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

Today:

PXL_20241110_183128964.jpg
 
ProjectEnd said:
For all the shit this thing takes, it's easily got one of the best, if not the best MPH sections of anything in this dumb City. Will be very cool to see it used by residents from afar.
Click to expand...
Yea, I actually think this building is fairly well executed by Toronto standards, if a little bland. It looks like it would be a decent condo complex to live in.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Yea, I actually think this building is fairly well executed by Toronto standards, if a little bland. It looks like it would be a decent condo complex to live in.
Click to expand...
Quality-wise probably the best in CityPlace (one hopes anyway, given the hype in their marketing). Architecturally, debatable if it's CityPlace's finest. In any case, both are not saying much.
 
christiesplits said:
I see very little redeeming qualities. I find it way too bulky at street level and the Maple Leaf motif very tacky.
Click to expand...
It's bland, but has excellent amenity space, decent sized, functional floorplans, a very large number of units to spread maintenance costs between, large balconies (with heaters!), a decent amount of parking with highway access, etc.

As I said, architecturally the buildings are bland. Not lookers at all, but also not ugly per se. Material selections are decent, just implemented in the most inoffensive manner possible. Pure function, but I do think the building appears to be fairly functional. Which honestly is a lot more than what many condo buildings can claim these days.

I'd live here if it wasn't for the location right next to the Skydome. A bit too busy for my tastes.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It's bland, but has excellent amenity space, decent sized, functional floorplans, a very large number of units to spread maintenance costs between, large balconies (with heaters!), a decent amount of parking with highway access, etc.

As I said, architecturally the buildings are bland. Not lookers at all, but also not ugly per se. Material selections are decent, just implemented in the most inoffensive manner possible. Pure function, but I do think the building appears to be fairly functional. Which honestly is a lot more than what many condo buildings can claim these days.

I'd live here if it wasn't for the location right next to the Skydome. A bit too busy for my tastes.
Click to expand...
Classic chicken-and-egg problem: while I’m tempted to say we should make developers be accountable for their design by refusing to live in an ‘ugly’/bland building, if we do that, there’ll be a LOT more homeless people in our city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top