Big Box vs. Community Thinking

But funny how the city uses the OMB when it wants to go against the wishes of a majority of local residents - ie the Riverdale Hospital.

Having it both ways is more than a bit hypocritical, no?

"That the OMB hears something that isn't wanted either by the city or the community's residents is mind boggling."

The OMB doesn't have a choice in which cases it hears. Anyone can appeal any decision by paying the $125 filing feel. I know of no other jurisdiction in North America that has a comparibly affordable planning decision appeals venue that has such a low cost of appeal fee. I think that getting rid of the OMB, or even substantially amending its mandate, is a big mistake.

Sean: Getting rid of the OMB does not mean getting rid of the right to appeal. There could, for example, be an independent City of Toronto appeals board, appointed by city council.

I'm sure the fox would like to guard the henhouse indeed. However, Toronto cannot legally setup a local appeal board to replace the OMB for official plan amendments or zoning by-law amendments. The City of Toronto Act permits local appeal boards for minor planning issues (primarily those dealt with at the Committee of Adjustment).

The Sunshine list

2.2 Million

42,000 City employees making 100,000 plus.

Term limits of five years and opportunity for everyone to serve. We can also lower the pay to 35,000 max or make them volunteer positions.

These jobs can be done by anybody.

The list; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080401.SALARIES01/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

There is no way you're serious with those recommendations, so I'm assuming this is an April Fool's prank. Compared to what most public servants could make doing the equivalent work in the private sector, they are underpaid.

What's the name of the store in the cover picture? Looks like an interesting place to shop.

Big box is ideal where they are thought out... from the southern states where warm year round. We have winter here with lots of snow and ice. I'd rather shop in a neighbourhood any day and meeting the owners of the stores too.

My 2?.

FDE:

"42,000 City employees..."

It's 42,000 public sector employees ACROSS THE PROVINCE. Not just Toronto employees.

"These jobs can be done by anybody."

You want to take a stroll down Queen and find a handful of urban planners? How many average Torontonians know the ins and outs of zoning in this city? (Using planning as just one example of the many city jobs that require some level of formal training.)

Sean Williams: It's Gadabout. It is indeed a very cool shop.

Sean Galbraith: "Compared to what most public servants could make doing the equivalent work in the private sector, they are underpaid."

Give your head a shake. That's absolutely ridiculous. Sure, they could make more elsewhere, but they'd lose significant benefits and pension, and they'd probably end up having to work a LOT longer hours with no job security. Public servants do important work and deserve respect, but they have it pretty good, all things considered.

I live in the east end and I actually support the opening of 'big box' stores for a few reasons.

1. They provide essential services to the area, such as groceries. In the east end there is a serious lack of decent quality grocery stores. If Loblaws wasn't there, I would have to travel quite far to do my grocery shopping as I don't own a car. Same goes with Shoppers Drug Mart.

2. Canadian Tire is and has been part of 'Canada' since before any of these small antique stores have been around. The opening of Canadian Tire or anything similiar (such as Walmart) hardly puts any of these stores at risk as they don't competively sell any of the same products.

3. Most of the store owners saying 'no to big box' don't even live in the area.

4. Big box stores will employ hundreds if not thousands of people. Before anyone jumps on me saying that they pay crap, well for many residents in the neighbourhood who are on IE or welfare, crap is still better than what they have. On the other hand, these mom and pop shops do NOT usually employ anyone other than the owners.

Talking with most of my neighbours they are also welcoming the opening of big box stores, regardless of their social or political standing etc. The main theme in their welcoming is the simple fact that getting to some of these stores requires them to either a) buy a car b) drive their car.

I'm having a hard time understanding why opening the big box stores is a bad thing based on my logic above.

and I'd also like to mention that the area is filled with cars on Queen street every weekend. Using the same 'traffic' argument as Paula Fletcher and those against the big box openings, I say that most of these people do NOT live in the area, so they are driving their anyways.

