[Glen]

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

Would you care to point one out? There may be areas that are doing well, but is that for the existing buildings or in new ones? Are those retail areas vibrant because they have capping protection? If redeveloped will they they share the same fate as Dukes on Queen West?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

QQ uses -- retail versus tourist versus residential versus commercial

I think the new QQ is going to be great. Connecting the bike paths, bringing the streetcar east, the new parks and boardwalks, etc. I also think that the new residential and commercial uses south of the train tracks (whether it's Corus or Telus, MLS or Waterlink) will draw a huge bunch of people to QQ, especially in the summer.

However, I don't see how small retail can be retrofitted into this area without either Harbourfront Centre allowing a 2- or 3- story retail space on its north end, or some of the parking lots/garages on the north side of QQ in the central district getting 'small retail' treatment -- a competing mall for QQT? I doubt they'd be up for that.

On the new eastern strip, so far we've got parks, commercial, and one condo planned. Retail would be nice to get into the mix -- again, maybe here you could get a buildout of retail on the north side near Sherbourne Park -- new buildings for the chandler's outfit and/or moving the car lots might work. It's not going to be walking retail like Queen, though... it'll be driving destinations that far east of the ferries.

Retail looks to be the piece of the puzzle that might get missed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Glen:

Would you care to point one out? There may be areas that are doing well, but is that for the existing buildings or in new ones? Are those retail areas vibrant because they have capping protection? If redeveloped will they they share the same fate as Dukes on Queen West?

Case in point - the "new" (about 2 years old) condo at SW corner of Bloor and Islington. The site is fairly harsh (at the edge of the small retail strip on Bloor with pretty much nothing going west, right across the street from Islington Station). There is a mix of relatively small retail units along Bloor and it's mostly leased - the only causalty so far is the unit at the corner which played host to a Starbucks which subsequently closed at about the same time as the said firm's retrenchment - the rest, which is a mix of retail and service survived in spite of the the subpar site and the lack of available parking. Clearly a stretch of empty storefronts isn't the default outcome of redevelopment that you made it to be.

As to QQ strip - you say that it has high density - that's only true in the context of what, the immediate building(s) spread out in a linear form - beyond that is there a great pool of residents? No - given the isolated nature of the neigbhourhood (it really doesn't connect to anything); Is there a critical mass of existing businesses that would draw people in - unlike other areas with pre-existing, functional retail serving as "anchor"? No, that's also absent. That's not to mention the effect of QQT, Harbourfront Centre, etc in the area - which tends to internalize visitors. These are all factors that self-enforces each otherand produces the pattern of inactivity thaty you see on QQ.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Would you care to point one out?

The five new blocks west of Queen East and Woodbine, which were recently redeveloped from the former racetrack. It's been slow, but virtually every store is now occupied. I'm surprised there don't seem to be any restaurants though, especially with the ample parking behind.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The five new blocks west of Queen East and Woodbine, which were recently redeveloped from the former racetrack. It's been slow, but virtually every store is now occupied. I'm surprised there don't seem to be any restaurants though, especially with the ample parking behind.

Re: restos here -- I'd be willing to bet the condos upstairs had a restriction put into the possible uses for retail here. (Besides, with lots of restos east, west, and on the north side of Queen, there's still plenty of choice.)

 

[Glen]

Glen:



Case in point - the "new" (about 2 years old) condo at SW corner of Bloor and Islington. The site is fairly harsh (at the edge of the small retail strip on Bloor with pretty much nothing going west, right across the street from Islington Station). There is a mix of relatively small retail units along Bloor and it's mostly leased - the only causalty so far is the unit at the corner which played host to a Starbucks which subsequently closed at about the same time as the said firm's retrenchment - the rest, which is a mix of retail and service survived in spite of the the subpar site and the lack of available parking. Clearly a stretch of empty storefronts isn't the default outcome of redevelopment that you made it to be.

AoD

That is one property. The "Avenue" plans are for whole areas. Was there an obligation for ground floor commercial to get approved? The site you are referring to (3391 Bloor W) also benefits from being at a busy intersection and having subway access. Bremner Blvd despite having very high density struggles to have any decent commercial feel save for the obligatory Sobeys/Rabba + dry-cleaner + bank branch. No developer is rushing to build the retail/office components like those envisioned in the Avenues' plans. The economics see sure to that.

