Taken like 45 minutes ago hehe
image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,137
First 6 floors are quite nice if you ask me, above that, it gets kinda bad.

For the area, its damn good though. I expected a crapfest here, especially given how early this one entered the market compared to other buildings now going up around it.
 
This is far better than Aura.
At least it is not another blue glass tower I am so sick of.
 
wolfewood said:
That's never an excuse for poor architecture. Ever, in my opinion.

That said, maybe it's because I have a thing for dark gray/black buildings but I'm fine with Pace architecturally. It's nothing special but I wouldn't call it bad myself.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. "It's better than what was there before" ranks right up with "It could have been worse", "it's not as bad as [insert name of ugly building]" and "it will look nicer once they install the LED lighting". I myself have taken hissy fits in the past when someone used the "it's better than what was there before" argument to justify a piece of sh*t.

But in this case, where the building itself is fine/inoffensive/okay, I am struck by Hamiltonian's photo from Friday which shows how Pace has transformed that corner for the better. And while "It's better than what was there before" is not an excuse for lousy architecture, it is sometimes worth reminding ourselves of the broader category of beneficial impacts.
 
ksun said:
This is far better than ________...
At least it is _______...
Click to expand...

I will never understand how "this is far better than [insert crappy project]" or "at least...." is enough to please people. Good architecture can be described many ways, but comparing it to the next-lowest piece of crap is not the best defense, in my opinion.
 
I think this architecture is fine. Perhaps the market economics here wouldn't produce the profit necessary to spend on more extravagant architecture. My only question is whether people are satisfied at how this meets the street, as in time this tower will blend with the many other buildings proposed in this nbhd.
 
There is a bit more glass fronting onto Dundas than I would maybe like, but until retail goes in it's hard to say how it will feel. The dark brick and vermillion accents are pleasant as a pedestrian though
 
modernizt said:
I will never understand how "this is far better than [insert crappy project]" or "at least...." is enough to please people. Good architecture can be described many ways, but comparing it to the next-lowest piece of crap is not the best defense, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

true, nor is it realistic to compare it with the best examples every time. You can set your standard high every time, but what's the point? I want another Frank Gehry tower to be here too, but it ain't happening.

People should have reasonable expectations for a moderately priced condo at this location. It was never meant to be a showpiece of Toronto's architecture, nor is it a luxury product from day 1. And as I said, it turned out just fine, and probably slightly better than average among the new condos built in the past 10 years. So I am not comparing it to the crappiest, but the regular ones we regularly build.

And I want to add that for decades since WWII, Toronto treated Jarvis st, which used to be one of the most beautiful streets in the city, as nothing but a soulless semi-highway for the rich, and now we are complaining that a new condo which is supposed to bring back some vibrancy to this seedy intersection, is not fancy enough? You can't expect developers to come up with better designs when the city doesn't seem to care about the neighbourhood whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top