On that note, to shop at most of these stores you'd have to be incredibly wealthy, something totally not in tune with the 'community' in question. So to me, these stores complaining about big box are just simply taking advantage of an area of the city that has cheaper rent then say Queen West. Most of them aren't catering to area residents to begin with.

Completely agree with kevenages.

Where I live in the west end, a similarly blighted landscape of disused rail yards and abbatoirs has been transformed by the arrival of the box stores. Instead of brownfields, we now have fine additions to our community that enable local residents to walk and cycle to resources that would have taken a nasty drive to get to before.

I can walk to the local Wal*Mart, where an abandoned CP parking lot once sat, for baby supplies. Materials to repair my century home are five minutes at either Home Depot or Rona (and hopefully a Lowe's soon). Chain restaurants, Canadian Tire, Future Shop, Chapters, superstores from both Loblaws and Dominion - they're all welcome additions to our neighborhood that coexist swimmingly with thriving independent retailers and restaurants in the Bloor West Village.

I don't get big box opponents. These stores are the Eatons, Simpsons, Sears Catalog outlets and lumberyards of our time. A true 21st century community learns to integrate all of the above to create a vibrant, responsive and -practical- environment for families to live in.

snowkarver:

One of the main arguments against big box stores is that they are an inefficient land use in an urban setting. The buildings take up a lot of room and are almost always only one storey tall (they do have tall ceilings, but nothing gets stacked to the top). The one positive thing about the Wal-Mart you're referring to (St. Clair and Runnymede?) is that they put all of the parking underground. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Keele-St. Clair big box "park". All of that parking, and there's plenty of it, is out front of the buildings. The stores may be convenient, but in their typical form they are not an efficient use of land. I'm not trying to argue against the redevelopment of brownfields. That is certainly something the city should strive for. But I do wonder why the big box stores can't add (at least) two floors on top to be used for offices or more retail space? This could limit the physical footprint of the stores and, if some office uses were added, a mix of different forms of employment. The urban locations of Eatons, Simpsons, The Bay, Sears etc. were all multi-storey department stores. The Bay at Yonge and Queen is the perfect example. Several stories instead of spreading out.

We realize that with limited space and a growing concern towards protecting open spaces, green spaces, agricultural land (not quite in Toronto, but elsewhere), we need to use our land to its fullest potential. Big box developments, if they are indeed necessary, need to be planned far better than they are. The fact that the Keele-St. Clair big box stores sit at the intersection of two popular surface transit routes is a start, but big box developers need to plan smarter.

Gadabout.

***Thanks Robert. Much appreciate you sharing the name of the shop.

& thank you blogto.com to exist like the way you do.

Where to start.....Ok the OMB. Do you know that a developer can sue a community group for opposing their appeal? A neighbour of mine was involved in helping a community group in Simcoe County stop a development. The developer won (they usually do) , then turned around and sued the lawyer who helped the group, his firm and the group for , I believe $3.75 million. This is condoned by the OMB.
Next. City building. In the case of the South Riverdale / Leslieville neighbourhood, the City and province have been working together to help this once( and still) industrial area become an community with a tie to the waterfront which usually feels 100 miles away. They began with taking down the East Gardiner expresssway and building a continuation of the Martin Goodman bike trail along the length of the Lakeshore boulevard.In time, the plans call for pedestrian, bike and car friendly iaccesses to what will eventually be Lake Ontario Park. This is the future. What will happen if the developers win will likely be not one, but up to 4 major big box sites ( as the adjoining properties will piggyback the decision and join in on the fun) lining the Lakeshore and dashing any of the plans set out in the 80's and 90's.

The OMB will become the de facto planning board, a duty it was never intended, nor capable of doing.This development will not only starve the local businesses of trade ( ever seen a thriving small retail strip 2 BLOCKS from a big box development?) but will replace good paying film business work with minimum wage dead-end retail positions. No one is saying the small retailers pay staff huge wages, but the point is only what will be leaving the employment lands. Careers vs. part-time.

What about the retailers themselves. Any Canadians in the lot? No, they will all be major U.S. outlets. Goods come from the U.S. and abroad, (WalMart is intended to be the anchor tenant...they don't even BANK in Canada....all their money goes directly to a U.S. bank) and the money returns there. We get the part-time jobs with no benefits.

Finally, the traffic. Eastern Avenue ( not to mention Lakeshore boulevard) is jammed most of the time as it is. Millions more car trips/year will make the side streets as well as thouroughfares a nightmare. The pollution in the area ( now about the worst in the GTA) will increase dramatically.

So, someone remind what the good is again? Ugly Golden Mile adding yet another wall to the waterfront, forcing many local businesses to close as well as clogged streets and air so people can drive in to save a buck or two?
I live here. I love what's been slowly developing, as do my neighbours ( young and old). I want the province to declare a special interest in this case, and let us continue to develop a 21st century community.
You want to live near big box? Go live at Keele and St. Clair, Laird and Eglinton or countless other locations. Don't ask me to leave mine.

I don't understand why it is the big box stores' fault that people shop there. If people want to shop there, they will. Those that don't want to shop there can shop at the other existing stores. Why should a handful of people (if someone says a majority I am curious to know how they know that it is indeed a majority) who know how to use the political system stop everyone from having a choice of where to shop. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who choose to go to Wal-Mart etc. Tell them they should only shop at stores that you choose because you have the right to dictate what they do.

> become an community with a tie to the waterfront which usually feels 100 miles away. They began with taking down the East Gardiner expresssway and building a continuation of the Martin Goodman bike trail along the length of the Lakeshore boulevard.In time, the plans call for pedestrian, bike and car friendly iaccesses to what will eventually be Lake Ontario Park. This is the future. What will happen if the developers win will likely be not one, but up to 4 major big box sites ( as the adjoining properties will piggyback the decision and join in on the fun) lining the Lakeshore and dashing any of the plans set out in the 80's and 90's.

You mean the 'field' next to the fenced in city dump?

Not sure where you live, but I can walk to woodbine beach in about 10 minutes, bike in about 5. So not sure what you mean by it 'feels like 100 miles away'.

>ever seen a thriving small retail strip 2 BLOCKS from a big box development?

Yup, look at Dufferin Mall. There is a TONNE of stuff around there which remains unaffected by big box development. I could give you more examples of retail co-existence. Especially in the case of Leslieville. None of the retail stores sell anything REMOTELY close to the 'big box stores', well maybe Cho's Hardware, but they are rude anyways.

>What about the retailers themselves. Any Canadians in the lot?

Umm... CANADIAN TIRE, Loblaws, Price Choppers, Shoppers Drug Mart... Those are all Candian stores.

>Finally, the traffic.

If you keep big box localized people aren't going to travel from the west end to the east end to go shopping. IF anything localizing big box stores would DECREASE traffic around the city. Now I can bike to Canadian tire rather than drive halfway across the city. Why on earth would anyone from Bloor West Village for example travel all the way to the beaches to go shopping at WalMart? Logically it makes no sense.

>You want to live near big box? Go live at Keele and St. Clair, Laird and Eglinton or countless other locations. Don't ask me to leave mine.

That's great, I'm going to go all the way to Keele and St. Clair to buy flour and rice :P

>will replace good paying film business work with minimum wage dead-end retail positions.

You mean the local bakeries and antique shops that hire NOBODY? Or are you defending the film industry which has obliterated the area with pollution?

>One of the main arguments against big box stores is that they are an inefficient land use in an urban setting

I'd rather see a one story or two story building then a skyscraper. I'd also be hard pressed to find any 'local businesses' that are in buildings more than 1 or 2 stories along Queen Street.

I just don't see a cohesive argument here sorry.

Mark,

>Big box developments, if they are indeed necessary, need to be planned far better than they are.

I wish the people saying no would see this as well and try to mould the process rather then remove themselves from it by showing such vehement opposition. Especially when it's (IMO) doubtful that it's a majority of citizens in an area that are actually opposed to the idea(s).

"I'd rather see a one story or two story building then a skyscraper. I'd also be hard pressed to find any 'local businesses' that are in buildings more than 1 or 2 stories along Queen Street."

