The limited space at the peak value intersection drove land rents to
extremely high rates. Each retailer had to evaluate the trade-off between a location along the mainstreet and the cost of these desirable locations. A fine scale gradient of land values resulted in the core, with values dropping sharply with increased distance from the PVI. Values also dropped on the side streets. This allowed
retailers to find a balance to the equation between accessibility and cost, the solution to which produced the greatest benefit, namely customers, within the confines of their budget.
The blockface on the northern side of Dundas west of Richmond Street had the highest total land assessment at $379 500 in 1916 (Figure 5.2b). This contrasts with the block-face immediately to the west between Talbot Street and Ridout Streets which had a total assessment of only $77 800. There were likely far fewer pedestrians on Dundas Street east of Talbot than to the west. The limited number of pedestrians is reflected in the assessed value of the land; the lower the traffic the cheaper the land.
The value of the land had a subsequent impact on the value of the structures which were built upon it. The total building assessments (Figure 5.2a) are
associated with the total lot assessments by block-face (Figure 5.2b). In areas with high land values there was also large capital investment in the physical structures which were built on these lots. The buildings were larger, and covered a greater proportion of the lot. Owners maximized the built area when space was limited and demand was high. The buildings were also generally of better quality, with higher grade construction and elaborate ornamentation. The characteristics of the
buildings are presented later in this chapter.
In general, block-faces on opposing sides of the street had similar land, building and total assessed values (Figures 5.2 a,b,c). This symmetry in value is related to their similar desirability of these parcels, which is a function of their accessibility. Pedestrian traffic counts were approximately equal on opposing block- faces; however, they could be dramatically different on adjacent block-faces (Figure 5.1). This pattern in traffic flows explains the radical differences in values between adjacent block-faces. Intersections were large barriers to movement, resulting in
FIGURE 5.3 Average assessed values of lots, buildings and total by block-face in 1916.
large differences in land values across them. Similarly, due to their lower
accessibility, land values on the side streets were much lower than on Dundas or Richmond Street.
In contrast to the total assessed value of the buildings and lots aggregated to block-faces, the average value of individual buildings and lots demonstrate much less of a gradient by proximity to the peak value intersection (Figure 5.3 compared with Figure 5.2). Average values of individual buildings located more distal to the peak value intersection were greater than those found closer to this important node. Furthermore, although the total assessment of block-faces along Richmond Street were less than those along Dundas Street, the individual buildings and lots were assessed much higher on Richmond Street. These findings must be contextualized by understanding the lot fabric and the building characteristics of the core.
Buildings at more peripheral locations were on average more valuable since they were also much larger than those found in the centre. Demand near the peak value intersection caused the lots to be smaller, as they were subdivided to maximize the use of space. In 1916 there was a negative correlation between the width of a lot and its value measured in dollars per foot frontage (r = -0.147). This allowed more retailers to physically locate in the desirable areas. The smaller lots also were more affordable, a strategy to deal with the high land values.
The smaller lots on Dundas Street near Richmond Street were less valuable individually than the larger lots at greater distances; however, their value per unit area was much higher and their aggregate values were much higher. The smaller lots resulted in buildings being constructed with smaller footprints, which
subsequently had lower individual values. Likewise, the lower demand for space along Richmond Street resulted in larger lots. These large lots permitted large mixed-use buildings to be constructed on Richmond Street such as the Masonic Temple which were not found on the expensive Dundas Street frontages. These large edifices along Richmond Street were home to many more of the city’s important institutional and service functions; it being the location of major banks, the former city hall and other significant organizations.
The corner lots were much more valuable than those found mid-block. In 1916 the average assessed value for a square metre of land found in a corner lot was $51.07 whereas it was $27.88 for the other lots on Dundas Street. These corner lots
were more desirable since they could attract customers from two directions even though the side-streets had far fewer customers. They were also far more visible. Corner lots are prominent aspects of the streetscape, standing out from their mid- block counterparts. Many of the buildings on these lots angled their corner to increase their prominence even further. Prominence is important in attracting customers, who are drawn to stores which are highly visible. Likewise, retailers apply high levels of ornamentation on their facades to draw attention. Banks often located on the corner lots due to their ability to pay the high rents (Parnassus Foundation. and Museum of Fine Arts 1990). As shown later, these lots were also frequently developed as hotels due to their morphological characteristics.
Changes in the land values over time in the core demonstrate that it was not a static environment. Land values were in flux as the rents garnered for properties changed to reflect changes in the desirability of lots as the heart of the retail district shifted eastward. Whereas the land value was greatest on Dundas Street
immediately west of Richmond Street in 1916 at roughly $900 per linear foot, by 1927 the most expensive land was immediately east of Richmond Street where it garnered $1200 per linear foot (Figure 5.4). Furthermore, there was little change in the assessments of the block bounded by Ridout and Talbot Streets, whereas those blocks east of Richmond saw large increases from 1916 to 1927.
In the early-twentieth century, the focus of the core’s retailing was shifting eastward as the city grew in that direction. The river caused a barrier to growth in the westward direction, while industry and residences continued to expand east of Adelaide Street. The peak value intersection had already moved to Richmond and Dundas Street from its previous location at Ridout and Dundas Streets in the nineteenth-century as a result of the eastward growth of the city. Furthermore, the crossing of the streetcar lines at Richmond and Dundas Streets also brought the focus of the core towards this locale from the West. In the early-twentieth century the central retail district continued to shift eastward, with the highest land values moving East of Dundas Street by 1927, demonstrating the dynamic nature of the retail landscape.
FIGURE 5.4 Average assessed values of lots per linear foot frontage in 1916 and 1927.