Rexall vs. Shoppers, both will lose and we will lose
Recently on another thread, we touched on the fact of whether housing should be destroyed to make room for Rexall’s and shoppers. The debate touched on the fact that these businesses don’t hurt local independent businesses and if the almighty market demanded them then what do we care?
PRoblem is that the buildings are single purposed. The square shape of them makes it difficult to chop them up later on. I like the fact that the new ones have site plan requests by planning to put parking in the rear which helps.
Soon we will see competition to them which I don’t believe both will survive. That competition will take the form of Automatic Drug dispensing machines
I don’t think anyone is accounting for the coming of these machines which the province will push due to the fact that they will get a bigger take regardless of the amount of jobs lost at pharmacies
Post Feedback
With the gradual introduction of Shoppers’ “Simply Pharmacy” mini-drug stores (and Rexall-IDA already ranging from the size of my living room to full blow big box) I don’t think a one-size-fits-all opinion suits this debate. What we should be doing is encouraging both institutions to continue with their scaled down locations and saving our angst for the ridiculous boxes like the one that went up on Huron Church Road a couple years ago. As always, we can vote with our wallets too… which is collectively more powerful than any legislation if you get enough people behind you. Like I said before in another post not related to this, the parking lots of the places “we” hate are always full. Society is to blame. Arrest them instead! (Monty Python quote for Chris there).
“As always, we can vote with our wallets too”
“the parking lots of the places “we” hate are always full”
Doesn’t that mean people are voting with their wallets? Or does the elitist ‘they don’t know better’ or ‘they have no choice’ arguments trump the “vote with our wallets” argument?
Well Vincent I can’t speak for the founding fathers of SD here but for myself it means those who believe in walkable urban neighbourhoods need to live by example and perhaps show to the rest of our city how much better their way of doing things works. No one can be hamstrung or shamed into changing. Right now the majority (not disciples of this blog) obviously think big box is the bees knees. But I honestly believe that is slowly changing. “Slowly” being the operative word. Even some within our own ranks don’t always play by their own rules all the time, after all. Myself included.
It’s official, scaledown has jumped the shark.
Automatic Drug Dispensing machines are going to become the main competition to Shoppers and Rexall? I’ll ignore the fact that the machines are far from automatic. You still have to speak with a pharmacist. Locating machines in hospitals or remote locations makes sense. It’s a convenience issue.
But they are not going to replace drug stores anytime soon since you still need drug stores for specialized meds and because to sell certain over-the-counter meds you require the physical presence of a pharmacist. Ever wonder why certain parts of the health & beauty aids is some stores are closed or locked up even though the store is open? It’s because the pharmacy is closed and you can’t sell those goods without a pharmacist.
Your last paragraph doesn’t make any sense. By “province” do you mean the “Government of Ontario”. If that is correct, exactly how does the Government of Ontario “get a bigger take” if the machines are privately owned and operated?
So it’s okay to get prescriptions from a machine, but it’s not okay to get them from Rexall or Shoppers Drug Mart.
And for the love of god, can you say which Mark you are since there are two contributors with the name Mark?
remember, I am but one poster on scaledown. I understand that ADM’s will not replace rexall’s or Shoppers. But they may take enough profit and sales out of the industry so that the remaining market may not be able to support both.
I get a $200 advair prescription for my asthma every so many months that I’ve had for over 10 years. I don’t understand why I need to talk to a doctor for refills more than once every 2 years let alone a pharmacist ever. Everytime a pharmacist fills that prescription there is a dispensing fee charged that an ADM would not have to (or would go directly to the province) Dispensing fees range from $5 to $20 from what I remember back in my benefits days
I guess by gov’t of Ontario, I believe that the province will only allow ADM’s if they get some sort of kickback by the people who make the ADM’s, the landlords that host an ADM or the pharmaceutical companies who stock the ADM’s. Some may call that cynical but I believe its realistic to figure that this involves some sort of cash grab by the province
I’m suprised that you think this is such a big deal Vince, I really didn’t think that my post was that out of line in its speculation
The big issue is whether these bldgs are easily adaptable to other uses, and I’m not so sure whether they are although I grant that necessity is the mother of invention
The former Zehrs west of Westminster on Tecumseh Road East was easily adapted into a Shoppers Drug Mart. The former Future Shop on Howard was easily adapted into a Shoppers Drug Mart. Since these are just big boxes, they can be adapted into anything.
…except walkable urbanism.
(follow chris’ comment by punchline drumroll)
Maybe they’re adaptable, maybe they’re not, I’m only asking the question. But to add to Chris’ point, all parking should be in rear and bldgs should be attached to the sidewalk.
Pedestrians and cyclists (especially youth) should not have to brave dangerous crossings of parking lagoons. Visibility is limited and there is a high risk for incident. The only thing thats probably keeping the accident rate down is the low number of pedestrians and cyclists, when this rises I believe - so will injuries.
