Skip to content

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered

Losing a city square

Read more articles by

yongeeglintoncentre71

In Toronto’s new Walking Strategy, adopted as official policy by city council just last year, one of the key strategy actions (5.6) under the mandate of “Creating spaces and places for people” is:

Build public squares and plazas at key intersections in Toronto through the development review process, public-private partnerships and by converting under-utilized sections of roadways and public spaces. [emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, the City is now poised to do the opposite — to let one of the few squares we do have at a major intersection be mostly built over.

This week, City Council will consider a plan to build over two-thirds of the square at the north-west corner of Yonge and Eglinton. The new building would be a three-storey shopping area with some interior open space on the ground floor and a terrace on the roof (also included in the proposal is adding several storeys to the existing buildings).

yongeeglintoncentre

There has been a lot of opposition from the local community, and there was a small protest at the square yesterday. But the proposal has the support of the local councillor, Karen Stintz, and has already been approved by city staff and by North York Community Council, so it is likely to go through.

It’s true that this square is, currently, not a particularly good public space. It’s also not a bad idea to create some interior space on the west side of this square that would be available and appealing to the public during all seasons. The problem is that under the current plan, the majority of the open space would be lost and the part that is left will be little more than an extended sidewalk.

Yonge and Eglinton is one of Toronto’s key intersections — it’s even identified as a “centre” in the City’s Official Plan (and Spacing featured it on the cover of our “Intersections” issue). It deserves better. What’s needed is to use this opportunity to transform the square, to renovate it into a focal point that reinforces the intersection’s role as the centre of midtown Toronto. And doing so effectively would require that a lot more of the current open space be kept.

It should not have been difficult to do so. To go ahead with their plans, the owners of the property need the City’s permission to change the zoning for this location, which is governed by its own bylaw. The City is already getting some money out of it ($250,000) for “public art”. The City could have bargained with the owners to reduce the amount of the square that is going to be built over in exchange for permission to build the additional storeys, and used the money to create a well-designed new square.

The report by city staff on this project (PDF) says that the new building on the square should be allowed to go through because Yonge/Eglinton’s  identification as a “centre” means it is a place that should have greater density.

This argument is an example of city planning’s depressing lack of vision. New density is already being provided by the additional storeys on the towers — the three-storey shopping centre will not make that much difference. The fact that the Yonge/Eglinton intersection should serve as the centre of midtown Toronto is precisely why it needs a focal, signature open space to give it the sense of place it needs to fulfill that role.

It goes to show that good policies can’t work without people who believe in them. The staff report happily cites the city’s official plan requirements (p. 7) to “improve the public realm”, showing that the proposal technically fits the words of the policy even while it ignores its intent.

The city staff report is also a depressing testament to the futility of public consultation and its role as mere window-dressing in so many Toronto projects. Within the staff report itself (pp. 9-12), it’s evident that when the proposal was presented to the community, the reactions varied but the one constant was “Do not build over the square.” The City’s response was to hold an intensive “design charette” with the community. Again, even the staff report admits that while everything else varied, the one consistent message was “do not build over the square”. A few minor alterations were made and presented to the community in an open house, where the response was that they had not changed the main problem because they were still building over the square. Yet no significant changes were made and the proposal went ahead to build over the square. The entire exercise appears to have been an attempt to persuade the community, rather than listen to it.

The community also, very sensibly, proposed that since Yonge/Eglinton is identified in Toronto’s Official Plan as one of only five “centres” in the city, the city should come up with a plan for the intersection as a whole before anything significant is done to it. The staff report responds by referring vaguely to other possibilities in and near the intersection without any kind of formal plan to make other improvements.

The plan also proposes that the loss of public space is not as severe because of the new rooftop terrace. But, as the sociologist William Whyte demonstrated in his study of New York City’s plazas, public squares need to be directly connected to the public space around them in order to be successful. Even a small change of grade discourages people from using a space — a terrace three stories up is not going to be heavily used, and it certainly won’t contribute to a sense of an expanded public realm at the intersection.

Images are from Urban Toronto.

Recommended

31 comments

  1. Not to be obstreperous but..

    Having grown up in the area and spending plenty of time near that intersection, I am somewhat mystified by the outpouring of affection for a very poorly used square with a serious wind funnel problem. The die was cast a long time ago when the city approved the Yonge Eglinton towers and then the slabs on the south-west corner. It’s a pretty hostile environment — gusty, not much to look at, constantly in shade. It’s possible, I suppose, to spiffy it up somewhat, but that won’t change the micro-climate. We’re not talking about Fifth and Central Park South here. It’s mostly a hole in the bottom of a canyon, and the shading will only get worse when the city gets around to developing the old TTC bus terminal on the south side.

  2. @ john: I agree. I lived within a few blocks of the square for five years and never once spent any amount of time there for the exact reasons you mentioned. A much nicer spot is the St Clements/Yonge parkette, about five blocks or so north of Eglinton. Lots of sun, nice places to sit and great shops in the immediate area.

  3. Agree with john lorinc. Yonge and Eglinton – and that square in particular – is not a fun place to be right now. Unfortunately, it’s a pretty ugly and unwelcoming “centre”.

    Perhaps the thing to do is to turn the old unused TTC terminals into some sort of parkette/square/public space – and design it so that it has some appeal and actually improves this mess of an intersection. But I’m not holding my breath…

  4. Yeah, it’s a pretty windy area of the city, but most people make do.
    Personally, I find that it is a great place to just sit and people watch, and from observing other folks, I’m not alone in thinking that.
    What is needed however, to make Yonge-Eglinton Square more people friendly, is tables, chairs, a cafe, and a structural redesign of the square itself. There’s just too much concrete, and not enough substance.
    The last thing the area needs is an expansion of the already existing retail mall.
    Shame that it is probably too late.
    What’s being done with the old transit drop-off?

  5. It would be different if the city presented a plan that said, “That corner is a bad place for a square, but we’re planning one at such-and-such nearby location, which is much better for such-and-such reasons. For example, there is no public square at Yonge and College, but there is a terrific public space in the middle of the block on the south-west corner, behind College Park.

  6. It may not be that pleasant a space, but it was a concession for a public street we gave up. If people are speaking out, maybe it would be a good idea to listen, since this is our city. The “off to the side” public spaces are so unsatisfying and local. If I’m from outside the area and I’m spending time at Yonge and Eglinton, I will be drawn towards the central intersection. Locating the tiny park located somewhere “nice” off to the side where it isn’t inconvenient for development plainly sucks. To be a great city, public spaces need to be located where the most people are because that’s where the public is drawn to.

    I suppose it doesn’t really matter if at the end of the day we have our suburban backyards, but that’s not a real urban experience that corresponds with our big-city identity. Toronto will always draw disrespect or indifference from Canadians if it isn’t physically well built and a leader in urban issues.

  7. Interesting that people refer to the square’s negative aspects as if it is the space itself that is at fault.
    On a fine sunny day I have had a very positive and delightful experience lingering there. The south facing square is bathed in sunshine most of the day. If Riocan can, as they claim, provide a space for cafe’s, markets and concerts on the sidewalk at the east corner then surely a larger square could serve these purposes even better with the appropriate wind breaks, landscaping and edge treatment. There are some alternative sketches at http://www.yongeeglintonsquare.com which illustrate how this might be done without compromising Riocans desire to increase their asset unduly.

  8. I also agree with John. Having lived in the area for the past 5 years, I can honestly say that I have never spent too much time at the square, other than walking through it to get inside the mall. I’m all for more public space in the area, but this square is beyond help and I don’t think any improvements can solve it’s micro-climate issues.

    In addition the old TTC bus terminal, another may be when the north-east corner of the intersection finally gets redeveloped.

    Having said that, I agree with Laurie that I don’t think my fellow Yonge & Eg residents would be so against building over the square if the City could come up with some plan or strategy on increasing public space in the area…

  9. So, Ward 16, that whole “toss out the councillor who’s overdeveloping the neighborhood” plan…

  10. To One and All:

    I find it interesting that John Lorinc, one of the most prolific freelance writers in the City of Toronto, who has feature articles in a variety of Toronto, regional, and national publications, is “mystified” by “the outpouring of affection” for the Yonge/Eglinton square.

