JasonParis
Moderator
The residenTs of College Park have hoarded them all.
Toronto Residences Of College Park Condos | ?m | 51s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza
cruzin4u
Senior Member
I totally agree with you.
From what I have seen, all urban seems to do is complain.
He reminds me of people who complain about the constant snow. If you don't like the snow, move somewhere where there's no snow. If you don't like specific buildings on this forum, don't view the threads!
I know you'll probably come back with something about how you are free to comment and that you are. But you don't have to remind people how much you hate a specific building by posting negatively about it over and over again.
Maybe you need a pet guinea pig, urban?
urbandreamer
recession proof
This thread reminds me of www.investorshub.com If you post something negative/critical the masses call you a negative "basher."
I was merely pointing out that ROCP, like 99% of the other Bay St condos, add nothing interesting to the retail mix on the Street. Does the world need another orange+white pizza box blowing in the wind?
People--probably some attractive people!--live @ROCP--understood! I am merely "complaining" that Canderal Stoneridge has a history of craptacular-looking buildings. That tradition continues with Aura.
(re: "complaining" I understand the trendy thing in office politics these days is to have a "zero complainers" policy. News to the PC OB/OG crowd: urbandreamer ain't swallowing that kool-aid!)
Finally, re: "pet guinea pig" comment: I hate the damn things! Ugly, slow, nasty beasts. I'm a shoebaca kinda guy
I was merely pointing out that ROCP, like 99% of the other Bay St condos, add nothing interesting to the retail mix on the Street. Does the world need another orange+white pizza box blowing in the wind?
People--probably some attractive people!--live @ROCP--understood! I am merely "complaining" that Canderal Stoneridge has a history of craptacular-looking buildings. That tradition continues with Aura.
(re: "complaining" I understand the trendy thing in office politics these days is to have a "zero complainers" policy. News to the PC OB/OG crowd: urbandreamer ain't swallowing that kool-aid!)
Finally, re: "pet guinea pig" comment: I hate the damn things! Ugly, slow, nasty beasts. I'm a shoebaca kinda guy
P
pancsi
Guest
If your happiness depends upon avoiding images of these particular buildings then why click on a thread devoted to that very subject? So you think everyone should not post images of this project for all the people who are intested in viewing them because you cannot control your need to view what you don't want to see. Have you considered getting some proper help because you are not in control of your own actions and you could be a threat to yourself and to others (I'm only concerned with the others part). Odd that you would request we censor ourselves regarding images of this building just so as to not offend you. What books would like me to burn while I'm at it?
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
I live next door to these towers and have watched (and listened) to them go up for 2 years. In some lights they look decent but in most they just scream of cheaply-used materials and sloppy attention to detail. Urban is right, these condos have not invited boutiques or non-chain retail (with the exception of dry cleaners).
These could be semi-attractive towers if the builder had used better materials and gotten rid of those hideous crowns. Why am I so critical? Here is a list:
* There are places on the tower where the aluminum siding are already dented. Those will never get fixed or repaired.
* The "stone" at the base only looked good before the first rainfall. After that, the material shows permanent water stains that will never be cleaned. (it rained during construction so it has never looked clean.)
* Speaking of the base, if you walk by the pillars that support the weather-protecting colonnade, you'll notice that the workmanship is poor at best. There are sections where the marble sticks out when it should have been filed back.
* There are gaps in marble plates that you can stick a pizza box.
* Between the Liberties and ROCP2, instead of replacing the concrete and red brick on the ground, the developers used ashphalt to create a horrible pedestrian environment with no consideration for materials and neighbourhood.
* My last (albeit most important) criticism of the podium is its scale. The podium is only two storeys. Meanwhile, next door at 777 Bay, the podium is 4 storeys then set back to 7 or 8 stories. 777 Bay's podium lines up nicely with the Eatons on College Park building (7 or 8 storeys). ROCP1 and 2 should have been forced to reflect the scale of the buildings in this area.
Imagine, for a second, if the podium were 7 or 8 storeys with a set back before the towers actually started to rise. The complex would look 100 times better. Those aluminum dents would not be noticable. The streetwall would look much nicer and the generic retail would fade into a much more engaging podium (and thus be less of a complaint).
