Considering the way Toronto business is dominating the development, property management, REIT, and asset management industries the Toronto way is more likely coming to a City near you than the reverse.
 
Miscreant said:
There is no good reason to be overly skeptical or pessimistic about the possibility of stricter standards, imposed by the city, for quality building materials. Examples of this happen all over the world, especially in Europe where there is a lot of emphasis on new developments blending with historical architecture. Sure, there will always be examples where this has not been done well. But the city does have a role to play here.
Click to expand...
Toronto has not been given the authority by the Province to compel developers to use a particular material for aesthetic concerns. The City can only compel based on planning standards like materials that meet fire code, R value, bird friendliness, etc.

42
 
Exactly.

As much as I utterly detest garbage like YC (and everything that Spanderel Stoneridge has done really), I'd be very interested to see how some think the city could dictate material choices legally? How do you write a by-law that says you have to use material x? What's more, materials are products so if you limit your choices to a few "high-quality" ones, you're also limiting things to a small group of manufacturers and suppliers and would thus run into more legal difficulty.
 
Maybe it's more a matter of controlling/limiting the use of certain detestable materials - in such a way that would spare us visuals like the solid grey spandrel wall in the south end of this development.
 
The government regulates almost everything. It can regulate cladding materials as well. There should be a justification and evidence beyond something flimsy like subjective aesthetic concerns that can't be measured scientifically. It could be that the city finds evidence that higher-quality buildings with better cladding promote long-term investment and vitality in an area, requiring less public investment in revitalization and renewal schemes over time. Perhaps spandrel is less durable than precast or brick and will contribute to waste when it has to be replaced.

Basically, the cladding issue needs to be linked to some public policy concern that's rooted in evidence and data.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
We've already done that.

IMG_0567.jpg
Click to expand...

One minor difference. The towers in Montreal are emblazoned with the Canadiens logo.
 
Calgary/Edmonton was mostly curtainwall. Now it's mostly window wall. You could see a shift in Montreal as it becomes less of a local, niche market to a national, investor driven market. Of course that depends on whether the city allows window wall or not. I've yet to see anything on that matter.
 
maestro said:
One minor difference. The towers in Montreal are emblazoned with the Canadiens logo.
Click to expand...

Thats true.

Every unit in the buildings are named after teams.

One tower has NHL teams and the other is named after NBA teams.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Exactly.

As much as I utterly detest garbage like YC (and everything that Spanderel Stoneridge has done really), I'd be very interested to see how some think the city could dictate material choices legally? How do you write a by-law that says you have to use material x?
Click to expand...
My parents live in a building downtown ottawa that could only get approved if they used limestone. Then the developer put fake stuff up. The city found out and made the developer replace the fake limestone with real limestone. True story
 
Which building?!

I wonder if that was the National Capital Commission that mandated that. The NCC have broad design powers that no one else seems to have.

42
 
sixrings said:
My parents live in a building downtown ottawa that could only get approved if they used limestone. Then the developer put fake stuff up. The city found out and made the developer replace the fake limestone with real limestone. True story
Click to expand...

Wow. Talk about a case of the grass is always greener. I love Ottawa for all sorts of reasons, but its condo developments have on the most part been awful, significantly worse than even the lower-quality developments in Toronto.

Take a look at the Claridge Plaza complex (4 towers in a central Rideau Street location, latest tower completed in 2014) and try to argue Ottawa developers do any better than Toronto ones:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4282...4!1s78qyKT2qxqaGnIs_3f2fjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Claridge is one of the most prolific (if not the most) condo developers in Ottawa.

My guess based on your story is that your parents live in 700 Sussex, which indeed was an NCC-led development, and therefore an exception, not the rule.
 
interchange42 said:
Toronto has not been given the authority by the Province to compel developers to use a particular material for aesthetic concerns. The City can only compel based on planning standards like materials that meet fire code, R value, bird friendliness, etc.

42
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but that doesn't really respond to the issue I was raising. Toronto might not have been given authority to so compel, but I was asking whether there is good reason to believe it could be given such authority. ProjectEnd's post responded directly to this concern, and I think the Junctionist's post moves the debate forward meaningfully in my direction.
 
Neighbourhoods in Toronto do have design guidelines and developers have altered their plans to appease them. Could be something to expand upon. Then again, it encourages monotony which is never well received on UT.
 
maestro said:
Neighbourhoods in Toronto do have design guidelines and developers have altered their plans to appease them. Could be something to expand upon. Then again, it encourages monotony which is never well received on UT.
Click to expand...

I'd take monotony if they were all Kengo Kuma/Renzo Piano buildings :)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top