    If you were more aware of the history of this open space, I am convinced your commentary would change for the better.

    Wind blown or not, Toronto is losing its open space in high density areas. The southwest quadrant will have two 40 storey condominiums with step down townhouses. Yes, this will add to the shadow impacts.

    However, the city’s Official Plan and the provincial policy statements advocate the preservation of open space. The City of Toronto planning staff have contradicted their own policies. They have also dismissed the planning history of this site which was a trade-off agreement. By closing Starrett Avenue, a north-south street, in 1968, the City gave a density bonus to the original developer in exchange for maintaining open space on the northwest corner.

    This has all been conveniently forgotten by RioCan and city planners who claim there was no such agreement. In the interests of retail profit, RioCan has not budged more than a few feet on their original concept to enclose the square. Surely, RioCan should see their corporate image greatly enhanced if they agreed to preserve the open space and improve it.

    The reason the square looks so desolate is that RioCan, the absentee landlord, has allowed the space to deteriorate. Of course, they want people to say it is of no use, and then rationalize that it is “ripe for enclosure and revitalization.” With no benches, no patio tables, no shrubs, no trees, and nothing to attract people to stay there, no wonder people dismiss it as an area to “pass through” rather than stop and enjoy the ambience. What ambience? There is none, because RioCan has allowed it to run down.

    And so we now have a development application that will remove one of the last open spaces at the Yonge/Eglinton intersection.

    And don’t persuade me that the public will be willing to climb three storeys to enjoy a rooftop garden. RioCan counts this as accessible open space. Really? It will only be open during mall hours. How about the wind shear at that height!

    The community is greatly disappointed and we are knowledgeable and ready to challenge this application, to the very last moment.

    R.

  11. The locals fighting for the square (including me) won’t argue that the space is ugly now. We just have faith that good design could fix that. And I don’t get the logic that because the square sits at the middle of a high-rise neighborhood at a major growth hub and key intersection it doesn’t deserve to live. That’s all the more reason it should.

  12. I’m not an expert, but I’m just not buying the idea that this space can never be anything but a windswept wasteland (although it’s in RioCan’s interest to do everything possible to make it seem that way). If the location is such a lost cause for an outdoor public amenity, then why is RioCan proposing a third-floor public terrace?

    I think a good landscape architect would be able to devise an attractive strategy for reducing the wind tunnel effect with a combination of hard and soft landscape features. As for the lack of sunlight, there are plenty of squares downtown which thrive despite being in shadow much of the day (for example the plaza in the middle of the block bounded by Yonge, Victoria, Adelaide and King).

    I do think that the right place for a public space at a major node like Yonge & Eglinton is at the intersection, not two blocks away.

    Rehabilitating the square would be an appropriate use of the Section 37 contributions which RioCan should be paying in return for the additional storeys on the office towers.

  13. Excellent article…

    As a planner and one who has been working with the community for the last two years trying to get something positive done at this intersection, I think you’ve captured our frustrations completely. I Still hope that Council will send this plan back with instructions to look at approaches such as the one Andre Leroux, Terry Mills and I have been putting up as alternatives. That said, I think the time has come to establish a Toronto Design Review Board that would review every “major development” from an urban design point of view. The planning report would then have to incorporate the comments of of the Design Board. This would be a far better approach to relying on the OMB whose mandate is to catch errors rather than to promote creativity and good design.

    Malcolm Martini

  14. It’s not a square. A proper urban “square” (of any geometric configuration) has streets around it. Streets are public space, and this creates an island of public space within the boundaries of the streets.

    The “squares” of New York, San Francisco and London have these boundary streets. Some of them have since been closed to traffic and are now ped-only, but the public boundary still exists. This why Yonge-Dundas works despite a very harsh design and why no one mourns the setback on the west side of Yonge that is now part of an expanded Eaton Centre.

    The Y&E location is a setback, a tower in the concrete park, an open-space nothing. It is not the same thing as a square and no matter how it is decorated or utilized can never be a true public space in the way that people seem to crave.

