67Cup

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
753
Reaction score
1,080
As is the case with neighbouring Aura, the top is better than the bottom, or to be more exact with this one, the lower midsection. The angled top section offers some variation from the plethora of boxes in the general area, a plus in my mind. But the transition between the rectangular lower sections to the sloping upper section seems awkward, though not as truly awkward as the comparable transition in Aura. The retention of the historic facades gives the building a chance of meeting the street well, depending on what is put there in the end. Certainly it might in the end present a more interesting streetscape than Aura.
Of course, saying that this may end up much better than Aura may qualify as praising with faint damns. Just my provisional and not very knowledgeable opinion here.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,586
Reaction score
4,705
Heck - Canada House, supposedly a marquee project - is pretty unredeeming architecturally. I’m happy to revisit this thread once we see the cladding go up there so we can comment on Concord’s execution on that marquee project.
To be fair though Canada House is Concord's alone, while Sky was acquired with the respective design mostly intact. So the latter may end up looking more "signature" than the former. I suspect though the quality maybe evened out across the two...so in the end, Sky will likely have more dynamic angles than House and not much else. >.<
 
Last edited:

urbanexplorer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
140
Reaction score
411
See kids ! Don't have this kind of perspective to life !
Judging a building based solely on a single early rendering, without any progress on ground. This is not how architecture works sir ! And this is coming from an architect.
That’s what renderings are for. They are actively setting our expectations low.

Track record means something. And what we’ve seen from Concord in this city is generally agreed as being sub-par.

Send me a note in 5 years when this is done if I’m wrong. In the meantime, I’ll be anxiously awaiting them pulling the surprise of the century and start using premium materials, animating the streetscape, creating large livable units etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

urbanexplorer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
140
Reaction score
411
See, now that's just a facilely elitist dismissal of those who might like this design, or at least don't mind it.
No, it's a direct reference to all the people that blindly glorify the height of buildings without any care for the quality of the design and how it impacts the skyline, ground level etc for decades to come. But hey, bonus points for you squeezing the word “facilely” in there.
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
41,928
City:
Toronto
The precon pricing for this is wild


Screenshot_20220116-203938_Office.jpg
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
437
Reaction score
846
Architecture, like any form of art, is subjective. The difference between visual art and architecture is that we end up living with it and having to look at it until the end of our lives. That's why we can't dismiss people's comments and refer to any praise or criticism as "subjective". At the end of the day, most people don't like how this building looks - that's what matters when we talk about what kind of city we want Toronto to be.

In my opinion, this is just complete garbage from a developer who couldn't care less about anything that isn't money and architects that are willing to play along... and we know that, because the demand for housing is way higher than supply, people are still gonna buy these condo units for outrageous prices no matter what they look like. Unfortunately, this is more of the same Toronto condo design that makes our city so dull and depressing. Another frustration is that there is excitement for developments just because they're very tall or have an unusual shape. Why is that the most important thing? Let's talk about what makes the development good, not just about a never-ending contest to build the tallest building.

And please don't call someone "elitist" when they advocate for better design. The real elitism is how many architects think that just because they're architects, their opinions somehow matter more than their critics who "just don't get it".
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
2,174
Reaction score
5,183
The precon pricing for this is wild


View attachment 375155

For some reason, this scene came to my mind:

"We have just lost cabin pressure."

edit: these are approaching Tokyo presale and HK resale prices (we've already topped Tokyo resale). What on Earth would the rent need to be to make these units profitable as investor owned rentals?
 
Last edited:

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
2,624
Architecture, like any form of art, is subjective. The difference between visual art and architecture is that we end up living with it and having to look at it until the end of our lives.

So are statues, murals, sculpture, and memorials. Just down the street is the new 30ft abstract work by Albert Paley at the corner of Yonge & Gloucester. It will likely be there as long as and be more noticed than the architecture of the building it goes along with. After all, Paley’s piece is bright red and at street level. Far fewer however, will look up to analyze the design above the podium, or care if “premium” materials are used on the balconies.


That's why we can't dismiss people's comments and refer to any praise or criticism as "subjective".

