Toronto Alias | 159.5m | 48s | Madison Group | Teeple Architects

[Undead]

+1

Build what your renderings promise. It's dishonest and deceitful to produce images that aren't representative. It's been standard practice for so long a lot people deem it acceptable. It is not. Hiding behind a mountain of legal mumbo jumbo (few will understand) doesn't make it acceptable either. It just means they've protected themselves from being sued.

If car companies did this, people would be up in arms.

Car companies release wacky concept renders and dummy models all the time that never made it to production or are severely watered down.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I think that's a weird comparison to make.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Car companies release wacky concept renders and dummy models all the time that never made it to production or are severely watered down.

A concept car is never intended to be a production model. It merely informs a corporate stylistic direction for the future. A rendering, by contrast, is supposed to accurately illustrate what a production building will look like and it's just shitty practice that so many hide behind images they know they can't or won't work to manifest. But nobody cares, so we get this:

It's all a smoke-and-mirrors grift.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I think there's a difference of expecting something to look like what is presented in a rendering, to which one should never do...and holding the developer to what they presented in a rendering, to which is perfectly reasonable criticism. Particular when it comes to colour, materials and styles. Conversely, there is no rendering that would ever accurately portray what will eventually be built. But at the same, we should still call out when the what is being built starts to deviate from the rendered concept, as that determines whether the developer is acting in bad faith here, IMO.