WeirdFishes
Active Member
The balconies brought this from a A- to a C- for me. What a wasted opportunity.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
TheKingEast
Senior Member
That’s quite the drop. It’s a B/B+ for me. I think thry did everything well except for the balcony glass.
wmedia
Senior Member
The balcony glass looks okay from certain angles, but from my vantage point, which is similar to Paclo's picture above, it makes the building look perpetually unfinished.
Ryan_T
Senior Member
Perhaps if/when tenants start populating their balconies with plants, it'll look more like a vertical garden.
TheSix
Active Member
When the balcony glass is pretty much the envelope of the building, I think a C- is generous grade IMO.
What makes it worse is that it could have been easily corrected in the design phase of the building. A real shame.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Balcony glass is a big part, but overall appearance of the building is better than a C- IMO. It's one of the nicer new builds in quite some time.
Perhaps the issue had to do with budget.
WeirdFishes
Active Member
I don't know... If you have a masterpiece but cover it in sh*t, is it still a masterpiece or now just ruined and worthless? Would you still hang it in a museum? Likely not.
My feelings towards 75 Esplanade. It's ruined for me.
Last edited:
TheKingEast
Senior Member
im not calling it a masterpiece. But I understand that you can’t stand the building. I still think it worked out well. Kind of like theatre park where they completely changed the banding. Really pissed me off...but still an attractive looking building..
Anyways, I respect your opinion.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
This looks complete now. I like it!
isaidso
Senior Member
Is that their public art component?
WeirdFishes
Active Member
I totally hear you and respect your POV, but I think the difference for me with something like Theatre Park is I think it still looks good, even with the scaled back vision for the banding. Whereas for 75 Esplanade, the balconies don't look good at all, taking away from making this building attractive IMO. The balconies completely ruined the rhythm of the very sharp cladding that surrounds it. From a distance, it looks pretty horrible.
Adding a simple white cladding to the trim would have improved it drastically and honestly wouldn't have killed their budget, they clearly didn't care enough to even bother.
daptive
Active Member
Can’t help but agree. From most angles the building looks a bit messy, incomplete, almost as it has scaffolding around it.
neuhaus
Senior Member
The balcony finishes were never really thought out and makes the building look messy and unfinished, like some kind of distracting netting that has been partially draped over it. It’s a huge disappointment.
AA looks like they were trying to design a Walman-style building but fell short — funny how the trend of Toronto’s condos went from the randomized staggered window wall pattern to a brick pattern motif (with a brick podium with a regular grid of punched windows).
The design of the building will get worse once it's occupied as whatever is left of its visible characteristic white wall panels will get lost in the random sea of white window coverings.
AA looks like they were trying to design a Walman-style building but fell short — funny how the trend of Toronto’s condos went from the randomized staggered window wall pattern to a brick pattern motif (with a brick podium with a regular grid of punched windows).
The design of the building will get worse once it's occupied as whatever is left of its visible characteristic white wall panels will get lost in the random sea of white window coverings.
WeirdFishes
Active Member
100%. Epic fail.