The stores along Queen Street aren't nearly as big as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Rona etc. A single store on Queen is usually no bigger than your average house, and it usually has one or two floors above it that are used either as further retail space, offices or apartments. They have a smaller physical footprint and make more efficient use of the MUCH smaller lots that they occupy.

It doesn't matter what you'd rather see. That doesn't make big box stores, in their current form, any less of a waste of land. And I never argued for skyscrapers everywhere, kevenages. You omitted this line when you quoted my post: "But I do wonder why the big box stores can't add (at least) two floors on top to be used for offices or more retail space?" A three storey building is far from a skyscraper and would be a more efficient use of the land.

Mark, thank you for your considered tone. I agree with you in that there is always room for better urban design and planning to maximize footprint, utility and aesthetics - even for big box stores. Light commercial space such as studios or medical offices above the Dominion perhaps, or the Starbucks/Blockbuster/LCBO building near Stockyards would surely be welcome.

But I question how far you can go with certain retailers. I The underground parking at the Runnymede Wal-Mart is a great design feature, but frankly, although it works there it probably wouldn't for Stockyards, which is anchored by Rona and Home Depot. These are -lumberyards- after all.

You state "All of that parking, and there's plenty of it, is out front of the buildings. The stores may be convenient, but in their typical form they are not an efficient use of land." A balance has to be struck here. Efficiency is important. But "Convenient" is often abused by rabid opponents of big box stores as a code for "greedy retailers maximizing profits." But, hey, people like me live here too, and as much as it pains the four-season cycling folks, with a trunk full of groceries and two kid carriers in the backseat, sometimes (gasp) you have to drive to the store, and convenient parking is a godsend.

The alternative? Taking that car across a congested city, emitting more pollutants, wasting more fossil fuels, aggravating more neighbors, wasting more valuable family time - all to visit a big box strip in someone else's community. That seems ridiculous to me.

Can the design of big boxes be improved? Absolutely. Is the solution to outright say "no" to them and then foist them on someone else? That's impractical, illogical and selfish. For all their faults, the Junction/Runnymede big box stores are a qualified success in brownfield redevelopment, a fine addition to the surrounding neighborhoods, a boost to the practicality and value of our community, and no threat to the thriving independent retail scene in our area.

I'm sure the vast majority of residents in my area see it this way - but if you guys would rather have a swath of film studios abutting your homes - hey, it's your neighborhood.

snowkarver:

It's true that we can't really do away with cars at this point. I won't get into arguments about environmentally friendly cars and all that jazz here. But, perhaps a 50-50 approach to parking at Keele-St. Clair could have been taken, with half of the spots underground and half above so that people buying building supplies or other large items wouldn't have to find their way underground. The traditional big box blueprint desperately needs to be rethought if we're serious about smart planning and efficient land use.

>It doesn't matter what you'd rather see. That doesn't make big box stores, in their current form, any less of a waste of land. And I never argued for skyscrapers everywhere, kevenages. You omitted this line when you quoted my post: "But I do wonder why the big box stores can't add (at least) two floors on top to be used for offices or more retail space?" A three storey building is far from a skyscraper and would be a more efficient use of the land.

I'm sorry it was a very bad example. I guess my point was that at 2 stories (in the case of leslieville) blends in perfectly with everything else in the surrounding area. Outside of new condos you rarely see anything higher than 3 stories. If something were 4 stories to accomodate office workers this would not only stick out like a sore thumb but would also leave a much higher pollution footprint as you would now have people who potentially aren't residents of the neighbourhood driving to work. M-F, 2x a day. Also further adding to a street which 'is jammed most of the time as it is', as you pointed out before.

The Bay (which is located downtown) blends in well in the location where it stands. As does the bay at other locations. The Bay downtown in all it's multi-floored glory, still does not have a diverse work environment. There are offices but it's almost entirely made up of retail space.

>A single store on Queen is usually no bigger than your average house, and it usually has one or two floors above it that are used either as further retail space, offices or apartments. They have a smaller physical footprint and make more efficient use of the MUCH smaller lots that they occupy.

