Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

Toronto is the only Western city I can think of that would allow this kind of aesthetic travesty to be dumped on it and the lack of vision and civic pride on view is truly shameful. The city has really been scraping the bottom for the past few years (Ford, Leafs, grey boxes, G20, etc...) but things like this put additional dents in a very deep floor.

I feel nothing but shame and disgust for all those involved in this cynical cash grab. Cityplace--an already fetid, putrifying cake--is now getting its final dollop of fecal icing. Bravo Concord and PoS for setting the bar at an unbeatable new low.
 
ushahid said:
the city should force Concord to redesign this thing.
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY want the City to have that kind of power? What about when some particular design reviewer wants to keep a plot of land empty to preserve his personal view? All he would have to do is keep rejecting every design on aesthetic grounds (which cannot be challenged with facts, since they are subjective).

There's a lot of BS being spouted on this thread about how no other city in the world would allow such travesties to be built. This is utter tripe, of course. The vast majority of towers built around the world are unremarkable at best, it's only the outstanding ones that ever become well known outside their city, and therefore are thought by morons to be typical examples of what is being built outside Toronto..
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Why does Concord insist on using these philistines?
Click to expand...

Quite simply they are efficient at squeezing the maximum number of units into a tower - and at the end of the day whether we like it or not - to a developer the only thing that matters is the bottom line
 
Irishmonk said:
Toronto is the only Western city I can think of that would allow this kind of aesthetic travesty to be dumped on it and the lack of vision and civic pride on view is truly shameful. The city has really been scraping the bottom for the past few years (Ford, Leafs, grey boxes, G20, etc...) but things like this put additional dents in a very deep floor.

I feel nothing but shame and disgust for all those involved in this cynical cash grab. Cityplace--an already fetid, putrifying cake--is now getting its final dollop of fecal icing. Bravo Concord and PoS for setting the bar at an unbeatable new low.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong is the financial centre of the Eastern world and it's filled with far worse buildings. There's plenty of crap buildings to be found in cities around the world, there's nothing special about Toronto in this respect.
 
Also, "cynical cash grab"? Hahahahahahahaha, do you think developers build towers out of the goodness of their own heart? Get a grip, these towers aren't Hitler reincarnated, they're just mediocre.
 
P23:

Why settle for mere mediocrity when there are extant examples of superior architecture even within this city? Added height and density comes with responsibilities.

AoD
 
Is it not still possible that this proposal goes to the Design Review Board? (for its sheer size alone, I would certainly hope so)
 
Mongo said:
Do you REALLY want the City to have that kind of power? .
Click to expand...

Design review panels are only as good as the people on it. This particular administration is so bad at everything, even the council doesn't want the mayor to have any power. Power needs to be in good hands before it is effective.

The major mistake was giving this entire 45 acre site to a single developer...rule #1 on the Jane Jacobs list of how to city build. This is something well within the power of the city at the time. The city could have assured a more mixed use instead of 99% residential with a few retail outlets here and there. A new park is nice, but could have gotten that in any event.

The consumer is to blame, not the developer. t's like complaining to McDonalds for not having better food. They are in it for the numbers. If they had to offer a better product, they would have to charge more money and the lineups would be smaller. As long as the consumer is buying, why change the menu?

The only saving grace is the competitive nature of the Toronto condo market. If it weren't for that, the quality would be even worse if you can imagine that. $200k - $300k brand new downtown condos is a product that doesn't even exist in other major global city markets (NYC, London, HK, etc)
 
I don't think it's a question of 'forcing' Concord to redesign but I do think the city should have some sort of special review panel for higher buildings where there's more scrutiny involved than say a typical 30-storey tower.
While I agree that these buildings are super boring, Concord can't offer affordable units if they hire some fancy architect or held a design competition that resulted in a super expensive building to design and build. These towers are cheap to build and the market needs this mix of affordability. Just please delete the art component on the building. It looks really dumb.
 
Logan said:
I don't think it's a question of 'forcing' Concord to redesign but I do think the city should have some sort of special review panel for higher buildings where there's more scrutiny involved than say a typical 30-storey tower.
While I agree that these buildings are super boring, Concord can't offer affordable units if they hire some fancy architect or held a design competition that resulted in a super expensive building to design and build. These towers are cheap to build and the market needs this mix of affordability. Just please delete the art component on the building. It looks really dumb.
Click to expand...

They are asking for a significantly higher amount of density than the original scheme - I found the not being able to afford to aspect of the argument uncompelling.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
P23:

Why settle for mere mediocrity when there are extant examples of superior architecture even within this city? Added height and density comes with responsibilities.

AoD
Click to expand...

Because it's a fact of life and there is nothing that will change it. For every Parthenon there are 10 mud huts right beside it. Cities have been around for millennia, it's not a new thing and it won't go away any time soon.
 
CITY_LOVER said:
Interchange42 and other influential members of this forum:

Is there anyway we (as in UrbanToronto members) can bring our disdain for this horrific proposal to the city and Concord so that there's at least some chance that the design can be re-considered? I remember reading somewhere recently (was it the X2 thread?) that what gets discussed on this forum can be taken seriously by stakeholders in the development industry. (Or was I just dreaming all this?)

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

dt_toronto_geek said:
Go to the community consultations when they happen. Remember the City always kind of has it's hands tied to an extent when negotiating elements like retail, design, more two/three bedrooms, a number of geared-to-income units, green space and on & on - the OMB.
Click to expand...

dt_t_g is right. If you have concerns about a plan, then attend the community consultations.

MikeOlivo-Moore said:
Is it not still possible that this proposal goes to the Design Review Board? (for its sheer size alone, I would certainly hope so)
Click to expand...

The DRP was set up as a pilot project. It's still in that stage, with some changes—including expansion of its ability to review more buildings—that will be considered by the next Council. During the pilot stage, not every part of the city was included in its mandate, and CityPlace was not one of the areas that Council charged the DRP with reviewing.

42
 
interchange42 said:
dt_t_g is right. If you have concerns about a plan, then attend the community consultations.



The DRP was set up as a pilot project. It's still in that stage, with some changes—including expansion of its ability to review more buildings—that will be considered by the next Council. During the pilot stage, not every part of the city was included in its mandate, and CityPlace was not one of the areas that Council charged the DRP with reviewing.

42
Click to expand...

The DRP hasn't been a pilot project since 2009. It is now permanent.

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=869652cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

The feasibility for incorporating a Design Review Panel within the development approvals in Toronto was examined during a pilot period which ran from 2007-2009. During this period, the Panel reviewed development proposals and public projects within selected Pilot Areas of the City. Evaluation of the Pilot Project, which included consultation with the design and development industry, showed that the review process was seen as being a largely positive addition to the development approvals process (For more information click here and search for "design review panel". No major objections to the process were identified throughout the course of the Pilot Project. Constructive comments and suggestions for improvement provided during this period were used to refine the process so that it more accurately responds to the interests of all stakeholders. The two-year term of the Pilot Project provided sufficient examination of the process, and City Council approved a permanent and expanded format at the end of pilot period.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top