maxt797
Active Member
Nothing to write home about with these two...
Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
old boy
Senior Member
Two giant middle fingers to Toronto.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
I’ve been hoping that the balconies are not fully realized yet?
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
cityspace
New Member
If you think this project sucks, I'm sorry but IMO you're a bit delusional or at least pretentious. You pretend to know what the acceptable standard of design is in Toronto. If you think the south side of this project looks better than the north side, again IMO, you are a pretender. You pretend to have architectural taste and a keen eye for spotting elegant design elements.
Why don't we all state the obvious: Toronto ain't no Dubai nor Miami or the Gold Coast in Queensland. Toronto has a very mediocre landscape with a less-than-stellar lake that is FAR from the beauty of an actual sea, or ocean. It has less than stellar weather, which thankfully averages a little over 2000 hours of sunlight per year, the bare minimum to at least function psychologically here. Compare TO to a city like Chicago, which last time i checked, does NOT have better-looking condo buildings than us.
These towers ain't half bad. They have prominence in the skyline, fairly attractive cladding/hue, and good width-to-height proportions. The podium is a bit bulky but not devoid of variation of design elements/dynamism. I like the lighter protruding section on the north side.
The main issue in TO is affordability. How a plywood doll house or a shoe-box in the sky can run in the millions of dollars, in this drabby, overcast city is the real issue, IMO. Thank you for reading this far
and take it easy.
Why don't we all state the obvious: Toronto ain't no Dubai nor Miami or the Gold Coast in Queensland. Toronto has a very mediocre landscape with a less-than-stellar lake that is FAR from the beauty of an actual sea, or ocean. It has less than stellar weather, which thankfully averages a little over 2000 hours of sunlight per year, the bare minimum to at least function psychologically here. Compare TO to a city like Chicago, which last time i checked, does NOT have better-looking condo buildings than us.
These towers ain't half bad. They have prominence in the skyline, fairly attractive cladding/hue, and good width-to-height proportions. The podium is a bit bulky but not devoid of variation of design elements/dynamism. I like the lighter protruding section on the north side.
The main issue in TO is affordability. How a plywood doll house or a shoe-box in the sky can run in the millions of dollars, in this drabby, overcast city is the real issue, IMO. Thank you for reading this far
and take it easy.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I think you have given everyone more reasons to hate this project more. Just saying...If you think this project sucks, I'm sorry but IMO you're a bit delusional or at least pretentious. You pretend to know what the acceptable standard of design is in Toronto. If you think the south side of this project looks better than the north side, again IMO, you are a pretender. You pretend to have architectural taste and a keen eye for spotting elegant design elements.
Why don't we all state the obvious: Toronto ain't no Dubai nor Miami or the Gold Coast in Queensland. Toronto has a very mediocre landscape with a less-than-stellar lake that is FAR from the beauty of an actual sea, or ocean. It has less than stellar weather, which thankfully averages a little over 2000 hours of sunlight per year, the bare minimum to at least function psychologically here. Compare TO to a city like Chicago, which last time i checked, does NOT have better-looking condo buildings than us.
These towers ain't half bad. They have prominence in the skyline, fairly attractive cladding/hue, and good width-to-height proportions. The podium is a bit bulky but not devoid of variation of design elements/dynamism. I like the lighter protruding section on the north side.
The main issue in TO is affordability. How a plywood doll house or a shoe-box in the sky can run in the millions of dollars, in this drabby, overcast city is the real issue, IMO. Thank you for reading this far
cityspace
New Member
At least I'm not pretending Toronto can realistically rival the likes of Dubai or Billionaires' Row. Toronto will NEVER be a traditionally 10/10 sexy city. Not unless you can somehow elongate James Bay and connect it to lake Ontario. Or, alternatively, lower Wasaga Beach to Newmarket. Whichever is easier. And in my experience, cities that don't score a 10 in natural geography, DON"t have stellar architecture. Because money follows natural beauty. And not just in real estate
If I can't afford a 1 Bdm in this building, how can I even contemplate affording something in a more attractive building? I would live in this building if the price were right for the average Toronto resident currently. It seems perfectly acceptable in design IF, and that's a big IF, the price was right.
However, if what's preventing Toronto from doing better design-wise is corruption, both on the developer and city sides, then of course I would encourage everyone on the forum to call out the leeches. That's a no-brainer.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I think the biggest mistake is trying to compare this city with others. Whether it's in envy, false equivalency, self-loathing or what not... Sure, there are some aspects where another city might do something better. And we should adapt that. But Toronto is it's own thing...and so we should stay focused on that, despite all it's faults, IMO.
Getting back to this building, though...while I'll agree that this may be one Concord's best in execution and materials, it's still pretty mediocre arsed grey glass boxes with a maple leaf slapped on each side for the gimmick, sitting on top of a janky'gantic podium that takes up way too much space. And that opinion won't likely change no matter how hard the finger is wagged at me. /shrug
Getting back to this building, though...while I'll agree that this may be one Concord's best in execution and materials, it's still pretty mediocre arsed grey glass boxes with a maple leaf slapped on each side for the gimmick, sitting on top of a janky'gantic podium that takes up way too much space. And that opinion won't likely change no matter how hard the finger is wagged at me. /shrug
DtTO
Active Member
The irony in your post is that every city you listed has horrendous architecture. Specific to North America, Miami is the only other city I know of that spams window wall balcony riddled condos the way Toronto does (Vancouver is in a distant 3rd place).
With that said, I actually think that this project turned out far better than I expected. IMO, these towers are better than the work aA is putting out a little to the East.
C-mac
Senior Member
If you think this project sucks, I'm sorry but IMO you're a bit delusional or at least pretentious. You pretend to know what the acceptable standard of design is in Toronto. If you think the south side of this project looks better than the north side, again IMO, you are a pretender. You pretend to have architectural taste and a keen eye for spotting elegant design elements.
Why don't we all state the obvious: Toronto ain't no Dubai nor Miami or the Gold Coast in Queensland. Toronto has a very mediocre landscape with a less-than-stellar lake that is FAR from the beauty of an actual sea, or ocean. It has less than stellar weather, which thankfully averages a little over 2000 hours of sunlight per year, the bare minimum to at least function psychologically here. Compare TO to a city like Chicago, which last time i checked, does NOT have better-looking condo buildings than us.
These towers ain't half bad. They have prominence in the skyline, fairly attractive cladding/hue, and good width-to-height proportions. The podium is a bit bulky but not devoid of variation of design elements/dynamism. I like the lighter protruding section on the north side.
The main issue in TO is affordability. How a plywood doll house or a shoe-box in the sky can run in the millions of dollars, in this drabby, overcast city is the real issue, IMO. Thank you for reading this far
Did you design this or something??? Never seen anyone get so defensive about heaping pile crap before...lol.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
His example…Dubai. “City” of falsehoods, slave labour, and trash architecture.
Full Metal Junkie
Active Member
C'mon now... I wouldn't say trash, just tacky and tasteless.
Branden Simon
Active Member
Lucky I got the pic from yesterday despite rain and overcast conditions.
JoJo1926
New Member
Am I the Only one who actually finds these ok ? Lol!
karledice
Active Member
Still in Toronto but some other projects look way better, PJ Condos, 19 Duncan, etc. etc. I think it's just this developer doesn't care to contribute to architecture skyline views. Just the cheapest bare minimum to get money