If its not safe for young people, it shouldn’t be built
Wasn’t it Kunstler who stated that we really shouldn’t care what businesses are occupying the newly constructed buildings, just the physical design of those buildings. Businesses come and go, but (hopefully) their new buildings will last for generations. Can the Rexall/Shoppers buildings be economically retrofitted to fit into a human-scaled environment? Doubtful.
I was listening to the Spacing Radio podcast (an excellent podcast, BTW) and they interviewed a blind man and highlighted his experiences manouevering through the city. Once we start building public spaces for individuals like him, every user of the space will be accomodated to a high degree with quality environs.
We can argue, er, discuss this forever
my concern with the number of shoppers/rexalls popping up all over the city (aside from their horrific design) is what happens when they’ve saturated the market and they are no longer viable in their locations? Now that they’ve demolished homes, existing businesses and put up a large box, what happens to that box when they’re gone? Are we then left with a scenario like the home depot on howard, or the tim hortons on giles where the businesses won’t move and we are left with blight? Just a thought. I think whoever is approving these developments, (allowing a shoppers next to a rexall, etc), lacks foresight. The mentality that any development is good development is shortsighted and doesn’t take into account the future affects within the surrounding neighbourhood.
On an almost side note…has anyone seen the shoppers out on lauzon and wyandotte? WTF??? The main entrance is located in the back. All the other businesses on wyandotte face wyandotte. This one business faces the opposite direction. Who is approving these site plans??
I think you’ve stated the issue better than I have, can I just default to
“Yeah…, what he said”
Blame the Planning Department and the developer for the current design and location of the building. Incorrect decisions were made that resulted in incremental responses that lead to what we have today.
FYI, the building is on Menard not Wyandotte. Just a small but important technicality.
That building could have been built with the building at the north end of the parcel with one wall along the Lauzon Road property line and the entrance facing south towards Wyandotte Street. This design would have allowed quick and direct pedestrian access to the entrance. It would have resulted in one vehicular entrance to Lauzon Road. It would have used Menard as a secondary access instead of Frank.
The only part of that parcel of land that was zoned commercial already is the parcel that the building was constructed on. That’s why it’s built where it is. Also, through some sort of loophole, they are then able to use residential lots for parking. This is why the parking lot will be where it is. They mowed down 7 houses, including the one I grew up in. Not to mention several beautiful large trees.
Yes, I’m aware the building was built on the portion zoned commercial. My comment assumed that the whole property would have been rezoned to commercial.
Rezoning this whole property to commercial would have been extremely dangerous for this city. Blame the planners for this and the developer? Why blame them? Both did nothing wrong in my opinion.
Jason,
We can argue ad infinitum, but I want, I need, you to understand that planning is not black and white. Never has been. Never will be. It is many shades of grey.
There are many competing interests in every planning process. It’s not easy to balance them with the intent of the Official Plan. Most importantly, any recommendation by a Planner must be defensible. It’s not good enough to say “this is good planning” or “this makes sense”. You have to be able to defend WHY it is good planning or WHY it makes sense.
You said blame the planners and the developers for the design and placement of the building, what should they have done?
I thought I answered that in my reply on February 14th at 9:04 am.
What both the Planning Department and the developer should have done was look at the development from a holistic perspective. Instead, what happened was a process that was iterative and reactive. That process resulted in the back of the building facing Wyandotte Street. But hey, the building is at the street, right?
PC, I agree completely. I think I rambled a little bit too much on a past blog though. Our councillors were trying as hard as they could to find any possible way to allow it to go through. Even using the old plaza restrictions to food which had expired and was told at council when another developer was trying to rezone residential for Shopper’s. If this council would have put up any hurdle with respect to the transitional parking issue this building probably wouldn’t have been built. They could have atleast forced it to the OMB in my opinion. Yes Vince, they stopped 3 additional homes froms being demolished. I guess the developer yelled in Hatfield’s ear louder than the neighbors who weren’t paid by the developer.
Shaking my head. You have it wrong, yet again.
1. Council did put up a small hurdle in that they DENIED the request to extend transitional parking beyond the 36m distance limit and they directed Administration to review the transitional parking regulations (which I can tell you is already underway).
2. The 3 houses were demolished when the other houses were demolished.
3. The developer has appealed the denial to the OMB.
Don’t take Vincent’s critiquess too personally, Jason. Yeah - he’s rather blunt, but he’s got some great insights that we’d be much poorer without.
Don’t take my bluntness to mean that I don’t consider a wide variety of opinions. I know you are all wrong and I am right - just kidding.
Having incorrect information does not foster a healthy discussion. I’ve made my share of errors and omissions, and when confronted with the facts, I’ll concede my mistake.
Vincent, I’m sure we “jumped the shark” a looooooong time ago.
Now, when you take me up on my offer of writing a full article we will have reached the point in TV writing of adding the “precocious new-comer”
Once my personal life is back in order, I hope to whip something up soon.