Urban McDonald’s in Toronto a Good Model for St. Louis
While I was in Toronto last month I happened upon a very urban McDonald’s in an older part of town, not unlike South Grand — one and two story commercial street with a grid of residential units behind. In valuing the pedestrian experience, Toronto has greater restrictions on drive-thru establishments than St. Louis. Wait, what I am saying — they actually have restrictions whereas we don’t. Click here to see Toronto’s guidelines.
For those just tuning in, we are getting a new McDonald’s on South Grand. The old location, which has an admittedly funky drive-thru set up, is going to move across Grand to the former site of an old Sears store that was razed in the late 1990s. You can read through the “McDonald’s on Grand” category if you want all the detail but basically what we are getting is a highly suburban McDonald’s design — a smallish building surrounded by parking — but due to pressure pushed up to Grand. I can already hear people saying it is better than the old McDonald’s because it is new and clean. I guess I’d just like us to have some actual urban standards, not just be content with replacing one suburban design for a newer suburban design when the old one gets tired and dirty.
So, back to Toronto.
Very urban city with a great transit system, relative to St. Louis. With so many transit riders auto use appears to be considerably less than in St. Louis — at least in the city center where I spent most of my time. They have simply retained so many more of the original storefronts that we razed decades ago when we decided every business needs to have their own dedicated parking.
Architecturally speaking this McDonald’s at the corner of Dundas St. & Bathurst St. is nothing special (view map). It is how the ordinary building is placed on the site that is unique. The building occupies nearly all the width of the site along the North edge of the site (facing Dundas, shown above) with only a small sliver facing the other direction.
The public entrance faces both public streets, not the parking area behind. Neighbors and those in the area are encouraged to approach by foot rather than get in their car. Those people that are driving cars will most likely use the drive-thru window anyway so why not accommodate pedestrians with the building entrance?
Again, architecturally this is nothing spectacular. But, the location of the entrance is very important in an urban/pedestrian setting. Arranging buildings in such a manner lends credibility to the pedestrian and transit user.
The drive-thru ordering and service windows are kept to the back of the building out of view of the main intersection. The radii are a bit on the tight side by our standards but they drive the same cars we do so it should not be an issue. The ‘no parking’ area in the foreground is for when they need to bring out your order to you so as not to hold up the line. All in all a very compact and workable solution that balances the needs of auto drivers, the restaurant operator and urban/pedestrian interests along the public right-of-way.
The parking lot is actually paid parking for the entire area. This is a good use of space and enables people to get out of the idea of every business having their own free lot. Park once, conduct your business in the area on foot and then return to your car when done. Having a private parking area shared with the drive-thru traffic makes sense but the urban planning is the same if this were free parking for McDonald’s customers. This McDonald’s has a single curb cut whereas our new McDonald’s will have three.
Additional photos of this McDonald’s can be seen on Flickr.
It may well be too late to salvage the South Grand location and get an appropriate urban design for the street. However, we need to look ahead and begin working on standards to return our city to streetscapes dominated by actual storefronts rather than parking lots. Auto parking is a necessary evil but it need now be on display 24/7 — it can be minimized, shared and placed out of sight.
– Steve
Great example. Like you said, the architecture is nothing special, but it is in no way unpleasing to the eye, and the siting of the building and the parking lot set up are great. Thanks for sharing another perfect example of wht we should be doing here.
The McD in your example looks much better than the current one, and reminds me of the structures further north on S. Grand, such as Qdoba and the Bread Co. If only those fighting against the new McD’s would think outside the box, like you have, Steve, and would work with the developers maybe something like this could be possible for the new site.
Steve, I know you are very busy, especially with your new classes starting soon, but would you have the inclination to do a rough sketch of what could be done on the new lot on S. Grand at Winnebago in the style of this urban McD with the drive-through?
I have a sketch on 15thWardSTL that takes into account the Toronto Urban Design Guidelines – primarily pushing the building up to the corner, using plantings (and building) to screen the drive-thru access, pedestrian access across the site for people who arrive by automobile, etc…
It can be downloaded HERE. You can read the WHOLE ARTICLE as well.
This design uses a building exactly the same size as the one accepted by the City, just places it differently on the site and looks at how the building interacts with the remainder of the pedestrian street.
Travis,
Those fighting for the recall do not want a fast food restaurant moved across the street. There is no reason McDonald’s cannot build a urban joint on their Chippewa site. There have been multiple hearings in which many parties testified for this action, yet no one seemed to listen. The problem with Aldermen, specifically Florida, is that they do not believe they need to listen to their citizens. Otherwise, she would have asked the Keystone Homeowners about this relocation before it was approved, and before the recall began. Only after the recall began did she reach out to her voters. Furthermore, the only time she received their opinion was at meetings, in which she testified against their wishes, and for the McDonald’s! Florida should have attended the GPNA meeting, and gone door-to-door, all before the repeals of the McDonald’s took place, which she did not. I can say that I have seen an entire 5” notebook completely filled with correspondence between Florida and those dissatisfied with the McDonald’s relocation. She is not open to discussion once she sets her mind, and is bought by Pyramid, the developer of the new McDonald’s. The recall is the result of Florida’s failure to represent her citizens, and her active representation of corporations.
