Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Aerial photo of proposed Canada Square mixed-use development.

Handout

In 1958, the critic Jane Jacobs complained about the “urban renewal” projects that were remaking American downtowns. “They will be spacious, park-like, and uncrowded,” she wrote. “They will be clean, impressive, and monumental. They will have all the attributes of a well kept, dignified cemetery.”

Her contrary wisdom – that a city should be diverse and messy – still makes sense. But today’s large-scale urban redevelopment projects often fail to acknowledge it. The debacle of Hudson Yards in New York City is a case in point. Here comes another: A huge new development is shaping up in midtown Toronto that, if built as planned, would have Ms. Jacobs rolling in her grave.

The 9.3-acre scheme, announced last month, is led by Toronto architects Hariri Pontarini and American firm Pelli Clarke Pelli. It would replace the mixed-use Canada Square complex and a bus terminal, which are owned by the city and were leased to developer Oxford Properties in a 2019 deal. It would tear down more than 600,000 square feet of office space and rebuild it, adding 2,700 apartments.

Story continues below advertisement

It is big and tall. That is fine. But its design has serious flaws.

big plans

The proposed development encompasses 9.3 acres of

land owned by the city and leased by developer Oxford

Properties. The current proposal would remove the two

existing office buildings as well as the other structures,

eventually constructing five towers and

a new bus terminal.

Canada Square master plan

EGLINTON AVE.

YONGE STREET

Phase 1

DUPLEX AVE.

Phase 2-3

Toronto

BERWICK AVE.

Current

EGLINTON AVE.

Canada

Square

YONGE STREET

Mandarin

DUPLEX AVE.

Famous

Players

Cinema

Canadian

Tire

BERWICK AVE.

Toronto

john sopinski/the globe and mail

source: oxford properties; google maps

big plans

The proposed development encompasses 9.3 acres of

land owned by the city and leased by developer Oxford

Properties. The current proposal would remove the two

existing office buildings as well as the other structures,

eventually constructing five towers and

a new bus terminal.

Canada Square master plan

EGLINTON AVE.

YONGE STREET

Phase 1

DUPLEX AVE.

Phase 2-3

Toronto

BERWICK AVE.

Current

EGLINTON AVE.

Canada

Square

YONGE STREET

Mandarin

DUPLEX AVE.

Famous

Players

Cinema

Canadian

Tire

BERWICK AVE.

Toronto

john sopinski/the globe and mail

source: oxford properties; google maps

big plans

The proposed development encompasses 9.3 acres of land owned by the city and leased

by developer Oxford Properties. The current proposal would remove the two existing

office buildings as well as the other structures, eventually constructing five towers and

a new bus terminal.

Canada Square master plan

Current

EGLINTON AVE.

EGLINTON AVE.

YONGE STREET

Canada

Square

YONGE STREET

Mandarin

Phase 1

DUPLEX AVE.

DUPLEX AVE.

Phase 2-3

Famous

Players

Cinema

Canadian

Tire

BERWICK AVE.

Toronto

BERWICK AVE.

Toronto

john sopinski/the globe and mail, source: oxford properties; google maps

Problem number one: It’s more or less a “superblock.” In the 1950s and 1960s, the Modernist fashion was to combine small blocks into larger ones, eliminating streets, and then surround tall buildings with green space. Ms. Jacobs disliked this, and the urban design profession now largely agrees with her.

Case in point: The City of Toronto has spent 20 years cutting up the superblocks of the downtown Regent Park neighbourhood, putting in an ordinary street grid. The key is that streets are unambiguously public places, which give shape to the private and public spaces that make up a neighbourhood.

The Oxford scheme ignores that lesson. It features, at the north end, a tall office building; south of that, a wide swath of green space on top of a rebuilt bus terminal; south of that, four tall condo towers organized around a cul-de-sac and a park in the corner. It’s not quite a 1960s’ “tower-in-the-park” project, but it’s close.

Pedestrians cross the intersection along Yonge Street and Eglinton Ave, in Toronto on Dec. 21, 2020.

Tijana Martin/The Globe and Mail

Problem number two: It wipes the slate clean. This plan demolishes two office and retail towers on the site, skinny Modernist slabs designed by Kenneth R. Cooper in 1961 and 1971. Oxford would replace them with the same amount of office space next door: lots of demolition and building, no new jobs. Aside from the environmental sin of grinding office buildings into gravel, there is a design problem here. A city that grows in increments is always more interesting – and more diverse economically – than a city built from scratch.

Which brings us to problem number three: the “open space” in the middle of the block. The loss of the old towers makes it possible, and Oxford is presenting this as the big selling point. “We’re trying to create something really compelling from a public realm and urban design perspective,” said Andrew O’Neil, the Oxford executive leading the project. After all, planners and local councillor Josh Matlow have been saying for years that this fast-growing area is short on parks.

But quality matters more than quantity. Oxford promises a surfeit of open space. However, the main space would be privately controlled and managed. It would sit partly atop a bus terminal, not so much a park as a roof (which means thin soil and small trees).

Story continues below advertisement

It would be divided into several discrete areas, and have one-storey slopes and steps in the middle. Very simply, it would not feel either very public or very open. It would likely become a lunch spot for office workers and a dog latrine. With security guards.

Architect David Pontarini told me this zone is shaped by complex technical constraints, including the presence of the bus terminal. And he rejected the idea that a public street would be more desirable. “A road doesn’t necessarily guarantee any more activity than a well-designed, well-executed public space,” Mr. Pontarini said.

This thinking probably reflects a mix of the developers’ ideas and those of city planning. Oxford has been working privately with city planners, the office of Mr. Matlow, and local residents’ groups. This is how large-scale planning works in Toronto. Much of the work gets done privately before the formal process begins.

Luckily, Mr. Matlow seems ready to keep digging. “This design is not something we have signed onto,” the councillor said. “The community and I need to focus on a beautifully designed, usable public space.”

So what’s the recipe? One: Every building should have a front door on a continuous public street, and not a cul-de-sac. Instead of that “open space,” there should be a smaller square or street with clearly defined edges. It should be lined by retail and services. Two: The existing towers should be kept. Three: The basic assumptions of Oxford and the Toronto Transit Commission, which shaped this thing, deserve hard scrutiny. Does the TTC really need such a large bus terminal? Can that shrink or move out of the way? Mr. Matlow said he’d like to find out.

Much is at stake, especially since this is publicly owned land. We can’t afford to build urbanism that is clean and deathly.

Story continues below advertisement

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies