced with a podium containing a Shoppers Drug Mart and that's it. |
Quote:
There is no way cities can have the same streetscapes when they have wildly differing street uses. It's completely impossible. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The design of skyscrapers are greatly influenced by zoning. I personally hate above ground parking garages. It kills the street level experience and feels sterile. I don't see them too often in Toronto. Developers will dig deep into the ground, at great cost, to build a parking garage whereas elsewhere they may just lay a slab foundation and put the garage above grade. I can only assume Toronto has zoning in place which forbids or discourages above grade parking garages. Many years ago a typical zoning codes would regulate use, height, density, and setbacks. With that the city is at the mercy of a developer; they could end up delivering a landmark or a really shitty design and awkward site plan. Nowadays more is being done to require a minimum amount of building coverage to create a street wall or plaza, minimum and maximum setbacks, percent of frontage dedicated to retail, enclosing or wrapping of interior parking garages to hide them from the street, even down to building materials or glazing or masonry requirements. Skyscrapers can be built better so they are more "human scaled" at street level and the vesicle already exists in zoning for those cities that are bold enough to care about design. |
I agree with you CIA and this article simply uses a broad brush to drum up a semblance of substance to feed a common Torontonian complaint: no moar condos... too boxy, to glassy blah blah blah.
If we were being perfectly honest here, if we were to tally up the new condominiums which are replacing mom-and-pop storefronts with blank glass lobbies or bank branches or whatever, I think we'd come up with a fairly small number. Bitch an moan as we might about Cityplace, it was built on top of a former golf course. Aura, shitty as it may be at ground level, was built atop a parking lot. Meanwhile there are countless examples of new builds that attempt, at least in some way, to integrate with their surroundings, and there are plenty of examples which do this really, really well. To conclude, I feel the article has no substance and is simply stirring up negative public sentiment. Not every street will be a cornucopia of sensory experiences, but the devil is in the details. I could just as well complain about the abject pedestrian experience walking through Museumplatz in Vienna, because ultimately, there are no shops, the building sits on a superblock, and a facade of stone is not quantifiably more interesting than one made of glass. I say this in jest, but I hope you'll get the point. |
The smaller condos are more likely to attract non chain stores, but even they have many of them like a Subway or a bank or something.
|
The downtown condos are mostly a disaster at street level. A few have interesting non-chain places in them. But overall, they have taken interesting areas, and turned them into nothing but drug stores, dry cleaners, and pizza chains.
If you want to see condos with interesting, unique, mom and pop retail, then head to North York Centre. The condos up in North York Centre have a mix of large and small retail spaces that have created some great little areas to explore. Great place to stroll and go for dinner, late night tea and dessert, etc. However North York Centre is often overlooked because it is not downtown. But downtown, you just don't get what you see in North York Cetnre as much, and it is seriously turning many parts of the downtown into bland vertical suburbs, with non of the stuff that supposedly attracted people downtown in the first place. So yes it can be done right, and North York Centre shows it. But downtown, there is a lot of work to be done. And sadly a ton of damage has been done. Just look at the Entertainment District, which has been turned into a mostly bland, increasingly less vibrant area, covered in dry cleaners and nothing else. This is a serious issue Toronto must address. Basically all the great areas the City of Toronto had the foresight to protect in the 1970s and onwards are now being demolished. |
Do buildings from the 1990s have the same issue?
It's common to have corporate retail tenants at first, then diversify as the building ages, particularly when new buildings pull away the "best" (corporate, no-risk) tenants. |
Quote:
|
lol so North York Centre is condos "done right" while downtown and the entertainment district are a disaster. Do you live in bizarro world, Mike?
|
Quote:
Ahh yes, the 70s, when great neighbourhoods were protected and nothing was demolished: http://www.blogto.com/upload/2011/10...ts-history.jpg There have been a few unfortunate losses, but so far most development has been correcting the mistakes of the 50s-70s, and filling in those parking lots and gas stations and strip plazas. Even if these buildings contributed nothing to their surroundings (in reality some do, some don't), they'd still be an improvement over what existed there 40 years ago. There is some cause for concern for the future being that at this point most of the parking lots and underdeveloped land has now been developed - but as of yet that is not the case. But is this really a downgrade? http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...4164-39138.jpg http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...4164-39139.jpg http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2014/10/...de-street-west Quote:
Quite a few of them in the podiums of new towers, even. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.