So wouldn't that mathematically be less efficient and leave a much larger footprint as it's spread across large areas?
Disclaimer: I'm not an urban planner so I could just be talking sauce here ;)

The new big box (Canadian Tire) seems to be designed very well. The lot itself is not that large. 90% of the parking lot is located underneath the actual store which is on the second level. I'm sure developers weren't enthused about digging underground parking on toxic land.

I guess my only gripe about the whole thing was that it's so close to Leslie Spit. I'd much rather see the big box located where the film studios are. But I must say now that development is done, the new traffic light system that they installed are also very welcomed by me. I can actually make it across Lakeshore on one light instead of getting stuck in the middle for 10 minutes when I go hiking. Gahh I hated that lol.

"So wouldn't that mathematically be less efficient and leave a much larger footprint as it's spread across large areas?"

I'm not sure what you mean here. A store on Queen has a tiny footprint because it takes up almost no land compared to a Home Depot and accomodates added space on top, whereas places like Home Depot, giant Future Shop stores, Wal-Mart etc. have extremely high ceilings, but don't make use of such space. Stores along Queen could include 5 or 6 stories if the site is redeveloped, and that's happening along Queen in some cases. But many Queen St. buildings are old and won't be redeveloped anytime soon for various reasons (heritage designation, no desire to tear down and rebuild by owners, etc.).

I haven't been to the new Canadian Tire, but underground parking is far better than surface parking. Additionally, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the developer would have had to clean up any toxicity in the soil anyway. Part of redeveloping brownfields is cleaning up any environmental contaminants left over from industrial land uses.

>Yup, look at Dufferin Mall. There is a TONNE of stuff around there which remains unaffected by big box development.

Whoa. It would be hard to imagine a retail strip more desolate than bloor between dufferin and lansdowne, and the proximity of the Dufferin mall almost certainly was a contributor to the decline.

echeng25:
If we remove zoning restrictions on just big box stores, people won't actually have a real choice. If you want to create real choice through such deregulation, you will need to allow these things:
- any house can be turned into a store
- no minimum parking bylaws
- no maximum building area per lot bylaws

Then, small stores will be able to compete with big box stores. As is, it's far too hard to start a new store in a residential neighbourhood. Zoning favours segregated uses even though most people would rather pop by a smaller store near their home than make a special trip to a big one elsewhere.

Unfortunately I have heard some news from people who have been working on this case for the past several years. Walmart has already won. If they don't get the space [highly unlikely] they will sue the city.

My wife and I have lived in Leslieville for 15 years, but if Wal-Mart moves in, we're moving out. Just imagine the added traffic and pollution alone...

>Whoa. It would be hard to imagine a retail strip more desolate than bloor between dufferin and lansdowne, and the proximity of the Dufferin mall almost certainly was a contributor to the decline.

It's always been like that there, even before the big box. I should have clarified that I wasn't talking about only Bloor Street, moreso the flourishing community of portuguese butchers and shops in the community directly south of Bloor Street.

>I'm not sure what you mean here. A store on Queen has a tiny footprint because it takes up almost no land compared to a Home Depot

What I mean is that if you add up all the stores along Queen Street until you have the same amount of inventory as say a Home Depot, mathematically the Queen Street Stores probably leave a much larger footprint then if all the inventory is under 'one roof'.

Interesting dialogue. Has anyone actually bothered to go to their web-site to see what the fuss is about or are you just trusting Paula Fletcher to tell you what you need to hear?

www.thefoundrydistrict.ca

It's interesting to see that it's an intensive use of land....2 and 3 storeys, hidden parking, pedestrian realm, blah, blah, blah....doesn't remotely look or feel like big box to me. Seems to connect well with the Trail...and yes, I don't think it will compete with the locals either....maybe the Golden Mile but not the second hand clothing stores and the antique shops. 1900 parking spaces over 700k sq ft....is a small ratio...lower than what the City standards usually are. Sounds pedestrian oriented and transit friendly to me.