Great to see office space moving into that area; it's almost jarring to see office construction, however modest in scale, in the context of so many residential buildings.
 
Pics taken Jan 15, 2019


fullsizeoutput_1f77.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f78.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f76.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f75.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f74.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f73.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f72.jpeg




fullsizeoutput_1f71.jpeg
 
:( Not a fan of having to look at those godawful spandrel towers every day. Goddamn Concord...

Well at least the warehouse will be back (with an actual grocery store in the area!!!).
 
I don't hate it. There's certainly worse towers, the white is a nice change. My biggest issue is the balconies two feet from the Gardiner. Why? Why would anyone want to spend any amount of time out there?
 
White would be a pleasant change...if Concord actually got quality products and didn't lace their developments with spandrel everywhere. But it's Concord we're talking about, so of course we see the bare minimum garbage evidenced by the photos above.
 
The east tower crane for Loblaw was being dismantle while I was shooting the area. Gave up waiting for them to lower the second section of the boom, as they were having issues taking it apart. About 15 minutes later, caught it being lower from another location. Photos to follow.
 
Lachlan Homes and stjames2queenwest's posts above are the exact reason why Concord and equally crappy developers continue to feel emboldened to build such low-grade crap in this city. "It's good enough" "At least it's not _________" "The white is really different..."

Developers build crap of this standard because they make a killer profit off of it, not because they think it will improve the city, not because they are trying to introduce a new colour to the skyline, and not because they think it's good enough. Unless you guys own units in this development, I can't conceive of why you'd defend it.

The heritage Loblaws building should be fine - heritage building, offices, better materials, tasteful design. The residential towers however, are completely indefensible. I am certain even some of the more objective Concord folks probably cringe when they look at them.
 
.dwg said:
Lachlan Homes and stjames2queenwest's posts above are the exact reason why Concord and equally crappy developers continue to feel emboldened to build such low-grade crap in this city. "It's good enough" "At least it's not _________" "The white is really different..."

Developers build crap of this standard because they make a killer profit off of it, not because they think it will improve the city, not because they are trying to introduce a new colour to the skyline, and not because they think it's good enough. Unless you guys own units in this development, I can't conceive of why you'd defend it.

The heritage Loblaws building should be fine - heritage building, offices, better materials, tasteful design. The residential towers however, are completely indefensible. I am certain even some of the more objective Concord folks probably cringe when they look at them.
Click to expand...

I wrote what I wrote for a couple reasons. One, I don't think these are truly as terrible as everyone has been making them out to be. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. I don't like the balconies that are right next to the Gardiner, and less horizontal spandrel would be nice.

Two, I don't believe that units in this market class have to be masterpieces. They are really meant as starter homes for first-time buyers, not as architectural gems.

Third, building on my last point, I don't believe our collective architectural angst is best spent attacking entry- and mid-level condominiums, where price is a defining factor, and where supply is limited. As I said in the Pier 27 tower thread, towers like Minto's Yorkville mess deserve much more scrutiny.

Finally, people like myself who are okay with buildings like this aren't why they keep getting built—it's because there's a need for this level of housing in the city. There are small ways to improve towers without large differences in cost, but major upgrades like unitized curtain wall simply aren't feasible here without pricing more folks out, which is my largest concern.
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
I wrote what I wrote for a couple reasons. One, I don't think these are truly as terrible as everyone has been making them out to be. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. I don't like the balconies that are right next to the Gardiner, and less horizontal spandrel would be nice.

Two, I don't believe that units in this market class have to be masterpieces. They are really meant as starter homes for first-time buyers, not as architectural gems.

Third, building on my last point, I don't believe our collective architectural angst is best spent attacking entry- and mid-level condominiums, where price is a defining factor, and where supply is limited. As I said in the Pier 27 tower thread, towers like Minto's Yorkville mess deserve much more scrutiny.

Finally, people like myself who are okay with buildings like this aren't why they keep getting built—it's because there's a need for this level of housing in the city. There are small ways to improve towers without large differences in cost, but major upgrades like unitized curtain wall simply aren't feasible here without pricing more folks out, which is my largest concern.
Click to expand...

But wouldn’t it be nice to have a few “architectural gems” at some point. A city doesn’t often get such an elongated construction boom - wouldn’t it be nice to have a gem or two?
 
Lachlan Holmes said:
There are small ways to improve towers without large differences in cost, but major upgrades like unitized curtain wall simply aren't feasible here without pricing more folks out, which is my largest concern.
Click to expand...

Where did I say curtainwall was necessary here? There are about a million ways these towers could have been better-executed using window wall and other relatively cheap materials.
 
Big Daddy said:
But wouldn’t it be nice to have a few “architectural gems” at some point. A city doesn’t often get such an elongated construction boom - wouldn’t it be nice to have a gem or two?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I just don't think we should be looking to affordable, entry-level developments like CityPlace for those gems. I think we absolutely can and should demand good architecture from more expensive projects, projects in which extra money can absolutely be spent on materials, better architecture, etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top