The Inclusive on Courtland | 38, 34, 30 & 29 fl | Proposed

[ijmorlan]

That’s a pretty blanket statement for a concept so general as “an indoor connection”. What exactly is wrong with indoor paths? There are only three things that distinguish indoor paths from outdoor: (1) roof; (2) walls; (3) climate control. Which of these do you claim makes them ineffective?

And what’s so great about being required to go outside to get from one store to another, in this climate? Sure, having the convenient option is good, and frequently very enjoyable, but required?

Also side note, even in California climate this can be screwed up. Once while visiting, I had the distinct displeasure of being rained on … while riding an escalator. I don’t mind that the malls are more open in California, but it doesn’t take a lot of smarts to realize that rain on an escalator should not be something people have to worry about.

As to the street wall, build this development as four buildings with four facades, but continuous instead of with gaps between them, if it is thought that variety is desirable (which is perfectly reasonable in my book).

I think indoor connections can detract from street life in general. In this particular context there's not necessarily a lot of street life to detract from. It may be not the best thing in the context of an otherwise-lively street. Sainte-Catherine in Montreal does have, for the most part, indoor connections running underneath it, but yet is still lively. King St in Kitchener is perhaps precarious enough that indoor connections are not so good.

Part of the issue is that they're not at street level, where street life "ought" to happen.

They were probably happy to have the rain in California but it is not helpful while riding escalators.

I needed something at a store at the "Toronto Premium Outlets". There are a lot of things about that collection of stores that baffle me, but in particular that it's trying to be a California-style mall, in Toronto, with no indoor connections between the stores. ?!

I’m sensitive to the issue of detracting from street life, but on the other hand they can only do so by attracting people inside. If people prefer to be inside, who are planners to say they’re wrong? However, the real solution is to integrate the indoor and outdoor spaces so people have a real choice of which route to take. It should be a realistic choice to decide to take the outside route on a nice day and stay indoors on a crummy day. For example, in the specific case we’re discussing, I would have an exterior path or sidewalk separated from an indoor route only by a glass wall with occasional doors. I would put signs for the businesses inside immediately outside as well to help people find what they want.

You say they’re not at street level. That doesn’t have to be the case, depending on the location, and in this particular case my proposal was that the ground floors (street level floor) of all these buildings should be linked together. But there is a more fundamental issue, which is “what is the street”? Does it have to be where motor vehicles circulate? What is so magical about them? My main gripe is that people talk as if putting a roof and walls around a pedestrian route somehow ruins it. The reason the corridors of Conestoga Mall aren’t ideal pedestrian environments isn’t that they have roofs and climate control.

I took a look at Toronto Premium Outlets on Google Map. I’m not impressed one bit. It’s exactly the same kind of layout as Conestoga or Fairview or any other big “island in a parking lot” mall, except they’ve cheaped out on construction by leaving off part of the roof. There is nothing magical about being rained on that makes shopping more enjoyable. Fail.