[jn_12]

The architecture is one of the elements that makes these streets some of the best in the world. It's a combination of everything. If Queens Quay aspires to that level, the architecture is going to have to match.

Average architecture (for its era) is enough to suffice. What's the difference between the architecture on the Champs Elysee and Rue St Germain? how about Tottenham Court Road and Oxford St? If the architecture is virtually the same, then it must be other elements that set them apart. If Queens Quay has architecture on par with the rest of Toronto (which it does) then it has to be other elements that allow it to rise above the rest of the city and become an iconic road.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I agree. The architecture has to be "nice" but it doesn't have to be a master planned capital coated in marble kind of thing. There's a bunch of architectural styles that could make Queens Quay truly one of the greatest streets in the world. High rise glass condos could do it, as long as there's stuff to walk around. And with a few rennovations to line the street in shops, it can do the same thing.

But I do like the idea of sticking some London-type architecture somewhere in Toronto. If we decide to, I vote knocking out a suburban block to do so. Perhaps a square the Danforth? Or perhaps around Richmond Hill? That might be able to pull it off quite nicely.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If Queens Quay has architecture on par with the rest of Toronto (which it does) then it has to be other elements that allow it to rise above the rest of the city and become an iconic road.

Those "other elements" might just be the design of the buildings. The turn-of-the-century organic built form of, say, Queen Street West is superior to the 1980s-2000s era code and law-based architecture of QQ. The narrow, deep layout of storefronts that characterizes pre-war commercial properties in Toronto is much more amenable to supporting low-rent, non-chain retail and other "generators of diversity" as Jane Jacobs called it than the post-1980s condo, with its wide, shallow retail (more expensive to rent, more monotonous on street level). Queen's Quay is particularly notorious in urban planning circles for its heavily planned streetscape, with ground floor retail that had to, by some planning document, occupy a large street frontage and be recessed behind thick pillars. This made the area in front of a retail store a dark and forbidding place and never allowed sun to stream into the store. Is it any wonder that Queens Quay, despite its high resident population and considerable foot traffic on summer weekends, cannot support anything beyond a Pizza Pizza?

Average architecture (for its era) is enough to suffice. What's the difference between the architecture on the Champs Elysee and Rue St Germain? how about Tottenham Court Road and Oxford St?

Well, "average period architecture" is not enough to support retail in Toronto for the points I mentioned above. Therefore, a radical rethink on design and architecture has to take place in order for Queens Quay to be successful.

 

[jn_12]

I agree that Queen is a much better street than Queens Quay. Making Queens Quay one of the great streets of the world isn't my goal, and frankly I'd argue one of our already established streets (Queen) has a far greater chance of achieving that. My argument is simply that great architecture doesn't make a street. As both a masters grad of an urban planning program and a resident of Queens Quay, I see the problems with the retail everyday. It's unfortunate, but that was a planning issue, not an architectural one. Iconic architecture wouldn't have fixed that problem, nor will it do anything in the future. In my opinion, great streets are the result of good planning/solutions to problems, and to me architecture just adds a layer that doesn't really fix anything. Mind you, I would also argue that design and architecture are two different things, so that's where I'm coming from.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^They're inseparable in this context. Planning codes dictated the architectural form.

Also, there is nothing inherently wrong about demanding a high architectural standard for our streets. I mean, once the landscaping is done on Bloor street, it will have the crowds, a generous sidewalk and more flashy retail than you can shake a stick at. Still, it will not be as celebrated in the city's consciousness as, say, Michigan Avenue is in Chicago. Architecture matters.

 

[kettal]

Those "other elements" might just be the design of the buildings. The turn-of-the-century organic built form of, say, Queen Street West is superior to the 1980s-2000s era code and law-based architecture of QQ. The narrow, deep layout of storefronts that characterizes pre-war commercial properties in Toronto is much more amenable to supporting low-rent, non-chain retail and other "generators of diversity" as Jane Jacobs called it than the post-1980s condo, with its wide, shallow retail (more expensive to rent, more monotonous on street level).

Is there any evidence that it is the result of planning codes, rather than simply the economic reality?

Fact is, retail has become more and more large-format and chain-store with every passing year. Joe's Phyarmacy isn't going to sign a long-term lease on a pre-construction development these days... Shopper's Drug Mart is. It's even true on good old downtown streets, where for example, small book shops like Pages have gone under while giant Chapters makes its way into the same neighborhood.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Small-scale retail is alive and well downtown, it's just not opening up in new buildings.

 

[kettal]

That's because, like I said, small businesses aren't paying pre-construction leases to developers in the same way large-scale retailers can. It's simple economics, really. The small guys might show up 10 years later, if and when the initial lessee has moved out.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Well, a lot of it has to do with the retail footprint - whether that's dictated by planning protocols or something else. For example, Grande Triomphe in North York Centre is a relatively new condo project that's filled with dozens of tiny Korean mom and pop retailers. This sort of strategy can apply downtown as well.

 

[kettal]

The retail spaces are being designed to Shopper's Drug Mart specs because, guess what, Shopper's Drug Mart has leased the unit and signed the contract with RioCan long before the first shovel hits the ground.

Developers could theoretically build with small shop sizes, but they won't have a 10 year lease from Chan's Dollar House pre-construction. In all likeliness they could expect most such units to be vacant off-and-on for a long time. Not attractive to their bean counters.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Right now, quite a few ground floor retail outlets in new condo projects sit empty awaiting a lease. Often for years. Anything would be more profitable than a permanent vacant space. It is possible that there's something at play here beyond simple economics - because if simple economics was the only thing at work, there would be a way to get around rules and regulations and fill that space to, at the very least, minimize loss.

 

[ganjavih]

One of the key features of older developments that make the street more vibrant is the narrow storefront. It makes for a scale that is people-friendly and maximizes the things to see:amount of walking ratio. I wish we could go back to this simple principle... it's one of the reasons newer megablock developments rarely produce the same street activity as older nabes.

 

[Glen]

Right now, quite a few ground floor retail outlets in new condo projects sit empty awaiting a lease. Often for years. Anything would be more profitable than a permanent vacant space. It is possible that there's something at play here beyond simple economics - because if simple economics was the only thing at work, there would be a way to get around rules and regulations and fill that space to, at the very least, minimize loss.

It's the tax burden vs. the economic benefit. QQ's retail, while suffering from design issues that you mentioned earlier, still benefit from a captive audience. The area has high density, higher level public transit, the attraction of the lake, the new wave decks, etc. yet the non residential vitality is nill.

If this is the result here what about the the proposed streets awaiting 'Avenueization"? It is like planning to grow a beautiful English Garden..... in the desert.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There are already existing Avenunization projects elsewhere in the city - and they don't necessarily have retail spaces that sit empty for extended periods of time like QQ does. I think if the area already has healthy retail strips, it wouldn't be a problem.

AoD

 

[greenleaf]

One of the key features of older developments that make the street more vibrant is the narrow storefront. It makes for a scale that is people-friendly and maximizes the things to see:amount of walking ratio. I wish we could go back to this simple principle... it's one of the reasons newer megablock developments rarely produce the same street activity as older nabes.

+1.

Perhaps the megablock developments will evolve to the point where they do have small storefronts. New uses for old buildings.