Toronto Casa III Condos | 179.52m | 55s | Cresford | a—A

And I completely agree with your second point and it is my point exactly. VARIATIONS ON A THEME was my argument all along. I never said anything about carbon copies.

My issue is that there is so little deviation between Casa I & II, that if the third one is substantial similar, then we won't really be getting variations of a theme, but rather carbon copies. The only substantial difference between Casa I & II is height and the gold crown on the latter. I'd much prefer a Casa/Theatre Park/Charlie combo than a Casa/Casa/Casa combo.
 
I just meant that you are applying a psychological theory to a concept that I don't think it fits on; no offense intended. I just don't think the psychological theories you pointed out explain neighbourhood development very accurately. It's applicable, but it's not a cause-and-effect scenario, IMO. But anyways, moving on...

Your point about designing after people's tastes is a very good point though. Residential construction in this city seems very driven by the desire to have floor-to-ceiling glazing, and so I understand why developers and architects keep turning to it over and over again. It's a sexy thing to look at, and it's a great way to maximize sunlight and views. Some of us just keep dreaming that stricter environmental controls will spawn more architectural diversity, including on streets like Charles. Where are the Picasso condos, and other buildings that don't use floor-to-ceiling-glazing ad nauseam? Lots of cities around the world are building projects that use different materials, and often to great effect.

Even though buildings like CASA are very sexy and attractive to look at (for those of us who appreciate modern architecture, at least), I hope for more diversity, especially because one day these buildings will all be 30, 40 years old and from the same era. It's not the end of the world, but I think it would make for a better Charles Street down the road.
 
Last edited:
I've spent a little more time researching Casa II and 50 Charles East. I don't think we'll get a campus solution here, or at least it is unlikely based on the size of the lots. 50 Charles East has just about exactly the same frontage as does 42 Charles East, (approx. 36m), and as Casa II pretty much fills the lot. I think it's pretty unlikely that the two towers will have a plaza of any kind for a dialogue at ground level. The Casa III tower is likely to be pushed back against Hayden Street edge to maximize tower separation and views: Casa II is pushed up against Charles, and the tower runs approximately three fifths the length of the block. Maybe Casa III will be turned east-west along Hayden. We'll see a site plan soon I suppose!

In the meantime, the Casa II dataBase page has had a number of images added that help fill in the info.

42
 
I've spent a little more time researching Casa II and 50 Charles East. I don't think we'll get a campus solution here, or at least it is unlikely based on the size of the lots. 50 Charles East has just about exactly the same frontage as does 42 Charles East, (approx. 36m), and as Casa II pretty much fills the lot. I think it's pretty unlikely that the two towers will have a plaza of any kind for a dialogue at ground level. The Casa III tower is likely to be pushed back against Hayden Street edge to maximize tower separation and views: Casa II is pushed up against Charles, and the tower runs approximately three fifths the length of the block. Maybe Casa III will be turned east-west along Hayden. We'll see a site plan soon I suppose!

In the meantime, the Casa II dataBase page has had a number of images added that help fill in the info.

42

It would be very interesting if they arranged the third tower fronting Hayden as you said, continuing the diagonal axis formed by Casa I & II
Forgive my inaccurate scribble:

GJsUHd7.jpg
 
I just meant that you are applying a psychological theory to a concept that I don't think it fits on; no offense intended. I just don't think the psychological theories you pointed out explain neighbourhood development very accurately. It's applicable, but it's not a cause-and-effect scenario, IMO. But anyways, moving on...

Your point about designing after people's tastes is a very good point though. Residential construction in this city seems very driven by the desire to have floor-to-ceiling glazing, and so I understand why developers and architects keep turning to it over and over again. It's a sexy thing to look at, and it's a great way to maximize sunlight and views. Some of us just keep dreaming that stricter environmental controls will spawn more architectural diversity, including on streets like Charles. Where are the Picasso condos, and other buildings that don't use floor-to-ceiling-glazing ad nauseam? Lots of cities around the world are building projects that use different materials, and often to great effect.

Even though buildings like CASA are very sexy and attractive to look at (for those of us who appreciate modern architecture, at least), I hope for more diversity, especially because one day these buildings will all be 30, 40 years old and from the same era. It's not the end of the world, but I think it would make for a better Charles Street down the road.

I agree with everything in this post. Just don't hold your breath. I keep tilting at the windmill of wall to wall windows as an environmental waste as well as highly impractical in daily use, but to no avail... The brain-dead first time buyers just keep wantin' 'em 'cause their friend's got 'em.
 
I heard (awhile ago) the lot next door on Hayden (the entire block including most of what's on Church Street as well) is to go highrise. 50s here as well?

With all this development, you'd think we would see some more action on Church. It's so desolate as of now. There's almost nothing there in terms of retail, aside from MLG. Way too many parking lots and small structures that do nothing for the street for such an important corridor.
 
That is CASA II... Note BSN right next door. III would be on the lot to the right where that representation of the Post office is.
 
Sorry - it was intended as a joke - I'm quite sure Casa III will be just as "distinctive" as Casa II (& Casa I).
 
Last edited:
Some of these people are going to have such awesome views...Looking at the picture above some people are staring right into another unit or even staring at a brick wall. Who would buy a unit facing wall??? What a joke...
 
The comparison of three Casa towers to a tract subdivision is reductio ad absurdum.

I'm not saying that downtown is going to look literally like a suburban subdivision. I'm saying that the repetition of the same buildings may come to be regarded as a reflection of cheap mass production (the most units for the least design costs) rather than an actual aesthetic statement. This is not so much a problem in this neck of the woods, but I think repetition has had a negative impact on the waterfront/south core where almost every tower is repeated at least once. It really does give the skyline a kind of mass produced quality rather than reflecting the kind of beauty we see in TD.
 
Some of these people are going to have such awesome views...Looking at the picture above some people are staring right into another unit or even staring at a brick wall. Who would buy a unit facing wall??? What a joke...

You expect to live in downtown, but you don't want any buildings nearby. Or maybe you do, but just ones that you can't see out of your window/balcony? Am I understanding that correctly?
 

Top