Toronto e2 at ePlace | 156.56m | 46s | Capital Developments | TACT Architecture

Oct 7, 2021


20211007_112238.jpg
20211007_113923.jpg
20211007_113957.jpg
20211007_114243.jpg
20211007_114304.jpg
20211007_114636.jpg
 
I want to move into a rental 1 bedroom units after this completed by next year at a good price if rental units appear by that time.
 
what the hell was Tact thinking when they designed this building. what the hell were Capital Dev thinking when they decided to go with this design and what the hell were DRP and the city thinking when they approved it. this is atrocious. 🤮 💩. Capital must be very happy with all that money they saved by cheaping out. .
 
ushahid said:
what the hell was Tact thinking when they designed this building. what the hell were Capital Dev thinking when they decided to go with this design and what the hell were DRP and the city thinking when they approved it. this is atrocious. 🤮 💩. Capital must be very happy with all that money they saved by cheaping out. .
Click to expand...
They were looking for a cheaper option Capital. I agree the condo design is horrible looking.
 
ushahid said:
what the hell was Tact thinking when they designed this building. what the hell were Capital Dev thinking when they decided to go with this design and what the hell were DRP and the city thinking when they approved it. this is atrocious. 🤮 💩. Capital must be very happy with all that money they saved by cheaping out. .
Click to expand...
The DRP does not approve buildings. Not sure this one was presented to them for comment anyway.
The City has no power to stop buildings that may have less than optimal exterior expressions. They can only demand materials that have certain insulation values, are fireproof, etc etc.
But then, you know all this, right?

42
 
interchange42 said:
The City has no power to stop buildings that may have less than optimal exterior expressions. They can only demand materials that have certain insulation values, are fireproof, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Is that because The City is an article of The Province thing so they can't impose aesthetic requirements? Or is that The City chooses not to impose aesthetic requirement because they don't really want to get into it? Or both?

...it's been mentioned in another thread or two that Concord for example builds here the way they do because they can get away with it. Making me wonder who and what is the real blame for that.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Is that because The City is an article of The Province thing so they can't impose aesthetic requirements?
Click to expand...
What you're proposing is implausible. Even if they were given the authority to do so, taste is subjective. Who gets to decide what looks good? What one person views as beautiful and the next person might find hideous. Throwing money at something is no guarantee either. We've all met wealthy people with 'bad' taste and poor people with 'good' taste.
 
isaidso said:
What you're proposing is implausible. Even if they were given the authority to do so, taste is subjective. Who gets to decide what looks good? What one person views as beautiful and the next person might find hideous. Throwing money at something is no guarantee either. We've all met wealthy people with 'bad' taste and poor people with 'good' taste.
Click to expand...
I am not proposing anything. I'm simply inquiring about the "getting away with it"...as in, do other jurisdictions have aesthetic requirements, how do they implement it and why can't we, etc. This is more of curious exercise in why our reality is the way it is for this city and not some lofty crusade to change it, implausible or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top