 

[Parkdalian]

Retail can clearly appear wherever - and "bad" planning will not force it out. Up on Steeles are plenty of amazing restaurants in mini-malls that have no pedestrian traffic, and these malls are often cited as the worst form of suburban development. Why are they there? Low rent. The office building on Queen W at University rented out what I thought was an uncomfortably shallow space - to a higher end restaurant. But that's because the building was on Queen.

Retail on QQ suffers because it's too new to have a character. Some Queen West businesses have been around for decades (Black Bull, Horseshoe, Rivoli), and the consistent draw and feel of these places has helped anchor the rest of the strip.

The reason, I think, is that the rents are still too high for what it is. People move innovative retail into low-cost, exciting hoods, and they force their retail into whatever shaped retail there is: Auntie's and Uncles is a great place, but an awkward retail environment. QQ is not fun, and it's not low-cost in the way, say Parkdale or the Junction or Leslieville is.

 

[nfitz]

Re: restos here -- I'd be willing to bet the condos upstairs had a restriction put into the possible uses for retail here. (Besides, with lots of restos east, west, and on the north side of Queen, there's still plenty of choice.)

The irony though, is that there are restrictions on more restaurants to the east, because of parking limitations; however west of Woodbine, there always seems to be excess capacity in the parking lots.

Perhaps not a problem here, but if such restrictions are common in other development with a lack of pre-existing developments then it could really stifle commercial growth.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That is one property. The "Avenue" plans are for whole areas. Was there an obligation for ground floor commercial to get approved? The site you are referring to (3391 Bloor W) also benefits from being at a busy intersection and having subway access. Bremner Blvd despite having very high density struggles to have any decent commercial feel save for the obligatory Sobeys/Rabba + dry-cleaner + bank branch. No developer is rushing to build the retail/office components like those envisioned in the Avenues' plans. The economics see sure to that.

Again, just what is preexisting around Bremner that allow retail to hitch onto? That area has more in common with QQ than any other Avenues I can think of - isolated greenfield/brownfield development with no pre-existing commerical/retail pattenrs to speak of - why would you go there for any reason for retail purposes? Besides, Cityplace certainly didn't plan out Bremner as a continous retail strip by any stretch of the imagination. Avenues are a different creature entirely. In the case of my example (and there are others, such as Mozo on College, etc) you are putting far too much emphasis on Islington Station and "busy intersection" - than the general extension of the building as part of a prexisting, functional strip. I would in fact go as far as predict the retail success of Avenue buildings will be for the most part predicated on the preexisting success of the said area in retail more than anything else.

And

 

[Glen]

Again, just what is preexisting around Bremner that allow retail to hitch onto? That area has more in common with QQ than any other Avenues I can think of - isolated greenfield/brownfield development with no pre-existing commerical/retail pattenrs to speak of - why would you go there for any reason for retail purposes? Besides, Cityplace certainly didn't plan out Bremner as a continous retail strip by any stretch of the imagination. Avenues are a different creature entirely. In the case of my example (and there are others, such as Mozo on College, etc) you are putting far too much emphasis on Islington Station and "busy intersection" - than the general extension of the building as part of a prexisting, functional strip. I would in fact go as far as predict the retail success of Avenue buildings will be for the most part predicated on the preexisting success of the said area in retail more than anything else.

And

I appreciate what you are saying, but disagree to some extent. As these areas gradually redevelop, along the lines envisioned in the Avenue Plans themselves, they will face the same issues. Builders would much rather construct residential which they can sell for 2x+ the amount than non residential. QQ, while developing from scratch, may not have any preexisting draw for retail, between the resident and visitor population, there is a dearth of activity. These should be enough to support much more than what is there now. Bremner, I agree it has no history. I brought it up show that like QQ it will developed in a similar way. The maximum amount of residential, with the minimal amount of non residential that developers can get away with. I am afraid QQ will continue developing this way. I don't hold out much hope for any respectful amount of non residential growth save for projects supported by the government. As such it will always feel like you are in someones backyard when visiting.

 

[taal]

So at the end of the day the problem stems from the fact in Toronto:

3.8462361% << total

Now take Markham:

2.299651%

For commerical units.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think the street-scaping will greatly enhance the look and feel of Queen's Quay.

On the greater planning discussion I think design and planning theory still always forgets about people. I come from an engineering background. I mention this because it took me a lot of time to get around the planning and design mentality. People are not just pictures on renderings or inputs in an algorithm.

Think for a second about the concept of permission and acceptance. How we think about permission and acceptance is directly related to how we take on responsibility. A street is more than geometry, it is a multi-layered network of responsibilities where people are giving and taking permission and accepting and rejecting responsibility. This is not a side-effect of the real physical stuff going on on the street, this is THE core of what is really going on. The space is merely a physical manifestation of this and a bridge linking us to the networks of the future and that of the past.

At it's best I think planning today is the art of trying to fake the physical form of places that work without understanding the human mind and networks at the core of these places. Who owns what? Who has responsibility for what? How does one become included or excluded? What are the incentives? How does place allow someone to give themselves permission to turn an idea into reality? Questions like these are the fundamental things to discuss. They are at the heart of why Queen's Quay can never be Queen Street and why streetscaping can never make it so.

 

[savevp]

You should write a paper on that!

 

[marcus_a_j]

Take your opinions and questions to an upcoming meeting on the Central Waterfront. From Adam Vaughan's newsletter

Central Waterfront Community Update Meeting

Date:Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Time:6:00 - 8:00pm
Location:Radisson Admiral Hotel, 3rd Floor Ballroom, 249 Queens Quay West

The revitalization of the Central Waterfront is well underway. From the new wavedecks to the recently completed Queens Quay Environmental Assessment, the transformation of Torontos downtown waterfront is happening.

Join Waterfront Toronto on Wednesday, May 12 for the first in a series of community update meetings that will provide you with information on projects underway in the area. During the meeting, youll hear a variety of short presentations and youll have an opportunity to ask questions and give feedback to the project teams.

Community Update Meeting #1 - Agenda
-General update on waterfront revitalization
-Overview of upcoming opportunities for public involvement
-Introduction of the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan
-Queens Quay revitalization schematic design presentation
-York Quay revitalization (Phase 2)
-Portland waters edge (Phase 1) presentation

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Taxes are obviously not the central problem, and they may not be an issue at all.

Five seconds of thought and a five second visit would reveal some of the real problems behind why interesting and vibrant retail hasn't sprouted on Queen's Quay. There's no magic solution.

- no established retail/neighbourhood character to latch onto.
- astoundingly poor quality retail spaces hidden by pillars and along an oppressive streetscape continously fractured by driveways and parkettes and lobbies and random blobs of concrete (athough better streetscaping, while it'd be an improvement, will not suddenly trigger Ethiopian restaurants and couture poncho shops).
- the above is because our city is not designed, it is regulated and engineered, and once parking requirements, amenities requirements, park space, road right of way widths, snow storage, fire access, garbage access, sidewalk width, turning radii, building codes, windbreaks, massing studies, arcades for climate protection (ha), and on and on and on are mandated, there's absolutely nothing left that is conducive to a Queen Street-style retail atmosphere.
- as for a comically fractured streetscape (likely a problem on all new Avenues), this is because the waterfront is divided up into large square lots with few side streets or alleys...great for industry, terrible for main streets. Queen Street would die if one of every three stores was replaced with a driveway (in addition to a large percentage of the street frontage being occupied by condo amenity rooms with tinted windows).
- local demographics (say, 50% yuppies and 30% single gay men and 20% other...is there a group less likely to open stores and restaurants or more likely to want to shop/be seen shopping/eating on Bloor or Queen or King?)
- the fact that retail in new developments always takes a number of years to sort itself out and cater to who actually lives and shops there, not who some market research says should live or shop there. Rabba and a dry cleaners will work...anything else is a gamble.
- the old city of Toronto isn't gaining people...condo growth is shifting the population around, and if they keep shopping and eating in their old haunts, that means new retail streets may not be especially viable and an area that should - or, at least, could - be a great retail/dining spot will have to struggle that much more.
- you can't force trendiness and charm and you can't force people to show up and spend their money on one street and not another.