UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Those floors are more complex and unique. They always take longer until the floor plates are similar/identical. Plus, they are on the 3rd floor now it appears.
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
C-mac
Senior Member
Got ya. Didn't realize that.
wmedia
Senior Member
I remember seeing the first drawings of CityPlace back in England in 2000. I was actively looking for a city to emigrate to, and Toronto had caught my eye. I remember being blown away that they were planning so many high rise residential buildings, as that was something that was not common around London at the time.
Flash forward 21 years, and I've now been living in Toronto for 15 years. I never could have imagined that CityPlace would just be a drop in the ocean compared to all the development that has happened since, yet I can't help but be disappointed that the "signature" tower turned into this ungainly example.
Flash forward 21 years, and I've now been living in Toronto for 15 years. I never could have imagined that CityPlace would just be a drop in the ocean compared to all the development that has happened since, yet I can't help but be disappointed that the "signature" tower turned into this ungainly example.
C-mac
Senior Member
I have to be honest, the renderings to me really don’t look that bad.
Are people not liking this because of the actual renderings or Concords history?
Are people not liking this because of the actual renderings or Concords history?
Last edited:
wmedia
Senior Member
As it's the final lot of the 20-year master-planned project, it should be their centerpiece signature tower. There is nothing about the current rendering that is signature, with its generic towers and heavy-handed podium. Everything about it is very average, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if you just want to blend in and disappear, but I would have loved to see a real statement piece here after waiting this long.
Riseth
Senior Member
July 15, 2021
Res Ipsa Loquitor
New Member
Statement? Signature? Generic? I think too many here forget that property development is a business and not an esoteric exercise in visual excitement. I think that building twin towers of 74 and 64 stories is a 'statement' in itself. I suspect that there are many other cities that only wish they had a project like this, 'average' or not.
karledice
Active Member
It is not a choice between one or the other. Many extremely profitable developers build statement/beautiful architecture.
They’re all over the world and in Toronto too: Gehry buildings, Zaha Hadid’s buildings, all residential, lower scale: PJ condo in the entertainment district, Waterworks building, King building. All residential, all within walking distance of this project. Just to name a very few.
Are all those developers broke?
Nope, it’s just this one is a cheap, doesn’t care about architecture and corner cutting developer (Concord)
Last edited:
wmedia
Senior Member
I'm usually somewhat of a defender of the industry's market realities. Heck, I've even been branded a "contrarian" on other threads for defending the industry. But in this instance, that feels like a defeatist attitude. This project shows a deliberate lack of imagination in both massing and materials, especially considering it is the masterplan's finale.
Northern Light
Superstar
Done properly, 'signature architecture' is a profitable business decision.
It can yield a materially higher price per ft2 and faster sales (and time is money). Certainly this is not always the case; there are sites and scales of development where a masterpiece is not remotely justifiable; although something quite nice is almost always achievable, even on a moderately tight budget.
The idea that quality is inherently incompatible with profit is simply wrong.
A portion of the issue with developers like Concord is that they often hire substandard firms to design their buildings (not always); they often given them unrealistically tight parameters to achieve originality or quality; and then they often further value engineer the designs when executing them; and frankly, they just aren't very good at it.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Source:
C
christiesplits
Guest
I find the “maple leaf” design very cheesy, and even more offensive than a typical glass box. It looks like something you would see in a Canada-themed Vegas hotel and casino.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
As tacky as that may sound, I expect a developer in Vegas to pull off that motif a lot better with higher quality materials than Concord will.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
New Member
Where is it written that 'signature architecture' is synonymous with quality? There are a plethora of examples where flashy design hid underlying design problems. Just look at Montreal's Big "Owe". I'm from the school that adheres to the simple principle that form should follow function. As for the marketability of any project, I will leave the success of that project to the market, as what might constitute signature architecture to some is only an eye sore to others.
Northern Light
Superstar
While it certainly is true that something eye catching (in a good way) can also lack function or otherwise be poorly made, clearly I was suggesting quality is worth investing in; and merely including aesthetics as one of those aspects of quality worth investing in.
There are also countless designs featuring very attractive buildings that are highly functional to their purpose, and otherwise well made.
Of course a residential building should feature reasonable sized units, with intelligent layouts, and serve the needs of those who would reside in them. No one was arguing otherwise, at all.
Yes, there is an element of subjectivity in good architecture, to be certain. Some here have an appreciation for brutalism which I lack........so be it.
But the vast majority of us can recognize a building with little to no effort put in to its design which isn't particularly attractive to anyone.
This topic was not about the idea that Concord had to pick one particular aesthetic style; or invest in one particular material; it's about the choices they DID make and often make, which are near universally panned.
Not just by critics, or industry-insiders, but by the general population when their opinions are solicited.
Last edited: