Does cheap mean a material is less able to perform its functions or less likely to last, or is it a value judgement we're placing on materials that aren't scarce and exclusive? Because building secure clean warm homes at lower cost seems like a good thing. If everyone regards the material as cheap maybe the architect's challenge is to use it in a way that can make us see differently.
 
I walk by this multiple times a day, and I don't think it looks cheap. It does sort of look like a dark matte grey plastic, but I really don't think that it looks cheap. Its different. Different is good.
 
Its has the appearance of a matte plastic siding reminiscent of a balcony from the 1970s. Walk by it , you'll see.

I do walk by it every day. My point was that it's hard to tell if the material is cheap or not by seeing from a distance, or based on the surface finish. Also, I don't think we can gauge the overall impact of the cladding until we see the exterior of the building take shape. Hopefully it will turn out well.

I'm with modern; I'm looking forward to seeing the overall effect of the cladding colours.
 
6nmBWQT.jpg

D7cQrGg.jpg

SzsY7rQ.jpg
 
Picasso, the Q-R Centre and Tableau together will make for one the city's finest contemporary streetscapes.
 
Oh hey there Picasso

IXEFvSD.jpg
 
Picasso, the Q-R Centre and Tableau together will make for one the city's finest contemporary streetscapes.

Agreed, but unlike Southcore or some other new-build areas there are still lots of layers to the built form here, a lot of texture (heritage, brick, new etc). The development feels more organic... familiar yet transformative at the same time!
 
Nice view - except for those slabs on Sherbourne south of Dundas that *really* got to go.

AoD

Is there any chance that would happen? Sherbourne/Dundas has half of a dozen fugly slabs that I want to blow up. A lot of horrible stories about how bad living conditions are within those buildings as well (rats, bedbugs etc).
 

Back
Top