    The fact that this was traded as a density bonus works both ways – since the original trade was for the landscaping as built, there is no legal leg to stand on to demand an upgrade to make it into a lush parkette. At the same time, if the owner wants to redo the space or even enclose it, yes, the community should get something back. Maybe a community even space on the second floor, or non-profit office space in the tower, whatever the community feels it wants out of negotiation. Perhaps “a shiny new part of the mall with more stores” is not enough of a trade, fair enough. But if the answer is just “we want the setback public space retained”, then the status quo will remain and everyone will lose. The owner will then do nothing, and the community can continue to enjoy a terribly designed, minimally useful space.

    I say define what concession you reasonably want to trade with the owner — like a contribution to redevelop the TTC yard, or an upgrade to a park up the street — and ask for that in exchange for a newer, better urban streetwall at the corner.

  15. It’s interesting to note that next week the video screen at the intersection becomes illegal, as the permission for the sign extended until the new signs by-law comes in effect.

  16. Lots of squares are not surrounded by streets on all sides. For example, Nathan Phillips Square has real streets on only two sides, and buildings on the other two. And many of squares in Europe are in front of buildings (such as city halls or cathedrals).

    The quid-pro-quo in this case would be the additional storeys (and probably some limited building onto the square) in exchange for improving the remaining open space.

  17. The space as is is horrible. Its windy, cold, loud, and filled with TTC exhaust. From the many years I have walked by there I wonder where all those who suddenly care about the square have been hiding. Maybe on some the green space that is still there in the surrounding area. That said the space could be way better but so too could a covered space. It does make me chuckle that with all the crazy development that has gone on surrounding that corner like say up on Erskine and Broadway it seems funny that locals are so concerned with a square they dont use.

  18. Maybe it’s not a square, but a plaza. It doesn’t matter because it’s a public space that can serve a positive function.

  19. I support the urge to preserve public spaces – but as a fan and supporter of modernism and brutalism, I kind of want this square filled in order to hide the Pickle Barrel buildings (BAD examples of a misunderstood style) and make this odd intersection real-city-like. Fill in the bus bay’s across the street with a super-tall with good treatment of the first couple stories making a rich sidewalk experience, and Yonge + Eg could be a great intersection.

    As it is the banks on the east corners are hunks of crap and suck the life from the street as well. A square here will still have two corners that are crappy. There is too much to overcome, IMHO.

  20. Have you seen the design proposed by architect Andre le Roux? It will provide a very protected space plus give RioCan plenty of retail space. Just because a spot is not in good shape (yes, I agree, in many ways) doesn’t mean we can afford to lose it. Imagine the alternative – tall buildings all round, with no open space. We should also be talking to the TTC about open space. This campaign has really brought to the fore an important issue.

  21. I agree with Richard. What’s more, could the proposed fill-in BE more unimaginative? What a shameful waste of opportunity.

  22. Funny thing is, the CIBC building on the SE corner is *exactly* the kind of streetline-defining urbanism that was meant as a Postmodern-era antidote to Y-E’s Modernist sins. So, for it to be deemed a “hunk of crap” is a message of “be careful of what you wish for”, I suppose. (And the TD on the NE corner; any so-called sins there are overshadowing by its serving as the endpiece to a miraculously yet-unredeveloped block of classic Yonge taxpayers.)

    If anything, Y-E’s plaza is presently “saved” by its automatically high-traffic location; not unlike the Hudson’s Bay Centre concourse, in that it’s more “successful” than it “deserves” to be. And it’s odd if nobody’s referred to the Canada Square/subway entrance on the SW corner, which might be the most urbanistically bizarre and clumsy thing at the intersection…

  23. I agree. This square has far too much pedestrian traffic to be wasted on building up. It is a natural meeting hub/ squatting grounds for the locals. Despite its dereliction and g-force wind, the appropriate planning will give natives a reason to loiter longer than for the time it takes to eat their street meat lunch.

    As a resident of the area, I think what that corner needs is plenty of green, plenty of seating, a magazine stand- windproof of course, a coffee kiosk, some interesting public art and a centralized platform. If you build it- they will stay.

  24. It’s not just about the locals, though their opinions are always important. Yonge and Eglinton draws people from around the city for its employment, retail, and dining. The locals might be fine with a public space tucked away somewhere, but the visitor will want a public space at the central area, namely Yonge and Eglinton. That’s where people want to meet because it’s a logical place given the transit amenities.

  25. It would be interesting for someone to do a comparison of Yonge Dundas square and this plaza. I’m guessing they’re very close in size.

    Yonge Dundas is equally concrete and surrounded by urban-ness but seems to be popular when chairs are put out and buskers abound.

    I think the difference is that YDS is programmed and designed for use. EGS seems to be the fulfilment of a density regulation that prevented the area from being fully covered in soaring towers.

    Given that and the need for human scale places to pause on this corner I think it does warrant another look.

    I’d recommend doubters spend a little time at the US “Project for Public Space” site which explores a similar problem at a tower/plaza site that might be familiar, Rockefeller Center. Here’s a great excerpt:

    “Our first challenge was to legitimize the act of sitting. People were sitting on the ledges, damaging the yew trees planted behind them, and Rockefeller Center’s managers wanted this activity to cease. RCI asked us to determine which type of spikes to install on the ledges in Channel Gardens, which is the linear plaza that connects Fifth Avenue to the Skating Rink. This request perfectly symbolized the obstacles PPS would encounter in the years ahead. Before we could turn the place around, we first had to change the mind-set of the owners. We had to convince them that having people stop and sit in their public space was not a problem but an asset.”

    http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/thirtieth_anniversary/greatest_hits_1

  26. I live in the area and frequently cross the plaza. It is no more windswept than Dundas Square, Nathan Phillips Square or Metro Square. A long-time resident told me that there used to be benches on the plaza and that the space was well-used then. The benches were removed by the developer to discourage use of the plaza. Now, on a sunny day people perch on steps or on the public art stands because there is nowhere else to sit.

    Open space is in very short supply at YE and there is no excuse for taking two-thirds of it away when it could so easily be transformed into a real people-place. In return for more height on the existing towers, Section 37 should provide secure public access to the whole plaza so that it can not be taken away in future.

  27. I have to agree with John Lorinc. As someone who lives in the area, the sudden desire to save this space is mystifying to say the least. It reminds of a child who only cries for a toy after you take it away from them.

    The Yonge Eglinton area is a centre in the Official Plan, putting more commercial space on top of a subway, in a centre, is a good thing. The space is not well used at present, and the proposal to place a public garden at the top of the building is a welcome one. Personally I like the idea.

  28. The comparison with Yonge-Dundas is right on, but is should be with the former plaza at the north end of the Eaton Centre and not Yonge-Dundas Square itself. For reasons I stated above, this private office plaza can never be a good public square, and the owner’s interest will never be aligned in creating such, so it is utter fantasy to drool over the idea.

    No one said a peep when the Eaton Centre built over its plaza to create the H&M store and this is a similar situation here. Granted, by that point the Y-D square across the street was underway but the same could be done by condemning the taxpayers on the NE corner, creating a new street and building the “square” there. Then you would have public space surrounded by public streets on public land – a true square.

    Shawn is right – the Y&E towers have been eyesores since day one and only cladding them in retail will improve matters. The expansion on the Yonge side was a great success in the late 90s and doing the same on Eg is the logical next step.

  29. Funny thing is, I *don’t* mind the 70s precast-concrete-corporate Y-E tower aesthetic–though not to the point where I’d protest the recladding; but it’s got a certain affable Chicago-circa-1973/74 vibe to it. (That is, Chicago the *band*, not Chicago the city.)

    All in all, there’s an ingenuousness to how the Y-E Centre manages to be the centre of everything around these subcentral parts–a little like Toronto’s answer to Place Alexis Nihon…

  30. If anything I’d say building at all, build the new structure higher and forget the “public area” which will not be used.

    RioCan should make some serious payback on welching on the prior deal which engendered the original plaza, however.

    What that intersection needs most of all is a scramble. At present it serves neither cars or pedestrians.