caltrane74
Senior Member
Looking south
I remember that thread, it was Element.
Forgive me if this is dumb question... but isn't it someone's job to go around the building when it's nearing completion (and after), and touch up the surface deficiencies, such as bad caulking, misaligned fixtures, fittings, defective panels, etc?
I would assume that just hasn't been done yet on Aura, as the building isn't anywhere near finished. Or am I missing something? Wouldn't it make more sense to nit-pick in a year or so?
Forgive me if this is dumb question... but isn't it someone's job to go around the building when it's nearing completion (and after), and touch up the surface deficiencies, such as bad caulking, misaligned fixtures, fittings, defective panels, etc?
I would assume that just hasn't been done yet on Aura, as the building isn't anywhere near finished. Or am I missing something? Wouldn't it make more sense to nit-pick in a year or so?
Yes, it's called a punch list. It's common practice for the punch list to be developed once the project is substanially completed. The list details all the deficiencies which is then given to the construction manager to fix. The final draw to the construction company is held untill all work is completed in accordance with the contract.
Thanks for the info fedplanner. I fear my wife will now be developing a punch list for the reno work I did at home!
yes i'm very interested to see how they will be solving problems like this.
we can only hope that enough people in the city become enlightened enough to finally say: you know what? enough already with these badly built, badly designed, embarrassingly ugly clunkers. please, leave our city alone.
I can see it already... hordes of masked men descending upon the corner of Yonge and Gerrard, window panes smashed to pieces, cop cars burning in the streets.
Sounds overblown?
Not anymore than your posts.
some like to provide cover to bad architects and bad developments, simply because a building is big. i don't.
actually it was Icon. i remember because i started the thread, and those were my photos, which i lost in a photobucket disaster. but anyone can choose to mosey down there to check it out, as its even worse now than it was then, naturally.
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/10438-The-Icon-on-Wellington-who-is-responsible
Thanks for that, SP!RE. You've summed it up quite well. When I first joined UT (2001?), I was all about the height and very little about anything else. Very much one of the types you describe. But over the years I've gotten pretty fed up by the deficiencies and cookie-cutter architecture that seems to be dominant in tall buildings. I still do like tall buildings, which can be a bit of an ego boost, but my interest goes beyond their size now, which I think is progress (at least for myself). And for others to say that UT has too many 'negative' members is just ridiculous... it's dominated by height fanboys!Developers do need to be held accountable though. And UT is far more oriented towards "omg I love it cuz it's a tall tower!!111" than people who just work to expose the flaws. So I'd say some balance towards the latter holds value
it's dominated by height fanboys!