This building looks very bland but palatable. I think the shifting balconies will improve the visual interest.
 
Pier27.1.jpg


Pier27.2.jpg


Pier27.3.jpg


Pier27.4.jpg


Pier27.5.jpg


Pier27.6.jpg


Pier27.8.jpg


Pier27.9.jpg
 
.dwg said:
Luckily it's people's homes, and done on a budget, so the point of it isn't to thrill you.
Click to expand...

So in your world we're only to have opinions on buildings we own? You've ventured into the absurd with that comment. I happen to care what my city looks like and I still have to walk by the bloody thing.

I'll be keen to see if you keep your opinions to yourself on the next 1000 proposals in Toronto. I suspect you won't.
 
isaidso said:
So in your world we're only to have opinions on buildings we own? You've ventured into the absurd with that comment. I happen to care what my city looks like and I still have to walk by the bloody thing.

I'll be keen to see if you keep your opinions to yourself on the next 1000 proposals in Toronto. I suspect you won't.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't to tell you to keep your opinion to yourself. My point was that the role of a condo isn't to be an architectural marvel or icon. It's housing. It should be pleasing, but housing by its very nature is going to be "boring" a lot of the time and as you put it, bore you to tears. It's nearly unavoidable.
 
.dwg said:
My point wasn't to tell you to keep your opinion to yourself. My point was that the role of a condo isn't to be an architectural marvel or icon. It's housing. It should be pleasing, but housing by its very nature is going to be "boring" a lot of the time and as you put it, bore you to tears. It's nearly unavoidable.
Click to expand...

This is patently untrue. There are infinite examples of interesting condos and other housing.
 
mcornett said:
This is patently untrue. There are infinite examples of interesting condos and other housing.
Click to expand...

You will note I did not say all housing is uninteresting, rather that a lot of the time it is not going to be a stand-out. Housing generally requires a certain level of modularity and repetition. Nothing about this statement should be controversial. This is why housing is a fabric building most of the time, whereas the ROM looks like it does.

So yes, a lot of the time housing is going to look "yawn" to people. But a lot of great housing is "boring" from the outside because it has to be laid out in a very specific, logical fashion.
 
Last edited:
.dwg said:
You will note I did not say all housing is uninteresting, rather that a lot of the time it is not going to be a stand-out. Housing generally requires a certain level of modularity and repetition. Nothing about this statement should be controversial. This is why housing is a fabric building most of the time, whereas the ROM looks like it does.

So yes, a lot of the time housing is going to look "yawn" to people. But a lot of great housing is "boring" from the outside because it has to be laid out in a very specific, logical fashion.
Click to expand...

I agree and think this is an important concept to consider. Yes, architecture is important, and yes, we can expect our developers to build competent structures. I'd say Cityzen has more than done that here, and I'd have to say personally I believe most residential developments in Toronto are fine.

We have a need to build in Toronto (and the GTHA!), and more specifically, a need to build quickly and affordably. I think criticism to the degree of "it's boring" is fine and should be expected for low and mid-market developments, like this one. We desperately need more of these developments at these price ranges, and at lower price ranges too. I also believe serious criticism of architecture is a much more pressing discussion on towers like the sloppy mess that Minto is building in Yorkville, where the high prices should demand better architecture.

This all being said, I personally believe this tower is looking quite nice. Perhaps the balcony glass design could've been improved, but I have a feeling this tower will remain a perfectly acceptable design for many many years to come.
 
Don't get me wrong - I think this is a lot less interesting than the earlier phases of Pier 27 which is unfortunate. I can infer lots of things about the developers' motivations therein. I would have liked them to continue the aesthetic of the previous phases into this one.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
...Yes, architecture is important, and yes, we can expect our developers to build competent structures. I'd say Cityzen has more than done that here....
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue that in this case. While the structures themselves are decent (very debatable), Citizen did nothing to draw people into the area from a street level perspective. The block remains cold and uninviting, mostly from the cramped buildings separated by private amenities and zero ground level retail by the water (where it really makes sense). I walked around there once and have no desire to return. It feels like a wasted opportunity to bring some much needed activity to this prime downtown waterfront location. While the future park and backend retail will help, the rest of the block is hopeless in my opinion.

I now walk by without stopping and shake my head.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top