April 11, 2008
Small Boxes Only in Leslieville, Please
The proposed big box development in Leslieville has been getting a lot of attention lately, and not because it's a welcome addition to the retail streetscape in the east end. The land, the soon-to-be-former home of Toronto Film Studios, is currently zoned for employment purposes, which means that it's supposed to be used to provide jobs that pay better than retail.
The city and SmartCentres, the property developer, have danced all the way to the Ontario Municipal Board to make their cases before a tribunal next month. SmartCentres claims that its proposal is not in fact a big box development, but is a mixed-use complex that's sensitive to the community. Architect Jack Diamond, whose work generates equal parts love and hate, backs them up. Much of the community isn't buying it, equating SmartCentres—and Wal-Mart, the rumoured major tenant—with bland suburban slabs that present blank walls to the street while stores front on vast parking lots.
Concerned members of the community will be holding a "No Big Box in Leslieville" rally on Sunday, April 13 starting at 2 p.m. in Jimmie Simpson Park at 870 Queen Street East. The current thrust of the opposition is to get Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Jim Watson to declare that the province has an interest in the case, which will allow the government to overrule an OMB ruling.
Graphic from the No Big Box in Leslieville web site.
|
Personally, I find big box stores ugly and irritating and unimaginative, but I expect the people will truly speak on this issue by flocking to the stores when they're built.
i agree with you, David.
the best way to stick it to the man is by not supporting them after they build their multi-million dollar attrocity.
but...once they build that ugly mega-mall, it is there to stay, causing a giant footprint in a gem of an area like leslieville.
if you want to see what ugly footprints look like, just go to Queen W West. them condos popping up everywhere make me sick.
atomeeyes99: Yes, because only certain types of people should be allowed to live on Queen West. Snobs.
I think it's important that people not be misled by the "artist conception" of this big box development (a picture was in today's Globe). It makes it look very pedestrian friendly, with trees and cyclists and pedestrians walking all around it.
But it isn't just the design that will make it pedestrian-unfriendly (and which is why the artist's conception is entirely dishonest). It's that this development will be located where pedestrians will not be able to walk to it.
No to Leslieville's big box - no matter how pretty the pictures...
but the pictures, McKingford, they're SO pretty...
I posted on my blog last year about a supposed pedestrian-friendly Canadian Tire big box gone awry on the Danforth. Always be wary of artist's conceptions.
"this development will be located where pedestrians will not be able to walk to it."
Whether its Wal-Mart or retail/cafes/small is beautiful doesn't matter then? Its just not accesible? Isn't that an argument against anything other than a whole new residential/retail/employment zone where pedestrians can walk to things (including its present use as a film studio)?
Wow the people on Leslieville.org are catty, arrogant knowitall jackasses.
On the plus side, the big box development proposed for Leslieville is more or less disposable architecture that will probably be replaced by more intensive uses in 30 years. As the area makes a transition from decaying 20th century industrial towards something a little more urban, maybe this isn't such a terrible step along the way. A higher value, more urban use would be nice, but maybe not feasible given Toronto's precarious economic status. We're not London, or even Sydney - we're a strugging formerly industrial city in a declining region. Harvard is building something like 10 million square feet in a new science campus in Allston (not unlike Leslieville), which will be transformational for Boston and maybe the world. But that sort of thing will never happen here. Sure the retail development will attract a lot of traffic, but Lakeshore is practically a highway already, and Eastern isn't exactly Oxford Street. And while we might wish for a different city, the one we've got is overwhelmingly auto-centric pretty much everwhere and certainly in that neighbourhood.
Opponents of the thing should chill: one day it will be demolished, like most of Toronto's built environment. It's better than leaving the land vacant, and it's probably the best we can hope for in the forseeable future.
Was this the reason we tore down the Gardiner east of the DVP?
I don't think so, let's plan how we bring back this area by making it more pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly. There are plenty of big box stores within a short drive already.
davedave: That site is written and maintained by Joe Clark.
pman: "And while we might wish for a different city, the one we've got is overwhelmingly auto-centric pretty much everwhere and certainly in that neighbourhood." Well, here we have people actively fighting to make Toronto that "different city," one that isn't autocentric. Please don't preach apathy.
Goldsbie: Here, here! A precedent-setting parking lot (with some retail use) is a step in the wrong direction. We shouldn't relax, take several steps back as a city and wait for the businesses to leave this development before we demand better planning. We don't need to see more of this type of development. We need intensive, transit-, cycling- and pedestrian-friendly land uses.
Here, here ....
.... we have to keep fighting the big-box fights wherever they are. Big boxers are not only bad in an urban environment, but also in the suburban.
