Toronto Vox Condominiums | 115.82m | 35s | Cresford | a—A

Today.
IMG_3147.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3147.jpg
    IMG_3147.jpg
    412.3 KB · Views: 474
IMG_7232.JPG
IMG_7233.JPG
IMG_7234.JPG
IMG_7235.JPG
First glazing installed on the tower. Also brick installed on the podium.
IMG_7228.JPG
IMG_7229.JPG

IMG_7244.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7228.JPG
    IMG_7228.JPG
    928.6 KB · Views: 506
  • IMG_7229.JPG
    IMG_7229.JPG
    1,016.5 KB · Views: 488
  • IMG_7232.JPG
    IMG_7232.JPG
    838.4 KB · Views: 497
  • IMG_7233.JPG
    IMG_7233.JPG
    829 KB · Views: 486
  • IMG_7234.JPG
    IMG_7234.JPG
    824.3 KB · Views: 473
  • IMG_7235.JPG
    IMG_7235.JPG
    885.1 KB · Views: 429
  • IMG_7244.JPG
    IMG_7244.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 451
It's your standard aA condo. It's going to be fine. Clean, simple looking, good materials, but something that ultimately fades into the background.
 
So far I like. Cresford doesn't really have much variation with their buildings. black brick, full glass, black/dark framed windows, minimalist designs.
 
Despite it being orthodoxy amongst many on UT, I don't believe that first sentence is true. aA has shown that when the developer wants something a little more out-there, aA delivers something not quite as simple, (yet which still has aA discipline). Take Smart House: it cannot be mistaken for any other building going up, with its angles and bold red stripes. The same uniqueness will hold true for Sixty Colborne, as it did for the Harbour Plaza towers, as it did for Theatre Park… and so on. It's just when you pair aA with a developer like Cresford who really wants it minimalist that the buildings are tougher to distinguish between (and even then, a practiced eye will still be able to tell them apart).

42
 

Back
Top