As an add-on to yesterday's post about ground floor retail in mixed-use developments, I thought I would provide a few illustrative and real-world examples to demonstrate some of the challenges that I was trying to describe.

Note that this post is not meant to be critical of any specific projects; instead, it's intended to further explain some of the challenges facing developers, architects, policy makers, and everyone else involved in the built environment.

Let's start in Toronto. Below is an aerial photo of Ossington Avenue. For those of you who aren't familiar, this is one of the most desirable and coolest main streets in city. I mean, check out this recently completed office/retail building at 12 Ossington by Hullmark.

However, when the above townhouse complex was built (circa 2005), Ossington was not the street that it is today. In fact, it used to be pretty scuzzy. When I moved to the US for grad school in 2006, I don't recall anyone going out on Ossington. Then when I returned in 2009, suddenly, everyone was going to restaurants and bars on Ossington.

So when this project was being planned, residential directly on the street, was probably the highest-and-best use, which is why that's what was built. But looking at it today, it feels like a suboptimal outcome for one of the most desirable retail streets in the city. And now that it has been built, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. Should retail have been mandated?

Here is another example from Toronto. This is the north side of High Park. In this case, the street (Bloor Street) is not a great retail street. It's single-sided because of the park. There's only a scattering of restaurants and small businesses. There are a lot of single-use buildings. And even some of the newish developments don't have any ground floor retail.

In this particular instance, it's certainly more of a stretch to force retail. But at the same time, I think there's an argument to be made that the edges of Toronto's primary urban park should do more. The buildings should be taller. The street walls should be more defined. And yes, maybe there should be more retail.

Now here's a counter example from Paris:

This is the 7th and there's absolutely no ground floor retail in sight and pretty much only blank and non-active facades. It's hard to imagine retail opening up here today or anytime in the future -- and that's okay. The streets are still narrow and walkable. And the buildings are just what you'd expect from the capital. The point here: ground floor retail can't and doesn't need to go everywhere.

Finally, let's return to Salt Lake City:

This is maybe the antithesis of our Paris example. 300 W is a wide street clearly designed for Toyota 4Runners. It's hard to imagine a lot of people walking around here. Even though it's relatively close to the central business district and it's on the edge of the emerging and very cool Granary District. (This is The Post District.) But you know what, retail seems to work just fine here:

You just need to think about it in the right way. SLC's wide streets and large blocks may not make for a broadly walkable environment. But they do give you the room to create your own internal street network and, of course, build a bunch of parking. And that's what was done and needed here.

I also find it interesting to think at this sub-block level and consider how it might become a new network and layer to the city over time. Maybe Salt Lake needs its own version of Barcelona's superblocks. And maybe this has already been considered.

So once again, ground floor retail is good. Everyone wants that cool coffee shop in the bottom of their building. But sometimes we miss the boat. Sometimes it's unclear what we should do. Sometimes it's not necessary or viable. And sometimes we get it just right. That's, I guess, retail.

If you find yourself on 300 W, check out Urban Sailor Coffee.

Site Plan: Post District

This compare-and-contrast tweet between Toronto's High Park and New York's Central Park was not meant to suggest that New York is a perfect comparable to appropriate (Toronto is not New York), or that foliage isn't important in our urban environments. Instead, it was meant to highlight that:

• The towers north of High Park (and north of Bloor Street) could almost certainly never be built in today's planning environment. The recently built point towers exist because the slab towers were already there.

• This condition of height/density tucked and setback off of main streets is something that you will find across Toronto, as well as in a number of other cities.

• Sometimes it can be rightly argued that this is being done in order to preserve a fine-grained and pedestrian-scaled public realm, which is important. But in other cases, like the one above, it feels like a clear reluctance to accept big-city status and any sort of urban grandeur. Are we still trying to be a Victorian city?

• Equally important in the design of public spaces are the edges and "walls" that frame it. And High Park's edges need work. Why is there almost nowhere to go and hang out on the main edge of Toronto's principal urban park? You have to go up to the Junction for that.

• In general, the land around many of our higher-order transit stations is grossly underutilized. And this is a perfect example of that. What should happen here are some large-scale upzonings.

Right now my typical morning commute consists of a 15 minute walk and a quick stop off for a coffee. I must admit that I’m spoiled. But next year I'll be moving to the Junction and so that means I’m going to need to make some minor adjustments to my routine.

I fully expect that on warm summer nights I’ll probably still walk home on occasion. But broadly speaking, my loose plan is a combination of cycling, e-scootering, and taking the Union Pearson Express train.

Then this evening I was out for drinks with one of our partners and two of the guys were talking about how they cycle to work each morning and compete on Strava to make sure everything gets properly logged. One of them actually lives near the Junction and his regular route is down through High Park and then across along the lake.

Naturally I got inspired and decided — after two beers — that I too should join this competition. So I have now obligated myself to cycling to the office starting next year. That said, I could probably use a new bike, and I’m hoping that some of you will have recommendations.

My criteria is as follows: it should look impossibly cool, it should work for a daily commute, and it should be at least somewhat suitable for tight-fitting clothes and long rides through the French countryside (even though I currently have no concrete plans of doing such a thing).

Any thoughts?