15th Ward Steve:
Ah yes, I’ve seen your sketches before. I didn’t know that they were “Toronto compliant.” Have you presented these to McD and the developer? What is the prospect of working with the McD owner and the developer to have them use a plan like this?
McDonald’s proposed plan was accepted by the Board of Public Service and upheld by the Board of Adjustment. I’m not sure there is any incentive for McDonald’s to do anything different.
Of the 52 Toronto Urban Design Guidelines there was enough information to assess, the accepted McDonald’s site plan only meets 23. That’s a ratio of 44% – hardly a successful urban solution by any stretch of the imagination. As a point of comparison, the plan I sketched out meets 46 out of 53 of the guidelines it could be assessed on, for a ratio of 87%.
Cities that want better design codify it into their local ordinances with form-based zoning, overlay districts, and city-wide comprehensive plans. St. Louis legislators appear content to tweak an antiquated zoning ordinance and then say they don’t have any power over “market forces”.
“Cities that want better design codify it into their local ordinances with form-based zoning, overlay districts, and city-wide comprehensive plans.”
If the city did this, it would weaken the control of real aldermen, and reduce the need for so many of them.
“St. Louis legislators appear content to tweak an antiquated zoning ordinance and then say they don’t have any power over ‘market forces'”.
Real aldermen prefer this approach, where they make decisions on an ad hoc basis, one deal at a time. It makes them more important.
“Real aldermen prefer this approach, where they make decisions on an ad hoc basis, one deal at a time. It makes them more important.”
And it makes their election campaign accounts bigger.
15th ward Steve:
So, how do we change the rules (“…form-based zoning, overlay districts, and city-wide comprehensive plans.”)? What is the path forward so that the next development is more urban?
It’s hard to debate the design of a McDonald’s after reading Fast Food Nation and seeing Super Size Me — we should be trying to put them out of business not make them look prettier. I realize this is of course totally unrealistic, but I can dream.
In most cases, constituent reaction to a development, even in the City, is anti-density. Even in the case of McDonald’s, I imagine most folks are against the project more for NIMBY concerns (trash, traffic, noise, etc.) than its lack of a pedestrian-oriented site plan.
Form-based zoning would ironically allow aldermen to honestly tell constituents that the zoning already considers contextual factors, leaving them off the hook in debating NIMBY concerns. While another poster rightly pointed out how aldermen love being a mini-mayor, by whom all development must be reviewed, they certainly don’t fight the current zoning when it’s to their advantage. In other words, if an alderman likes a project, he or she never then hesitates to say their hands are tied.
Even with our City’s antiquated use-based zoning, Florida could have still told McDonald’s that current zoning as amended in the area’s redevelopment plan didn’t permit the development. Of course, Florida would instead lie to constituents about her hands being tied, the project not being permitted. And since this project had a connection to campaign contributions, while those constituents most directly impacted were outside her ward, it seems Florida just strategically chose to honor her campaign chest over a neighboring ward.
“…Toronto has greater restrictions on drive-thru establishments than St. Louis. Wait, what I am saying — they actually have restrictions whereas we don’t.”
Well, they still allow drive-through lanes, so they aren’t too far ahead of us, are they?
I wouldn’t want to live next door to the Toronto McDonald’s any more than I would want to live next door to the South Grand Mcdonald’s.
^And “Greener Grass” proves my point. You will always have NIMBY’s not wanting to live next to LULU’s like McDonald’s. While the rest of us try to think of how to make the market-driven concept actually contribute to, rather than detract from, the pedestrian experience along South Grand, an adjoining resident in Gravois Park will still say no to living next to almost anything other than open space. And Steve actually wants to join the planning profession, where you can’t satisfy everyone, yet everyone is an expert on their block…
By criticism Toronto’s zoning code as too lenient, what point of yours do I prove, Brian? And what is your point anyway? That some people oppose NIMBYs, “the rest of us” (aka professional planner types) don’t and that Steve Patterson wants to be a professional planner? OK, call me when there’s some news to report…
Our current zoning ordinance allows logical, ordinance-based opposition to almost anything.
Pyramid’s proposed mixed-use senior housing project on the site of the current McDonald’s, is more along the lines of a good pedestrian-oriented use. (Based on their recent residential developments, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for a well-executed building, but we’ll have to wait and see when they make their drawings public). Yet this proposed mixed-use building will face many of the same zoning hurdles the McDonald’s had to overcome.
There are two good reasons for cities maintaining restrictive zoning ordinances: (1) they use the Planned Unit Development hearings as a way to get monetary concessions from the developer like fee-in-lieu of parking on tight sites, and (2) they have progressive legislators and a good planning department that demands good design.
St. Louis has a restrictive zoning ordinance, which could be a good thing as well in theory, but instead, it is unevenly applied and focused almost solely on use instead of form. A well-considered, modern zoning ordinance in concert with a city-wide comprehensive plan would go a long way towards solving these problems. Developers would know where they can build and what is acceptable. Citizens could count on consistently applied use and form.
We would also have to depend on knowledgeable and effective representatives on the Board of Public Service and Board of Adjustment to enforce the ordinance. And a well-staffed planning department to assist Aldermen in making good decisions.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.