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

  • Thread starter The Burgher of TO
  • Start date
I'm going to keep defending it until its finished and only then decide ... renderings are not meant to be 100% factual representations, you can see this everyone in life (its not limited to buildings).

Next, the comments regarding the "lack of quality / not built to last nature of condos [or this one in particular I should say]" ... first of all, I have no idea how you can discern that from simply pictures alone ... quality materials does not at all necessarily equate to something that is built to last ... this is something that would require structural engineer to determine. I'm sure there are many examples of esthetically non-pleasing buildings ... and I'm referring to a lack of finishing (or quality finishing) ...
 
thedeepend said:
"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....
Click to expand...


I agree buyers should be more educated ... but tell me exactly where this major change in cladding is ? The renderings are not very far off in my opinion, less the base, the rest resembles what we have !
 
A rendering is not a legal document, nor is it a part of the purchase and sale agreement. A rendering is not a blue print, architectural drawing, construction drawing etc.... It is an artistic impression for advertising - no amount of potential changes to the condo act would ever allow purchasers to back out of major contracts due to an artistic interpretation of what a project might look like years in advance of detailed construction drawings even being finalised. I'm not defending the quality of the building in question, merely pointing out that buyers should do their homework in terms of who they buy off of and to note that a rendering is not now, nor will ever be a legally binding document.
 
I realize that it differs from the final product and that's why I stated that the developers must ask purchasers if they wish to make a change to the design. And maybe this rule would force a more accurate render, and maybe ensure that purchasers get to see a dumbed down. Version of the actual plans to decide. The bottom line is that condos often end up looking much cheaper and worse than what purchasers thought they were buying into, and there should be a way to fix this.
 
Ever designed a product before? A condo is a product and it takes time. Think of the artistic renderings for future cars then check reality. Rules & regulations, costs, production capability, etc.

I judge renderporn...but also architecture. However, I know all about reality thanks to working as a product designer in manufacturing.

Example: My NimbyTect drawings. I know in reality there are zoning regulations, building code states a window opening must be in certain areas, costs of producing unique panels vs "off the shelf" etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but rendering should be ACCURATE. Architecture students are always encouraged to make renderings accurate and reliable to a finished product. On the other hand, a lot of these condos' renderings are renderings created by marketers, and are a whole different animal than architects' renderings (which are often more accurate).
 
I disagree. A good rendering should sell the project. :D

(Now in the case of Leslieville Lofthouses, the rendering did a poor job "selling" the design to me. The reality is an awesome surprise. It is an example of simple affordable elements assembled/designed to please the eye.)

At Milan Residences, the only critical piece of information to know about was the architect, and perhaps the developer's past projects. The architect + the developer here were red flags warning of what would happen in reality. Add in the huge delay in this project and cost cutting isn't surprising.

You all know by now what I believe: a good rendering plus a good architect is a guaranteed winner.
 
Last edited:
thedeepend said:
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".
Click to expand...

This is great news. Many developers have been getting away with a lot of crap over the years.
 
Looks like it came down to cost (smaller panes are cheaper and "standard" sized), perhaps a retail tenant wanted operable windows (a restaurant maybe?), black aluminum was the standard (cheapest) colour vs the silver, and also the architect's supply chain could be "inferior" (lol probably :p) and more.

Bottom line is this: If the architect of record is EI Richmond, don't buy!

If you want a detail-oriented control freak with a strong sense of aesthetics/design, go for the aA, S+P and Teeples of the condo world.
 
EI Richmond has done great work at park side village so I don't agree with quality issues with the architect. This development is entirely the conservatory groups fault.
 
PSV is--as P/E would say--a "hack job." Obviously the developer there is relatively new to Toronto and wants to make a good impression. I wouldn't say it's "great work" maybe ok work. It's pretty dull and uninspiring--MCC desperately needs bold beautiful modern architecture that can compete with the standard set by its City Hall building.

Take a look at CG's portfolio--mostly "junk" in the 905 and 416 suburbs.

EI Richmond, G+C etc aren't known for their "designs"--can you imagine them winning architect awards?
 
Last edited:
It is a very boring structure, but it is also a very well built structure with good high quality materials. Whether they are the best for the buildings context is irrelevant as I am simply stating that the quality problems of Milan are not EI richmonds fault as the quality materials in PSV prove that they are capable of producing a high quality product.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top