3Dementia said:
In some ways these belong in CityPlace ... they fit in and maybe not the spot for a so-called signature project, in a forest of underwhelming architecture.

Concord has one chance to do something approaching a signature building ... it has their name on it, it's one of tallest projects in the country and has a pretty good AOR on board (a-A).

Concord Sky will redefine the skyline forever (especially from the west and east). Will it end up the tallest skyscraper embarrassment on the continent... or will we be shocked with decent cladding and execution?

It's a crap shoot right now and I'd wager I'm not the only 'scraper geek here that is very, very worried. I think Concord owes the city one very good tower... "signature building" is too much to hope for. 🥹
Click to expand...
Regardless of what it looks like, Concord Sky will be a terrible place to live. aA is also the full architect too, not just AoR.
 
My quarter cent, Signature or not, this project has turned out slightly better than i anticipated but i think both the towers should have been like the well or 19 Duncan in terms of quality because both towers are prominent due to their height and size.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The name 'Signature' is something that appeared on UT 16+ years ago and has taken on a life of its own. Here's a site plan from 2010. I don't see the word "Signature".

View attachment 546791

This jpg from 2008 is titled "Signature2", does that make the building depicted a 'signature'?

View attachment 546793

The notion of a 'signature' is so tired. You can like or hate this project, but if your primary complaint is that it doesn't match your interpretation of an unofficial moniker from a decade and a half ago, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
I’m neutral about this project. When it comes to Concord I’ve learned to curb my enthusiasm, so the result is not disappointing. However, a lot of people are hung up about this being a signature project. Even if Concord didn’t use the word ‘signature’ in marketing this project, the implication was there - they kept emphasizing that this would be their final project in CityPlace, and pushed the luxury features (which are not entirely wrong, very few if any condo towers in Toronto have balconies with built-in heaters).
 
Here's a very old image I still have on my hard drive. It's dated 2006-01-12. I was still living in the UK at the time. I remember thinking this was a vision of the future, but in retrospect, this was likely my first case of being deluded by renders!

CityPlace Above.jpg
 
Concord may not have the used the word "signature" in the past, but they have certainly made numerous references to this being a crown jewel of the entire CityPlace development. One can interpret that however they want, but generally speaking most would believe that a crowning jewel is something that's designed to standout and is striking.

It's entirely likely that Concord has no idea what crowning jewel means, because generally speaking crown jewels are designed to be attractive:



nowtoronto.com

A new condo will add a Canadian icon to Toronto's skyline

Real estate firm Concord's Canada House condo towers will add illuminated, 30-storey maple leaves to the Toronto skyline
nowtoronto.com nowtoronto.com

And for laughs, this is what Concord considers a crown jewel over at Park Place: https://www.concordpacific.com/project/kings-landing-2/
 
ProjectEnd said:
The name 'Signature' is something that appeared on UT 16+ years ago and has taken on a life of its own. Here's a site plan from 2010. I don't see the word "Signature".

View attachment 546791

This jpg from 2008 is titled "Signature2", does that make the building depicted a 'signature'?
Click to expand...

For the benefit of new members (and clarity), "Signature" was indeed the project name of the 69 storey tower announced by Concord in 2006 for this site... which is marked "TBD" on that site-plan.

Wild guess: Concord may have believed at the time that "Signature" would be the their signature tower for CityPlace. I'll sign off now. 🖋️

Model
Signature1.jpg

acotoronto.ca
Signature3.jpg

acotoronto.ca
 
wmedia said:
Here's a very old image I still have on my hard drive. It's dated 2006-01-12. I was still living in the UK at the time. I remember thinking this was a vision of the future, but in retrospect, this was likely my first case of being deluded by renders!

View attachment 546827
Click to expand...
Nothing special about that rendering. None of the buildings is striking, except maybe the community centre. If anything the current towers north of the park with the skybridge are marginally more interesting than the proposed towers.
 
Rascacielo said:
Nothing special about that rendering. None of the buildings is striking, except maybe the community centre. If anything the current towers north of the park with the skybridge are marginally more interesting than the proposed towers.
Click to expand...
You need to look at it through the eyes of younger me, almost 20 years ago, when I was living in a borough where no buildings were taller than 5 storeys. Imagination filled in a lot of the gaps!
 
wmedia said:
You need to look at it through the eyes of younger me, almost 20 years ago, when I was living in a borough where no buildings were taller than 5 storeys. Imagination filled in a lot of the gaps!
Click to expand...
I suppose Toronto was different 20 years ago. Almost everyone got excited over proposals for 40+ storey condos, no matter what they looked like. And the sight of so many of them rising out of the barren former railway lands (OK, there was a mini golf course) must have been a revelation ...
 
wmedia said:
Here's a very old image I still have on my hard drive. It's dated 2006-01-12. I was still living in the UK at the time. I remember thinking this was a vision of the future, but in retrospect, this was likely my first case of being deluded by renders!

View attachment 546827
Click to expand...

I read here that Kohn Pedersen Fox had a hand in designing some of the buildings but removed themselves after serious VE-ing, any chance you saved files of early design ideas?
 
wmedia said:
Here's a very old image I still have on my hard drive. It's dated 2006-01-12. I was still living in the UK at the time. I remember thinking this was a vision of the future, but in retrospect, this was likely my first case of being deluded by renders!

View attachment 546827
Click to expand...
For all it's worth, Concords's old omnipresent Cityplace rendering from Lake Ontario (can no longer find it) always had 'Signature' as the tallest building in Cityplace.

I personally think it's a shame we went from something like Vancouver Wall Centre to an econoplex- the rest of the development should have paid for an iconic building like Missisauga's Absolute Towers.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Regardless of what it looks like, Concord Sky will be a terrible place to live. aA is also the full architect too, not just AoR.
Click to expand...

All Concord properties are terrible places to live, because that's their go-to-market. Cheap out as much as possible on everything, while charging the same per sq ft.

Properties in CityPlace are still in lawsuits with Concord over the leaking swimming pools and the elevator deficiencies
The wait for the elevator at the PH level at Parade (151 Dan Leckie) is between 15-25 minutes during rush hour as measured over months by residents
It's all in the meeting minutes if you wanna buy units, you can ask the owner to show them

The condos at this project (Canada House) is as expensive as the Well by Tridel, which makes 0 sense because Tridel is known to be a much better developer in quality. And the complex has all the shopping mall amenities.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top