No, if someone can point me to and explain which of the aforementioned “guidelines of architecture” that have been allegedly broken, I’ll be more than happy to concede it’s not subjective opinion.
At the end of the day, most people don't like how this building looks - that's what matters when we talk about what kind of city we want Toronto to be.

“We”, not you, not me, not any given individual. Not everyone will be in full agreement, ever. One’s brutalist masterpiece is another’s ugly hulking bunker.
Unfortunately, this is more of the same Toronto condo design that makes our city so dull and depressing. Another frustration is that there is excitement for developments just because they're very tall or have an unusual shape. Why is that the most important thing?

Indeed. Why is outside form the most important thing with this one then? Because that’s literally all we have to go on at this point for this site.
Let's talk about what makes the development good, not just about a never-ending contest to build the tallest building.

We’re in agreement on this. Enough of the skyline-genital-measuring-contests. we shouldn’t define our worth as a city by our skyline, period.

And please don't call someone "elitist" when they advocate for better design. The real elitism is how many architects think that just because they're architects, their opinions somehow matter more than their critics who "just don't get it".
Not an architect. But if you’re arguing about there being objective tenets of architecture, shouldn’t the word of an architect hold more weight? Otherwise, you’re just getting back into subjectivity.
 
Last edited:

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
41,928
City:
Toronto
For some reason, this scene came to my mind:

"We have just lost cabin pressure."

edit: these are approaching Tokyo presale and HK resale prices (we've already topped Tokyo resale). What on Earth would the rent need to be to make these units profitable as investor owned rentals?

But but but, there should be an infinite number of Bay Street CEO's queuing up to rent these...😒
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
437
Reaction score
846
So are statues, murals, sculpture, and memorials. Just down the street is the new 30ft abstract work by Albert Paley at the corner of Yonge & Gloucester. It will likely be there as long as and be more noticed than the architecture of the building it goes along with. After all, Paley’s piece is bright red and at street level. Far fewer however, will look up to analyze the design above the podium, or care if “premium” materials are used on the balconies.
That's your opinion. Perhaps the architecture won't be noticed because it looks like every other building.
No, if someone can point me to and explain which of the aforementioned “guidelines of architecture” that have been allegedly broken, I’ll be more than happy to concede it’s not subjective opinion.
There are many kinds of architectural styles with different principles, but modernist architecture often ignores what makes all of them successful.
Not everyone will be in full agreement, ever.
I agree with you there but most people can agree that Toronto, in general, is not the prettiest of cities. That doesn't mean we don't have amazing places or decent ones, it means that as a whole it isn't aesthetically-pleasing. You should search for surveys to see where the public stands on architecture. The most well-liked buildings are not modernist, and the ones that are usually have a contextual or a poetic approach... like Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings. It doesn't seem like a good idea to just stick to the same styles that work, but clearly much of today's architecture is unpopular and designers need to think about the successes of old buildings to inform new styles of architecture. There are many contemporary projects that are very popular... like Aqualuna! It's not classical but there's a reason so many people like it, as do I. Perhaps the form, elegant curves, people-centric public realm, the beautiful copper (not grey), and maybe... just maybe... that there's a theme going on that ties into the ambitious revitalization of our waterfront. Most people also like CIBC Square. Just look at the comments and reactions!

Some good proof of popular opinion re architecture...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-modern-ones-in-u-s-poll?srnd=citylab-design
Survey results: https://www.civicart.org/americans-preferred-architecture-for-federal-buildings
One’s brutalist masterpiece is another’s ugly hulking bunker.
Some people like brutalism. Most people hate it. There are exceptions, of course, but in general it is an unpopular style that has a troubled past of scarring the urban fabric of cities.
Enough of the skyline-genital-measuring-contests
It really is a tasteless d_ck measuring contest 😂
Not an architect. But if you’re arguing about there being objective tenets of architecture, shouldn’t the word of an architect hold more weight? Otherwise, you’re just getting back into subjectivity.
No. The difference is an architect knows all the technical stuff but, like I said, it is people that have to look at and live in the works of architects... so it is their opinions that must matter the most.

At the same time, architects work for developers so of course they praise these designs... because that's where their salary comes from.
 
Last edited:

Top