Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

ProjectEnd said:
I'm long on the record having no issues at all with it. I wish there were more commercial, but we can't mandate that, so here we are.
Click to expand...


I'm not quite where you are. I'm long on the record more of a "the renderings looked okay, lets give it a chance" despite the fact it's Concord. So many people wouldn't give it a chance.
 
isaidso said:
I have a strong aversion to 90% of the high-rises in that part of town (west of Skydome). Soul destroying. Some, obviously, like that aesthetic as loads have chosen to live there.
Click to expand...
All-glass City-Place-type condo architecture should be employed in moderation; a sea of them destroys any semblance of solidity or permanence in a neighborhood's built form.
 
6C3E7267-E7C3-429F-8068-E596B1A850B0.jpeg
 
Undead said:
Most don't care about the towers' design. They live there because it's close to work/amenities.
Click to expand...
If given an option, people would care. If there are 2 buildings with same price, same distance to someone's work, same amenities but one has a better design. Which one would people choose?
 
Deadpool X said:
Does it always cost more to have a better design? For example, using brighter colours instead of grey? Using shorter podiums instead of bulkier podiums? Translucent glass vs transparent glass (Social)?
Click to expand...
Bright-coloured spandrels cost more than gray spandrels (I asked this question in this forum and someone confirmed that). Shorter podiums mean less number of units - hence less lucrative for the developer. I'm not sure if translucent glass costs more than transparent, but that may be the case. There must be a way to create more inspiring designs without substantially increasing costs, but developers seem to be stuck in a rut, or perhaps they just don't care because people keep buying the dreck they put up.
 
Rascacielo said:
Bright-coloured spandrels cost more than gray spandrels (I asked this question in this forum and someone confirmed that). Shorter podiums mean less number of units - hence less lucrative for the developer. I'm not sure if translucent glass costs more than transparent, but that may be the case. There must be a way to create more inspiring designs without substantially increasing costs, but developers seem to be stuck in a rut, or perhaps they just don't care because people keep buying the dreck they put up.
Click to expand...
How much extra would it cost per unit with those changes? $5,000? $10,000? People anyways spend more than that for interior upgrades. They would be willing to spend more on the exterior looks as well if the price difference is not substantial.

If exterior didn't matter, all of the developers would have been creating the exact same plain boxes. Why even hire an architect for a new design? We wouldn't be getting One Yonge or Massey or Forma or One Bloor East if exterior looks didn't matter to their buyers.
 
Deadpool X said:
How much extra would it cost per unit with those changes? $5,000? $10,000? People anyways spend more than that for interior upgrades. They would be willing to spend more on the exterior looks as well if the price difference is not substantial.

If exterior didn't matter, all of the developers would have been creating the exact same plain boxes. Why even hire an architect for a new design? We wouldn't be getting One Yonge or Massey or Forma or One Bloor East if exterior looks didn't matter to their buyers.
Click to expand...
The buildings you mentioned are all luxury or near-luxury developments, but I agree that quality materials and aesthetically pleasing designs don't have to be equal to a luxury project. Take 411 Church - it wasn't marketed as a luxury project, and yet it looks pleasant, with a somewhat unique honeycomb design and notable absence of gray spandrels. I'm sure it cost about the same to build as a regular City Place tower. Even the TCHC building across from Canoe Landing looks better than most City Place towers. So, yes, with some imagination, you can build better-than-average and non-depressing-looking buildings at reasonable costs. But why bother if units in towers churned out from standard templates using the cheapest materials sell out anyway? The problem lies with buyers and investors who don't care about aesthetics and thus enabling developers to put up garbage buildings.
 
I think many or at least some people do value design and would value it more with choice at a reasonable cost. But I think the first and main design considerations for many residents have to do with the interior, the layout, use of space and, of course, quality of fit and finish etc. I think we UT types tend to judge from the outside in and residents/renters/purchasers from the inside out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Map
67Cup said:
I think many or at least some people do value design and would value it more with choice at a reasonable cost. But I think the first and main design considerations for many residents have to do with the interior, the layout, use of space and, of course, quality of fit and finish etc. I think we UT types tend to judge from the outside in and residents/renters/purchasers from the inside out.
Click to expand...
Yes, and to be honest I have no idea whether the units at 411 Church or the TCHC building has poor layouts or whether there are other issues like leaks, poor insulation, etc. But it doesn't have to be one or the other - can't we have 'normal' (ie. non-luxury) residential buildings with decent interior and exterior? I don't think that's too much to ask.
 
Rascacielo said:
...can't we have 'normal' (ie. non-luxury) residential buildings with decent interior and exterior? I don't think that's too much to ask.
Click to expand...
I'm far from an expert on the economics of condo development, but a return to solid exterior walls/cladding materials (brick, stucco, etc.) and non-grey/bland colour choices (e.g., warm natural reddish tones, bright aqua/white, to name only a few examples) would be a great place to start. They lend at least a sense of solidity/permanence/dignity to buildings meant to be background/filler and aimed for "the masses".

Scores of cities around the world seem able to avoid the Torontonian scourge of cheap-looking back-painted charcoal grey window wall/spandrel/mullions without breaking the bank, apparently. Perhaps it's our still-ever-present cultural inheritance of industrial blue-collarism + Anglo-Scottish Protestantism/Presbyterianism + subordinate colonialism to blame, resulting in a deep-seated aversion to anything that transcends aesthetic/creative mediocrity and stingy/penny-pinching parsimony? Just speculating.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top