The architects that CT hire have either no imagination, or the corporate types in HQ just keep imposing their bland view. Check out the eyesore of the month at James Kunstler's site:
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200303.html
And his TED Talk if you relaly want entertainment and information:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121
Cheers,
Tuds
the problem as i see it is not whether you can walk to it or not...and yes you can still walk in that area, or bike...the problem is once you got into that big box and purchased a 2by4 or 3 gallons of paint...how are YOU going to get the loot home??? you need a CAR...hence the parking lot (there is no parking lot on queen west!!!)...and i am so sick of this kind of disposable architecture you can see everywhere...look at "new" don mills mall, what a pretty rendering, what an ugly collection of boxes...i can just see "globo shoes" flagship store at the corner of lawrence and the donway
The last time I bought any 2x4s, I had them delivered. Independent shops used to have delivery service depending on your purchase.
The big-box retailers have shuffled off all the service to the customer, and kept the profit. You cruise the isles, pick out your stuff without the help of a knowledgeable staffer, haul it home in your trunk, break the sweat ....
I am sure there is a big market for delivery service.
Tuds
You don't need a car to carry a 2x4; just toss it over your shoulder and walk. If you're buying too many 2x4s to carry, patronize a store that delivers. You also don't need two tonnes of metal and plastic to carry 3 gallons of paint; just put the cans into your wagon and walk home. Or get a nice bike trailer to handle most cargo you think you need a car for.
No, you can't haul everything by bike or on foot, but you absolutely do not need a car to carry paint home. Most people I see at the local Home Depot leave the store with all of their purchases in one or two bags.
This article links to one of my photos. It was the one with Future Shop's blank walls in the northern section of the Junction, where big box retail has replaced 2500-4000 businesses (statistic taken from a survey done in the early 1980s). These have been terrible additions to the city, and I now regret not photographing the worst offenders, the Home Depot and Canadian Tire, but I was more interested in the abandoned rails that day. These are such car focused developments that the Future Shop example didn't even finish that sidewalk. It just ends abruptly, and some gravel was thrown on the side (and there's a large hole beside it to increase your chances of being splashed by dirty water on rainy days).
It's too bad no one said "No Big Box on St. Clair" before the Home Depot went up. There's still a massive section of land at St. Clair and Keele where a developer wants to put up one of those suburban style plazas with small chain stores and a couple of big box stores. It's discussed ">here. This one should be challenged too, even though poor development already dominates the area, this is large enough to be a significant improvement.
As for the point that you need a car to shop a big box store, it's not necessarily true, because there are literally thousands of items you can buy that you can walk or bike home with, or you can get one of those folding carts. It's possible to accommodate big box stores, but not if they're going to put up surface level parking lots for thousands of cars.
Sorry, that link failed.
Here it is.
By the way, pman's defeatist attitude ("we're a strugging formerly industrial city in a declining region") is to be avoided. Our economy is diversified and doing fairly well. So many condominiums are going up, we're hardly struggling. By encouraging big box retail, you're encouraging the lifestyle of high car usage. We're in a position to better develop our land now. We are urban, there's no doubt we're like Sydney in many respects, so let's build this city responsibly and at our potential.
I hope to God this development never happens. My wife and I have lived in Leslieville for eight years, and it would be going in half a block from where we live. We'd probably move...not because of any knee-jerk dislike of Wal-Mart, but because of all the added traffic, noise, pollution, etc.
I live within a 10 minute walk of the proposed site, and it's perfectly walkable right now. A big parking lot won't improve it, that's for sure.
However, it is nowhere near the waterfront. It's on Eastern just east of Carlaw. That's like half a mile from the water, and there's nothing but industrial wasteland south of it. Not exactly prime living space.
Two other things that are irritating about this issue:
1. Getting letters from my MP telling me to object to it. Shouldn't my MP be polling me for my opinion first? What if I'm in favour? What if my neighbours are? Why is her mind made up already without even asking?
2. The protest site is a piece of non-interactive, rhetorical cant, and as such mirrors the argument against this thing in the first place. This neighbourhood was fully industrial for a hundred years, for goodness' sakes, and the waterfront everyone's talking about is a pile of chemical-laced fill pushed into the lake for generations.
I dislike big box stores because they're ugly. But I dislike all this hypocrisy even more.
David: Ditto. Is this such a terrible thing? Will big boxes stop me from going to my local hardware store, or Fred the cabinet maker? Umm, no. How many jobs will this bring to the area? Instead of a knee-jerk reaction shouting "No!" to big boxes, maybe we should consider that this might be a valid use of scrub-brush land.
I also think the fact it's Wal-Mart is a factor here. I don't remember getting a postcard from the local rep when Canadian tire went in...
DaveDave (may I call you Dave?), you need to clarify which exact postings you refer to. The topic of the former Foundry District is dominated by liveblog postings of other people’s remarks, so I don’t immediately see the connection. Is there nonenone, davedave?
>There are plenty of big box stores within a short drive already.
This is what drives me nuts about the people opposed to the Big Box Stores. On one hand they hide behind this pollution footprint argument only to go on to say that many other big box stores are a "short drive already"
In the case of Leslieville, where is it a 'short drive' to a wal-mart? Assuming everyone in this poor/working class neighbourhood OWNS a fucking car in the first place, of course :P
>you need to clarify which exact postings you refer to
I believe he said the People not the Posting(s).
> Is there nonenone, davedave?
I guess you've just proven his point. JoeJoe.