67Cup said:
And amazingly neat and tidy! Was it being staged for sale?
Click to expand...

Ha, thanks. That's how I like to keep things. My friends used to joke that I 'lived staged' ready to sell at any moment.

I was extremely lucky, the unit sold in 12 hours after the first showing. A woman from China bought it and offered to buy all the furniture too. But I wanted a lot of the furniture for my house so I declined.

My previous loft took 21 days to sell.

I think the fact this unit was just over 1,000 sq/ft and two levels helped it. I think a lot of new units coming on the market are smaller. Anyway, not to hijack the thread, just wanted to show what the inside of a CityPlace unit can actually look like.
 
hawc said:
Really....

View attachment 38661

Such beautiful materials. Such variety. Such beautiful design. So much style. So much substance.

Please.
Click to expand...

You have a point when it comes to the colour of these buildings. At least they're not a blue green glazed look for the windows and facade. I'm getting board of seeing practically every new building in that cold colour mode. We need more warm tone colour buildings like this to enhance the city.
 
Adding colour to this just doesn't help. Why cant they add some interesting architectural detailing or tapering or setbacks or something. This is clearly a cash grab and they know they can get away with it without spending any money so I guess we get what we get. Condo buyers need to be more demanding.

Signature.png
 

Attachments

  • Signature.png
    Signature.png
    536.8 KB · Views: 1,455
The problem is that most condo buyers are investors who rent out the units. They don't care about how the building looks.
 
Transportfan said:
The problem is that most condo buyers are investors who rent out the units. They don't care about how the building looks.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear what percentage of condos are purchased by those who will actually live in the units, as opposed to investors. Anybody with that info?

I can't comment on the viewpoint of the investors, but when my wife and I bought our unit, there were a number of factors involved, all of which had to be juggled. As I recall, the order of importance was:
1. It had to be in the price range we could afford.
2. Location and quality of the neighbourhood.
3. Internal space, layout, fit and finish
4. Reputation of the management of the building. We didn't want to get into a building with a history of trouble.
5. View from the unit. (We do live in Vancouver where that may be a bigger consideration than some places.)
6. Building amenities
7. The external appearance of the building, ie. is it architecturally striking or at least competent.

That is, even for a person like myself with a longtime interest in architecture,, the appearance of the building from the outside was well down the priority list. In short, if we are talking about appearance, the inside is more important than the outside. Now, it doesn't mean that I ignored this factor, just that it wasn't one of the main things. It also functioned chiefly as a negative factor. If it was really hideous, I wouldn't want to buy. For example, I wouldn't want to buy in the Fred Flintstone Condo in Toronto because I would get so tired of guests laughing at the entrance to the building. But once past a certain threshold. external appearance was not a deciding factor between buildings I otherwise liked.

I think it is possible that our reasoning process and our set of priorities would be common. By contrast, here on UT, the external appearance of a building is, understandably, a primary consideration.
 
If someone paid for the property they can do what they want. Sure this could have been more exciting. But the height is pretty exciting and no doubt there will be light features on the mechanical. I think it will be good. It's city place. Why not.
 
67Cup said:
I would be interested to hear what percentage of condos are purchased by those who will actually live in the units, as opposed to investors. Anybody with that info?

I can't comment on the viewpoint of the investors, but when my wife and I bought our unit, there were a number of factors involved, all of which had to be juggled. As I recall, the order of importance was:
1. It had to be in the price range we could afford.
2. Location and quality of the neighbourhood.
3. Internal space, layout, fit and finish
4. Reputation of the management of the building. We didn't want to get into a building with a history of trouble.
5. View from the unit. (We do live in Vancouver where that may be a bigger consideration than some places.)
6. Building amenities
7. The external appearance of the building, ie. is it architecturally striking or at least competent.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, as a life-long lover of good architecture, it would be important to me to live at an address that I would be proud of and feel good about letting people my address and the name of my building. a condo can be great inside but if the building is a joke, i wouldn't want to tell anyone I live there.

I think Mirvish and Mizrahi are hoping that the architecture has an appeal - if not, then this will be one sad place for architecture in the future.
 
Big Daddy said:
That's interesting, as a life-long lover of good architecture, it would be important to me to live at an address that I would be proud of and feel good about letting people my address and the name of my building. a condo can be great inside but if the building is a joke, i wouldn't want to tell anyone I live there.

I think Mirvish and Mizrahi are hoping that the architecture has an appeal - if not, then this will be one sad place for architecture in the future.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't live in a joke either, as I stated in slightly different terms. But there is a considerable spectrum of buildings that are not a joke. Within that spectrum, an aesthetic appreciation of exterior appearance is but one factor and not at the very top. I would also dispute any notion that "good architecture" is only about or even primarily about external appearance. In the case of residential structures, the livability of the building for its residents is hugely important. That too is a function of "good architecture." Good architects pay careful attention to such matters, as I know from professional interaction with a couple of good ones. Another consideration I have come to value in recent years is cost and ease or difficulty of maintenance or repair. That too is part of good architecture.

You don't have to share my priorities, of course. I suspect, however, that many purchasers would do so.
 
Transportfan said:
The problem is that most condo buyers are investors who rent out the units. They don't care about how the building looks.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that this is not true.

That being said, my building is an exception as I know that ~60% of units are rented out. This, however, is most likely a cause of my building being poorly built (Urbancorp), with poor amenities, poor layouts, and horridly small-sized units. On the daily I feel bad for purchasers who live here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top