Why are Condos Ugly? - The Thread

[Northern Light]

UT has had previous threads on this subject, though none recent.

But I stumbled across a new You Tube video that seeks to answer the above question; and I quite enjoyed it.

I thought it was humourous, easy to understand, and very much on point.

I gather this is the first of many videos on this subject from Paige Saunders.

I look forward to seeing the rest.

*****

'

*****

Of note, the poster is pro-condo, and pro-intensification. His motive is essentially asking how can we do this (condos) in such a way that we can get more built, more easily.

Core thesis, clad buildings w/warm coloured traditional materials and you can build up to 25% more density and people will complain less and Nimbyism will decline.

There's more in there than that, and :I recommend viewing it; and would look forward to commentary from others.

 

[Undead]

Without having watched the video, I would use the following as a bare minimum check/wishlist for condo design:

- Fewer mullions and transoms
- Highly reflective glass with a rich colour
- Colour and texture at ground level

There's much more, of course. But I think the above is a good place to start for creating inoffensive background/infill buildings.

 

[Northern Light]

Without having watched the video, I would use the following as a bare minimum check/wishlist for condo design:

- Fewer mullions and transoms
- Highly reflective glass with a rich colour
- Colour and texture at ground level

There's much more, of course. But I think the above is a good place to start for creating inoffensive background/infill buildings.

Not a bad start; but watch the video! LOL

Its only 16 minutes.

I've been looking forward to hearing some views on his ideas.

 

[lenaitch]

Not being an urbanite I have no dog in the hunt. Like they say about art, I don't know architecture or urban design, but 'know what I like'. He makes a number of valid points and I suppose I lean to the more traditional design and claddings (although I don't think I've ever seen anything other that a SFH clad in vinyl). No doubt there are cost considerations for the builder, but I dislike the trend to massive glass facades, and there have been some concerns with the long-term durability of some of the installation methods.

If nothing else, at least there is now discussion and consultation, civic engagement and a nod to architectural style (whether one agrees with it or not). Growing up in the '60s, apartment buildings in my area were all butt-ugly rectangles of brick broken only by balconies and windows.

It should come as little surprise that folks would agree to a less favourable design in return for more amenities, given the same price point. Whether a building is less appealing on the outside takes second seat to how it may be experienced on the inside.

The bottom line for me is, does the building sit into its surroundings. I have seen cottages in Muskoka that are flat-roofed boxes of glass and steel that no more fit into the environment than a log cabin would in Rosedale.

 

[MisterF]

These conversations frequently get into cost but I think that misses the point. Good design doesn't have to be expensive. Look at the Distillery District for example, one of the most popular and sought after parts of the city (especially at this time of the year). It wasn't built as an expensive showpiece, but as a run of the mill industrial complex. I'd say the problem is more in design philosophy than cost. And it's not limited to architecture or condos.

 

[Northern Light]

These conversations frequently get into cost but I think that misses the point. Good design doesn't have to be expensive. Look at the Distillery District for example, one of the most popular and sought after parts of the city (especially at this time of the year). It wasn't built as an expensive showpiece, but as a run of the mill industrial complex. I'd say the problem is more in design philosophy than cost. And it's not limited to architecture or condos.

Certain quality materials can cost $$$; certain choices are more expensive merely because they are custom at the moment. (not intrinsically so, just not currently mass manufactured)

But lots of good materials are cost effective; and lots of designs that are well received aren't particularly elaborate.

There appear to be two distinct non-cost factors, one is architecture/design philosophy from an intentional perspective (for simplicity's sake, lets just say material pallet as an example ) ; the other
is ability to execute.

 

[lenaitch]

These conversations frequently get into cost but I think that misses the point. Good design doesn't have to be expensive. Look at the Distillery District for example, one of the most popular and sought after parts of the city (especially at this time of the year). It wasn't built as an expensive showpiece, but as a run of the mill industrial complex. I'd say the problem is more in design philosophy than cost. And it's not limited to architecture or condos.

I don't know the costs involved in renovating the District, but sometimes the cost to retrofit and modernize older structures can exceed tearing it down and starting over. Specialized engineering to meld old with new, satisfying modern requirements and standards, upgrading old elements to be retained, etc. My former employer gutted an old (1920s-ish) building to the walls and repurposed it and the end cost was guestimated to be about twice what it would have cost to pull it down and build new. Whoever was behind the Distillery District should be commended.

 

[mburrrrr]

I’m hoping there is a balcony episode.

 

[christiesplits]

Why Is Canadian Architecture So Bad? | The Walrus

Buildings from the past fifty years have been largely uninspiring. Why don’t we take good design seriously?

thewalrus.ca

 

[Lenser]

OK. This guy is pretty entertaining and he makes several strong points. There's a few instances where I'm thinking it's a bit cringey, but hey - it's 2023 and the net is full of such cheesy, self-indulgent moments. Still, he's clearly thought about the problems involved with contemporary building materials and styles and he's taken great pains to outline his keen interest in this subject. In fact I find myself wishing more people did this very thing. What he's doing is hardly rocket science but I heartily commend his attempts to clarify the issues at hand. I think our cities need far more dialogue about our built form. I had a sense that this guy would be a great fellow to have a drink with.

Also, watching this clip vividly reminds me that it's been far too long since I've been back to Montreal, a town which, in certain cultural respects, has a fantastic vibe the likes of which Toronto can never hope to replicate. I've a hunch it goes down to the very DNA of these two respective cities. Yet the issues he outlines applies to Toronto at least as much as it does to Montreal.

Finally, Northern Light: thanks for the link - I enjoyed that.

 

[old boy]

OK. This guy is pretty entertaining and he makes several strong points. There's a few instances where I'm thinking it's a bit cringey, but hey - it's 2023 and the net is full of such cheesy, self-indulgent moments. Still, he's clearly thought about the problems involved with contemporary building materials and styles and he's taken great pains to outline his keen interest in this subject. In fact I find myself wishing more people did this very thing. What he's doing is hardly rocket science but I heartily commend his attempts to clarify the issues at hand. I think our cities need far more dialogue about our built form. I had a sense that this guy would be a great fellow to have a drink with.

Also, watching this clip vividly reminds me that it's been far too long since I've been back to Montreal, a town which, in certain cultural respects, has a fantastic vibe the likes of which Toronto can never hope to replicate. I've a hunch it goes down to the very DNA of these two respective cities. Yet the issues he outlines applies to Toronto at least as much as it does to Montreal.

Finally, Northern Light: thanks for the link - I enjoyed that.

I think that in newer, robust cities like Toronto the built form comes along very fast with almost an ignorance of cultural environment. Newer buildings can be entities unto themselves sometimes. All you need to do is look at the podium complex of many new developments to see how disjointed the cultural realm can become. It's as if any street fabric there may be is waiting for desecration.
I think Toronto is still dynamic enough to embrace exciting architecture. Montreal has a longer history than Toronto and was for a long time the number 1 city in Canada. A lot of federal money has flowed to Montreal in the past and it retains many international offices and sees many international conferences such as the recent Climate Change one. It celebrates itself in ways that Toronto doesn't. When I look at the old Toronto photos on UT, I see what a provincial place Toronto was not that long ago. I don't think it's a provincial place anymore as the demographics clearly show. The current phase of nondescript condo development will end too, we hope. But there is a need to talk more about beauty in this town, in the sky and on the ground equally so.

 

[Lenser]

Couldn't agree more. And yes, the "old" Toronto was very staid and blandly parochial. Not a whole lot of pizzazz. Thankfully that's being swept away but we still have a ways to go in terms of embracing more daring architecture while preserving what strong historical elements we have left - and upping our game in terms of the public realm.

 

[Cryptopreneur]

Why are Condos ugly?

It's simple. We're not supporting any new young developers. All we get in major developments is generational families in which the new Family couldn't care less about the business like their great great great great great great grandfathers/grandmothers did. When you don't start something yourself, you don't value it as much. I've seen that with these single family developers like Countrywide Homes, Conservatory Group, Opus Homes, Times Group, etc. Like how on earth are these guys still in business? Simple. They have the pockets and they have the lands that were literally passed on to them. What do you get from this wonderful formula? Absolutely sh*t quality homes and condos. Half of the condos look the exact same. Why? Most of these different name builders are actually the same family and they use the same sh*tty contractors.

Now in the USA you got FHA loans that new developers can take full advantage of.

What do we have in Canada? NOTHING. Banks don't understand squat here. Current developers have no ambitions whatsoever. Our zoning laws suck. And our youth are too busy scrolling on TikTok or hanging out at McDonalds at 2am thinking they're "cool".

Sorry for the rant but I'm starting to lose my cool with my birthplace. Think about it, a "builder" who got busted for trafficking steroids/drugs in their basement of their $10m mansion, is a leading "builder" in the City. Let that sink in.