TheKingEast said:
Can't believe what I'm reading in here. Most developers are crap and cut corners and deliver the bare minimum that they're allowed to. Concord has so many lawsuits and massive problems in many of their towers. They are a cheap developer that has poor quality control and builds specifically for landlords. Many realtors that I've spoken to don't even show units there. Why do you think?. I just think it's hilarious to see all of these people rush in to defend this developer. Look at Park Place in North York. Another mess. They don't even try.
Click to expand...

There are lawsuits in EVERY development. Without exception. And that includes buildings where starting prices are well over $1million.
 
you must be a hit at parties. *slow clap*
 
Can't believe what I'm reading in here. Most developers are crap and cut corners and deliver the bare minimum that they're allowed to. Concord has so many lawsuits and massive problems in many of their towers. They are a cheap developer that has poor quality control and builds specifically for landlords. Many realtors that I've spoken to don't even show units there. Why do you think?. I just think it's hilarious to see all of these people rush in to defend this developer. Look at Park Place in North York. Another mess. They don't even try.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Considering the number of buildings and units built I'd be surprised if there weren't some problems or lawsuits (not that you've proven that). For most of us we are perfectly content with CityPlace. Good purchase price considering the excellent location and amenities etc. And I have nothing but good things to say about Concord. They did everything we asked of them.
 
This is going to the OMB

Summary....... The applicant has appealed the zoning by-law amendment application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) due to Council's failure to make a decision within the time period prescribed under the Planning Act. A prehearing conference has been scheduled by the OMB for February 18, 2016.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.TE13.11
 
you'd think the city would accept anything for the final crown jewel of the City Place complex, Concords done a lot for Toronto (not from a design point of view though :p)
 
You guys have some depressingly low standards. I really doubt the city has failed to respond to this application over aesthetics but I wouldn't blame them if they did. These towers are pathetic, even in comparison to some of the other Cityplace buildings.
 
wolfewood said:
You guys have some depressingly low standards. I really doubt the city has failed to respond to this application over aesthetics but I wouldn't blame them if they did. These towers are pathetic, even in comparison to some of the other Cityplace buildings.
Click to expand...
Does the city really care about how it looks, don't quote me but I wouldn't be surprised if they complaining about height or shadowing as asual. You'd think the city would be happy with the public art aspect
 
Well I think by now we should all realize that the more restrictions put on applications generally results in stumpier uglier buildings. I am not really too sure what is so bad about these towers. They are meant to be affordable and in my opinion look more unique than many other things going up in this city. Sure they aren't the best of the best but not everyone is a millionaire. The colour and height of these towers offer much in the way of variation to the skyline, not to mention they appeal to regular people who can't afford to live in "the one" or 1be
 
Michael Ianni said:
Does the city really care about how it looks, don't quote me but I wouldn't be surprised if they complaining about height or shadowing as asual. You'd think the city would be happy with the public art aspect
Click to expand...

As I said, they don't. I'm not sure what their concerns are, if there are any, but if looks were a concern, the City would be well within their rights to dislike this. The public art is just sad. The same concept barely works on smaller, grayer towers on the Canadian Tire lands on Sheppard, how it would work here with taller buildings is beyond me.

stjames2queenwest said:
Well I think by now we should all realize that the more restrictions put on applications generally results in stumpier uglier buildings. I am not really too sure what is so bad about these towers. They are meant to be affordable and in my opinion look more unique than many other things going up in this city. Sure they aren't the best of the best but not everyone is a millionaire. The colour and height of these towers offer much in the way of variation to the skyline, not to mention they appeal to regular people who can't afford to live in "the one" or 1be
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that at all. At least not in the sense that restrictions are the cause of the dreaded "Cheapening." That happens regardless of how much the City wrings from developers or not. The reality is that developers in this city are interested in profit, nothing else. If they could build the sorts of ludicrously tall and underinhabited buildings that are being built in Manhattan, they'd do so. Toronto's market is definitely geared toward middle income buyers and that has an effect on the quality of buildings but it's certainly no excuse to just accept the crap Concord has foisted on us here either. There's definitely a greater equilibrium between good design and profits, Concord is just greedy.
 
I think these towers will have crossed a line as to what the public will accept from developers. They are so tall, prominent, ugly, inadequate, cheap and embarrassing looking that they will prompt the kind of public disgust that hasn't really been experienced since the Harbourfront disasters of the mid-80s. Concord has taken their greed too far and everyone else will pay for it.
 
I'm not advocating for city place. But the only time I have ever heard it be trash talked it's been on this forum. Not by regular people or people who live there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top