telefann
New Member
To illustrate some of my points, here are two recent condo developments in Mississauga's Parkside Village. Neither are exemplars of stellar design, but even little details can make a huge difference.
This is one of the earlier phases. Two bland boxes, yes, but solidly executed nonetheless. "Opaque panel pretending to be glass" is rare, and where it does occur, it blends seamlessly into the true transparent glass. Uninspiring as the design may be (apart from the pleasing stacked balcony design of the left tower), there is generally good attention to detail and clean lines.
Unfortunately, this level of execution could not be replicated, by the same developer, in the later PSV and PSV2. Mismatched lines, charcoal grey spandrel clashing sharply with white-ish concrete, and lopsided symmetry do not hold a candle to the understated elegance of its predecessor. As someone who visits Mississauga regularly, this latter condo development is a visual blight (and a very tall and obvious one at that!) on what is otherwise a rather decent skyline, of which the excellent Marilyn Monroe towers are certainly the aesthetic pinnacle.
That Amacon basically "gave up" on good design after the initial stage of this project speaks volumes about its true motives. Why are developers so keen to squeeze out maximum profit out of such paltry investment in quality of work? Do they not somehow have a public duty to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing urban environment?
This is one of the earlier phases. Two bland boxes, yes, but solidly executed nonetheless. "Opaque panel pretending to be glass" is rare, and where it does occur, it blends seamlessly into the true transparent glass. Uninspiring as the design may be (apart from the pleasing stacked balcony design of the left tower), there is generally good attention to detail and clean lines.
Unfortunately, this level of execution could not be replicated, by the same developer, in the later PSV and PSV2. Mismatched lines, charcoal grey spandrel clashing sharply with white-ish concrete, and lopsided symmetry do not hold a candle to the understated elegance of its predecessor. As someone who visits Mississauga regularly, this latter condo development is a visual blight (and a very tall and obvious one at that!) on what is otherwise a rather decent skyline, of which the excellent Marilyn Monroe towers are certainly the aesthetic pinnacle.
That Amacon basically "gave up" on good design after the initial stage of this project speaks volumes about its true motives. Why are developers so keen to squeeze out maximum profit out of such paltry investment in quality of work? Do they not somehow have a public duty to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing urban environment?
Last edited: