To be fair many of these buildings have interiors that, while lacking in the appeal of the finishings, are proportioned and layed out in a better fashion than much of what we are building today. Is architecture or architecture style something we reserve for the exterior skin of the building? Or is it something that encompasses the whole building inside and out? Is a Victorian house that has been gutted and turned into a contemporary loft style but that remains Victorian on the outside, still a Victorian building?
Not only are they better proportioned but, judging by the real estate listings, they are "family-sized" condos with terrific amenities. I think much of that park space around some of these places gets used more than one would think. (I'm a dog person so I know where I would be if we needed a "quickie" sortie.) I'd take those boring repeating *BIG* balconies over some of those scary tiny glass enclosed ones we see so often now.
But these are very interesting questions you ask TrickyRicky. Form or function? Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in a concrete block that is well-laid out and spacious than some sleek glass tower with long tunnels for entrances and no room big enough for a king bed or two kids in twins.
Incidentally, I see those brown buildings starting at Bloor/Danforth and snaking their way up along the east side of the DVP like they were springing one from the other.