- Thread starter Edward Skira
- Start date
DSC
Superstar
Yes, good photos but you make exactly my point. It looks "OK" but it COULD HAVE looked GREAT - and the renderings made it look great. Another example of 'the cheapening", I fear.
EDIT: Just walked past and it REALLY is quite underwhelming. Yes, the brown metal does frame the windows but it would, IMO, have looked MUCH better if brighter/shinier. Ah well.
Last edited:
condovo
Senior Member
isaidso
Senior Member
It will still look great but it's a case of 'over promise, under deliver'.
smably
Senior Member
I think this looks fantastic. Different from the renderings, sure, but just as good. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a better-looking podium in the city... am I wrong?
slicecom
Active Member
I agree, it looks pretty great. I think if the render was more true to the final outcome, it would be receiving universal praise as a podium that’s properly massed for its area and has some unique detail.
harry_fine
New Member
On a different topic, does anybody know how the parking is handled both for residents and the public? I saw a P sign in the Breezeway, and discovered that there's actually public parking downstairs, there's a large roll up door first, and then a smaller one that goes down to public parking. Is the first one a service elevator /truck entrance? Do residents go down to the same parking entrance as paid parkers? And how did this happen, did the city require it?
maestro
Senior Member
I would guess the first basement floor is paid parking with the remaining basement floors as resident parking. a security gate on P1 separates the two areas.
Miscreant
Senior Member
I'm almost always prefer matte finishes over high gloss, so I think this looks really nice. It brings a lot of depth to the podium--high gloss finishes sometimes don't have that.
Ryan_T
Senior Member
I wonder if existing chrome-like metal finishings simply can't last long enough for this sort of application. Or at least what the cost may be to clean them once every few years.
TheSix
Active Member
https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/557390891363175379/?lp=true
As mentioned earlier in the thread, there doesn't seem to be any issue with 40 Bond. Is a shame Freed rendered something totally doable, created false expectations for buyers, and didn't deliver. Too bad they can't be held accountable and we shouldn't roll over, make excuses (glass is hard to clean, etc.) and settle for less. The promised application is totally doable. Freed is just cheap or incompetent from not doing enough research to begin with.
Personally, I find the "high gloss" glass treatment used for 40 Bond, way more superior than the cheap looking matt sheet metal used for Sixty Colborne.
maestro
Senior Member
You're going to be disappointed everytime holding Toronto developers to 3000USD a foot standards. One can get too wrapped up in artistic impression and what Manhattan can afford. This compares extremely well to the spandrel behemoths going up around the city.
.dwg
Active Member
The last photo reminded me just how perfect the scale of the podium is. Lower podium @ heritage datum, upper podium above for gentle density, and tower above/beyond.
WeirdFishes
Active Member
I think the point was around the render clearly showing a glass exterior and delivering something vastly different. This wouldn't be an issue if Freed didn't promise glass in the first place. If this was too expensive for a condo with 1/3 bachelor units marketed to investors, do your research upfront. The glass exterior was also communicated to me personally when asked about it in the sales centre. Like ordering a silk shirt online and getting cotton.
But hey, maybe you're right and we should just accept false marketing and over selling.
Last edited: