[OakvilleGreg1]

This is typical Menkes though. Go look at their most recently completed projects... they suck at ground level. They literally don’t give a shit.

Core has been up and down lately. I’d still blame the developer more though

Exactly -- the developer/owner always has the right to say "I don't like it."

 

[interchange42]

Exactly -- the developer/owner always has the right to say "I don't like it."

It's way more than the developer/owner saying "I don't like it." It's more like the developer saying "Okay, now bring it in for 10% less cost."

Here's one of the marketing renderings from way back when:

42

 

[WislaHD]

Wow, what a step down.

 

[Jonathan Carruthers]

It looks like new lipstick on a low brow, tenderloin strip club. I'm sure the residents are thrilled. In light of this and Menkes' recent Toronto 'landmarks', 365 Church and 33 Eglinton one should feel enormous confidence in the inevitable cheapening and chiseling planned for Sugar Wharf. No doubt at the 'Alter', Aa will inevitably comply. A marriage made in heaving.

 

[jaybe]

Does the City, the residents or neighbors have any legal recourse? That rendering shows a well lit and engaging street level filled with windows. The final product has a bunch of air vents and black walls. Assuming that rendering was part of what got approved by City planning, this final product is a gross diversion from their proposal.

 

[TheKingEast]

It looks like new lipstick on a low brow, tenderloin strip club. I'm sure the residents are thrilled. In light of this and Menkes' recent Toronto 'landmarks', 365 Church and 33 Eglinton one should feel enormous confidence in the inevitable cheapening and chiseling planned for Sugar Wharf. No doubt at the 'Alter', Aa will inevitably comply. A marriage made in heaving.

I complained in that thread about my distrust for Menkes and how underwhelming Sugar Wharf looked and of course was made to feel like I was talking out of my arse.

Some builders can’t be trusted to do the right thing. It’s all about the bottom line even if it means deceiving your purchasers.

 

[Torontovibe]

I complained in that thread about my distrust for Menkes and how underwhelming Sugar Wharf looked and of course was made to feel like I was talking out of my arse.

Some builders can’t be trusted to do the right thing. It’s all about the bottom line even if it means deceiving your purchasers.

And it's WRONG and should NOT be allowed! Consumers need to be protected form deceptive advertising! The rendering should be the final design and it needs to be accurate before the building goes into sales! I don't understand why developers get away with so much.

The final design needs to be determined BEFORE sales begin! The public should get exactly what they pay for, just as if they were buying a car. If I order a beautiful red car and you deliver an ugly grey one, no way am I accepting that! Even though most investers could care less about stuff like that, some people who plan to live in their condos do care.

Menkes should not be able to get away with this BS!

 

[.dwg]

Does the City, the residents or neighbors have any legal recourse? That rendering shows a well lit and engaging street level filled with windows. The final product has a bunch of air vents and black walls. Assuming that rendering was part of what got approved by City planning, this final product is a gross diversion from their proposal.

City planners do not approve renderings. They look at a (relatively) detailed set of Site Plan Approval drawings. In the case of this project, the vents and solid wall areas along the street frontage were likely already in those approved drawings and seen by planners before this received approval.

 

[kweku]

Wow, what a step down.

Guys, don't be surprise, it is Menkes !
I was actually surprise about how Harbor Plaza turned out exterior.
Other than that, they have put up Crap after crap in the city and no one calls them for it.

 

[Tina Yang]

Although the design doesn’t look remotely similar to the marketing materials, the interior is still somewhat sleek looking.

 

[syn]

Bleak:

View attachment 153673 View attachment 153674

Yikes. It's like they tried to recreate a 90s era club district vibe and completely failed.

 

[Ramako]

It's way more than the developer/owner saying "I don't like it." It's more like the developer saying "Okay, now bring it in for 10% less cost."

42

It's also Core agreeing to value engineer their design beyond the point of integrity. Not every aArchitectural firm would agree to that.

 

[interchange42]

It's also Core agreeing to value engineer their design beyond the point of integrity. Not every aArchitectural firm would agree to that.

Sorry, this notion that one firm is noble beyond all others is naïve: you need to aAlter your view of one of them. Truth is that every firm has payroll to make, and no-one of any size has a perfect track record, there are blemishes on every record.

42

 

[innsertnamehere]

Many firms will drop projects on design disagreements - but it gets challenging the further along a project gets. Dropping before construction is fairly common, dropping in the middle of construction isn't easy.

 

[Pfloyd]

Unless you are taking about the 0.1% of top tier architecture firms in the world (none of which we have in Toronto) architects really are the beggars in the beggars/choosers equation of the construction industry. The client (or developer) who holds the purse, really has the power. That is why, in general good clients, are crucial to a successful project. Unfortunately, most developers in Toronto are too cheap, and not that interested in design excellence/world class city building, but just maximizing their profits, and minimizing their risks.