These could be semi-attractive towers if the builder had used better materials and gotten rid of those hideous crowns. Why am I so critical? Here is a list:
* There are places on the tower where the aluminum siding are already dented. Those will never get fixed or repaired.
* The "stone" at the base only looked good before the first rainfall. After that, the material shows permanent water stains that will never be cleaned. (it rained during construction so it has never looked clean.)
* Speaking of the base, if you walk by the pillars that support the weather-protecting colonnade, you'll notice that the workmanship is poor at best. There are sections where the marble sticks out when it should have been filed back.
* There are gaps in marble plates that you can stick a pizza box.
* Between the Liberties and ROCP2, instead of replacing the concrete and red brick on the ground, the developers used ashphalt to create a horrible pedestrian environment with no consideration for materials and neighbourhood.
* My last (albeit most important) criticism of the podium is its scale. The podium is only two storeys. Meanwhile, next door at 777 Bay, the podium is 4 storeys then set back to 7 or 8 stories. 777 Bay's podium lines up nicely with the Eatons on College Park building (7 or 8 storeys). ROCP1 and 2 should have been forced to reflect the scale of the buildings in this area.
Imagine, for a second, if the podium were 7 or 8 storeys with a set back before the towers actually started to rise. The complex would look 100 times better. Those aluminum dents would not be noticable. The streetwall would look much nicer and the generic retail would fade into a much more engaging podium (and thus be less of a complaint).
MisterF
Senior Member
Hahaha so true. Although in this particular case I'd have to agree with urban. The ROCP towers are the worst high rises to be built in Toronto in years. Worse than anything at CityPlace. I can't complain about the retail though. So what if it's Pizza Pizza? Bay St will never be destination retail. The retail that ends up there serves the residents in the area, if the market demands cheap pizza, that's what it'll get.
Tewder
Senior Member
Good point.
These buildings are sloppy, to be sure. They look okay from a distance, but then again so does Joan Rivers. No works of art, but not all buildings are.
These buildings are sloppy, to be sure. They look okay from a distance, but then again so does Joan Rivers. No works of art, but not all buildings are.
MisterF
Senior Member
Even from a distance they look awkward, IMO. I'm optomistic about Aura though.
No she doesn't! lol!!
junctionist
Senior Member
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Well the good news is with the current boom, they wont be 11th for long!
Canuck
Active Member
The taller will drop to 24th when we include the buildings under construction/site prep at this moment.
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=8129
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=8129
Archivist
Senior Member
I actually have to chirp in and say that I agree that these two are really quite bad. Yes, they can look OK from a distance, if you squint or have bad eyesight especially, but they really are ugly buildings on many levels. I am unconcerned about the ground level retail, but it's hard to reconcile myself to their presence on Bay.
And this is from someone who is usually inclined to defend things. But the ROCP towers are just, well, unfortunate. I hope Aura works out, and when it rises, these will become less prominent.
And this is from someone who is usually inclined to defend things. But the ROCP towers are just, well, unfortunate. I hope Aura works out, and when it rises, these will become less prominent.
buildup
Senior Member
Given the dollars at stake, the scale of these projects, the education & professionalism of the developers - why do certain fundamental errors keep getting repeated decade after decade? Are these buildings really that bad, or are we just naturally inclined to identify the worst 20% in a relative sense?
It seems like even untrained observers can point problems with the base of these buildings, so why wouldn't a decent developer/architect have avoided such mistakes? I'm not convinced its all about money because superior execution doesn't always cost more.
It seems like even untrained observers can point problems with the base of these buildings, so why wouldn't a decent developer/architect have avoided such mistakes? I'm not convinced its all about money because superior execution doesn't always cost more.
Tewder
Senior Member
Well maybe, if your eyesight is failing, and the light is really dim, and the angle is just so...okay, I'm pushing it, but I'm trying to be positive
...which is sort of how I feel about RoCP. Definitely a wasted opportunity though.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
Not even a visit from the Streetcar can make these two look better...
