Toronto The Milan Condominium | ?m | 37s | Conservatory Group | Richmond Architects COMPLETE

  • Thread starter The Burgher of TO
  • Start date
taal said:
To be honest ... the glass is decent and the spandral isn't terrible ... I don't mind this one. Balcony glass could make a huge difference as well here.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For some reason I just don't hate this one. It's far better than other similarly-scaled buildings such as Couture.
 
I don’t necessarily hate the overall shape of it, but I just consider it completely objectionable that buildings are slapped together like this.




Also that podium is a particularly offensive bait and switch. I invite anyone to walk by and reconcile the render to what they are actually constructing.





See this entrance with the artfully staggered glass panels? Go look at what they’ve done instead.





see this lovely two story lobby? nice big (expensive) panes of glass aren't they?



here's what that corner looks like.




In other news, CBC is doing a big documentary next year on these kinds of buildings, called Faulty Towers. Going to shine a light on certain developers responsible for the glut of substandard buildings around the downtown core.

CBC execs look out their windows onto 300 Front St, so lets say they are pretty "fired up".
 
That doesn't look good. I totally agree and I think that Conservatory Group is one of the worst, if not the worst developer.

But I do like Tridel. They may make very conservative condo buildings, but they are not poorly constructed...and because they manage their own buildings they retain their value more than most. Just check out an older Tridel building and you will see how well they keep it up over the long term. I wouldn't mind seeing 300 Front St from my office building lol. I never care what CBC thinks, but I may check out the doc when it comes out...thanks :p
 
In regards to "slapped together" I think the only thing apparent from your photos is that the whole thing is pretty dirty. Not saying it's built to high standards, but from what I can see it's hard to claim it's terrible workmanship.

Now as for design and materials, that's another story.
 
It pains me that anyone would feel it necessary to defend this thing. It's completely lacking in anything except a deep interest in lining its developers' pockets. No architecture in sight here.
 
SP!RE said:
It pains me that anyone would feel it necessary to defend this thing. It's completely lacking in anything except a deep interest in lining its developers' pockets. No architecture in sight here.
Click to expand...

I can only agree with you, SP!RE. I am by this building often, and I am struck with disbelief when I see what the developer is getting away with. It's just plain cheesy.

And the name, "Milan"? That city, should they hear about this (unlikely, though that is) would be totally offended.
 
thedeepend, for once I agree with you. This thing is garbage and a complete bait and switch tactic like you mentioned. Infact, I was going to post the renders to this development months ago and how this project looks nothing like the 'light and airy' looking render proposed. What is the fascination with dark spandrel? Why couldn't they go with something light as shown in the renders? I hate saying, "what do you expect from Conservatory Group?" (look at their website - it shows this developer just doesn't care about anything). It's time these developers are held responsible for some of the garbage they are building. And I agree with you about 300 Front as well. It's EMBARRASSING when such a prominent developer with 50+ years of experience can put together such a steaming pile of poop.
 
When it's named after another place, it's usually an inferior project. The naming appeals to people's love of the exotic to distract them from the banality and mediocrity of the actual building. Truly great projects like Absolute or SP!RE don't do that.
 
the only exception I can think of for being a crappy condo when named after another city is London on the esplanade. that is a very nice condo. Milan? complete shite.
 
Bait and Switch?

with all this evidence of the design changes from what was sold, couldn't one theoretically just back out of their purchase? (thank god I didn't buy here... ) but then, it makes me wonder.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's not a 'loophole,' there's just no way one could write something like that into law.
Click to expand...

"the purchaser has the right to back out of the contract if the completed structure varies significantly from the version presented at the time of purchase. This may be voided if the changes are presented to the purchaser during the design process, and allow the purchaser to decide whether or not to back out of the purchase.

A significant variance can be regarded as:
1. Change is cladding type for a large portion, or visually important portion of the facade
2. Change in amount of elevators
3. change in floorplates
4. change in amenities
5. change in interior condo finishings"

there. wasn't that hard. still allows for crappy buildings to be constructed, but ensures that purchasers know they are buying a crappy building. People who bought here looked at those renders and saw a half decent building, not a complete PoS that it is turning out to be.
 
innsertnamehere said:
"the purchaser has the right to back out of the contract if the completed structure varies significantly from the version presented at the time of purchase. This may be voided if the changes are presented to the purchaser during the design process, and allow the purchaser to decide whether or not to back out of the purchase.

A significant variance can be regarded as:
1. Change is cladding type for a large portion, or visually important portion of the facade
2. Change in amount of elevators
3. change in floorplates
4. change in amenities
5. change in interior condo finishings"

there. wasn't that hard. still allows for crappy buildings to be constructed, but ensures that purchasers know they are buying a crappy building. People who bought here looked at those renders and saw a half decent building, not a complete PoS that it is turning out to be.
Click to expand...


"Change in cladding type for a large portion, or visually important portion of the facade"


it would be great if knowledge of this actually motivated some buyers to stand up to hack developers. there is little question that the bait and switch they performed on the podium is both a large and visually important portion of the facade. one of the worst i've seen, and one that potentially affect resale values i would imagine....






 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top