[Mercenary]

They should get rid of the balconies

 

[Koops65]

Long distance and close-up:

 

[zang]

Similarly, if a balcony is life-style critical, presumably one will only purchase a unit that features same.
Not every building needs balconies.

No, they don't. But removing balconies from a building that has always been designed to have them to improve the exterior look is purely superficial.

Where I would address the issue of shoe-box living is legislating a minimum size for units, because there is a realistic amount of space required for living for at least 90% of the population; and most new builds are now below it at every level of bedroom count.

Well, as is pretty much apparent now, they're being built for investors and landlords wanting to take advantage of a lack of housing. They create the market conditions with the intention of taking advantage of them.

We call housing a right in this country, but don't treat it as such. If investors and landlords went into all the grocery stores in this city and bought up 95% of the food in order to turn around and resell it at an inflated profit, they'd be flogged in the streets.

Kitchens are too small even for those who never do anything more complicated that coffee and toast; eating areas are too small for those who only eat in twice a week and never entertain, living spaces are too small for those
who live alone and leave early and stay out late.........etc.

I fully agree; but that's not going to be a problem fixed by getting rid of balconies.

For a 1bdrm I would impose a bare minimum of 65m2 (700ft2) + a 9m2 (96ft2) balcony in a usable shape. Alternatively, no balcony, the minimum indoor size increases by the same m2 as the balcony. ie. Minimum
unit size for a balcony-less 1bdrm would be 74m2 or 796ft2.

Fair, but not all structures can just move the wall out to the balcony.

Give people room to live; but you don't need to narrowly dictate how that space is allocated.

But that's already done with the bedroom layout, etc. Unless devs start selling base-building units, we've gotta stick with what's been dictated anyway. "Dens" that are barely bigger than a walk-in closet, for example, are great for bulking up sell-sheet appeal, but aren't all that practical.

 

[canuckdave]

Why can't Toronto have these.

 

[TheKingEast]

The design was never special BUT if quality materials were used, it could look pretty nice. Unfortunately Cresford is out and Concord is in so this will likely look like shit and it's so darn huge that it'll be hard to hide it.

 

[Bulloch]

The design was never special BUT if quality materials were used, it could look pretty nice. Unfortunately Cresford is out and Concord is in so this will likely look like shit and it's so darn huge that it'll be hard to hide it.

So what is the solution, either send this message direct to owners of concord adex who are sitting in China and Vancouver I don’t think they will give a damn about look of the tower except profit or ask city politicians to include look of any new tower before approval. Presently it include how skyline look but not how the tower itself look by quality of materials

 

[allengeorge]

So what is the solution, either send this message

Only solution is if people don’t buy. (Unlikely)

 

[bmiller]

That's one of the reasons the city is getting inferior design and subpar materials. Too many buyers, not enough supply. There is no incentive to provide nicer builds. It's going to sell, no matter what you put up.

 

[UrbanOzz]

i'm just catching up now. i'm actually a bit shocked that people are saying Cresford had a good track record. It's definitely better than Concord and the original proposal was better but I lived at NXT which was a cresford building and what a disaster that was. Nonstop floods, peeling laminate floors throughout all the units, balcony glass falling every couple of months, elevators that never worked. Without actually looking into their track record (because i haven't) i just assumed they were a shoddy builder.

 

[Strange Advance]

I gather no one here has any inside info on when this is set to resume construction?

 

[enrigue8]

I hope this project will be reviewed by the design review panel. Is it still possible? Please tell me if it's possible.

Thanks in advance for an answer.

 

[Amare]

I hope this project will be reviewed by the design review panel. Is it still possible? Please tell me if it's possible.

Thanks in advance for an answer.

It's not like what the DRP says is a binding agreement, they are basically suggestions as to how a developer can improve the overall design.

And since Concord has shown time and time again that they couldnt care less as to how their buildings look, they would most likely disregard most of the suggestions anyways.

 

[TheKingEast]

So what is the solution, either send this message direct to owners of concord adex who are sitting in China and Vancouver I don’t think they will give a damn about look of the tower except profit or ask city politicians to include look of any new tower before approval. Presently it include how skyline look but not how the tower itself look by quality of materials

Oh, one of these posts

 

[enrigue8]

It's not like what the DRP says is a binding agreement, they are basically suggestions as to how a developer can improve the overall design.

And since Concord has shown time and time again that they couldnt care less as to how their buildings look, they would most likely disregard most of the suggestions anyways.

Thanks Amare.

 

[Bulloch]

Only solution is if people don’t buy. (Unlikely)

It is not people buy or not buy condos at one of the tallest tower in Canada .These towers ownership will change hands as a business prospect over and over but Question is look of cheap material using to build one of the tallest tower right in the heart of Toronto city centre which could be an eyesore for future generation and for Toronto skyline. I hope Torontonians and Concord adex look into this issue seriously. Once they build it with cheap material there is no turning back.