Also, I'm not sure about mandating 'corner stones', let alone making them bigger; but I do the like the idea of making developers of 'large' properties, at least, prominently display, their own name
and every major firm attached the project. If you do good work, best advertising you could ever get.........if you don't..........hopefully you won't be in business too long.

For what purpose? There already a fair number of developers that attach their names to projects (Minto, Daniels) and they don't really stand out as the better firms when it comes to architectural excellence.

I'm willing to give a public not for profit a pass here as long as the service is up to standard.
 
For what purpose? There already a fair number of developers that attach their names to projects (Minto, Daniels) and they don't really stand out as the better firms when it comes to architectural excellence.

I'm willing to give a public not for profit a pass here as long as the service is up to standard.

I wasn't particularly on about St. Mikes; though I realize that's the thread in which this discussion has been taking place.

For me it's more a matter of putting out info both as public awareness and at the same time to hopefully instill greater pride in builders/architects.

Granted, you make a valid point that some developers still place their names prominently on utter rubbish...........not sure what's to be done about the shameless.
 
Last edited:
Granted, you make a valid point that some developers still their names prominently on utter rubbish...........not sure what's to be done about the shameless.

Shameless or actually like their projects?
 
I would like to think that impossible. But so was a Rob Ford Mayoralty. So........

I hate the following but someone must like it if they designed it, built it and most importantly paid good money for it ...

monster_home2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • monster_home2.jpg
    monster_home2.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 936
First photo from last Saturday:
DSC_0402.jpg

And taken earlier today via cell:
2016-09-21 12.52.12.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2016-09-21 12.52.12.jpg
    2016-09-21 12.52.12.jpg
    924.8 KB · Views: 1,062
  • DSC_0402.jpg
    DSC_0402.jpg
    885.8 KB · Views: 739

Back
Top