Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

Concord's developments in Vancouver aren't what they used to be either. Concord Brentwood and Concord Metrotown are mediocre in both design and urban form. Granted they are still better than this. Concord has deteriorated in both Toronto and Vancouver proportionally.

The one project in Calgary came with a super luxurious price point. It was designed by Arthur Erickson's firm but, the finished building has a Concord quality to it. It's not at par with The One in Toronto.
 
Amare said:
As for this development, it's going to be certified gutter trash and there's no question about it.
Click to expand...
...I mean, you could use the one side as a ski slope on this trash heap...but that's about all it has to offer in, er..."worthwhile" amenities. >.<
 
maestro said:
Concord's developments in Vancouver aren't what they used to be either. Concord Brentwood and Concord Metrotown are mediocre in both design and urban form. Granted they are still better than this. Concord has deteriorated in both Toronto and Vancouver proportionally.

The one project in Calgary came with a super luxurious price point. It was designed by Arthur Erickson's firm but, the finished building has a Concord quality to it. It's not at par with The One in Toronto.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree then. I think they're blowing us out of the water. I was unaware that the Calgary project was Erickson's firm (I wonder when / if they'll pursue phase 2), but having seen it again in person last week, it's so far ahead of almost anything we're doing here, it's genuinely embarrassing. Bosa's Evolution by James Cheng is also a fantastic little complex. Their new JV with RioCan, 5th and Third, is also very good.

In general, following the Lower Mainland more closely completely black pilled me on our appalling, race-to-the-bottom, local development culture. Our units are worse, our outdoor spaces (balconies and terraces) are worse, our buildings (on the whole) are worse, our standards in general seem, worse. You may or may not love something like Concord Brentwood (and that's entirely fine), but there isn't a single developer doing columns like this anywhere near Toronto:
1697589226592.png


By contrast, that same developer (ostensibly) has recently put forward this steaming turd in our "fine city":
1697589323117.png


I dunno. It's maybe unhelpful to be so doom and gloom, but it's a deep hole we're in here. Our development and construction culture is extremely conservative and I'm just hoping the light shining from some of the newer, smaller, shops will shine through.
 
Undead said:
Curious, why is there such a difference?
Click to expand...
Maybe they can charge more in Vancouver, so they can use better design and materials? Or condo buyers/investors in Vancouver are more discerning when it comes to designs? In general I find Vancouver has more interesting highrise designs than Toronto, although obviously not as tall. I remember seeing a condo (not too tall, maybe 30 floors) in downtown Van (Robson St?) where the ground floor is almost completely set among a pond/water feature, with the rest of the tower cantilevered over it (not a Concord project). Then there's Vancouver House, The Butterfly (under construction), etc.
 
internal culture of firms mostly. The price points are there - toronto has similar sale prices psf and actually lower construction costs than the lower mainland from my understanding.

The missing piece is simply a culture of creating something good. Toronto’s firms mostly don’t care and will create an awful building to eke out an extra 1% profit.

There are a lot of firms in Toronto who care and do good work and spend that 1% to make sure their product is solid, don’t get me wrong. There are just a lot that don’t. And Concord is one of the worst offenders on that front.

For a long time you had developers like Tridel who cared immensely about their buildings, but focused almost solely on interiors, too. 10 year old Tridel buildings are immaculate and wonderful buildings to live in, but you better avert your eyes walking in.. they’ve improved on that front a lot lately, but still have a preference for @ProjectEnd s favourite architect so still have problems there..

You can do good buildings with shoestring budgets if you think it through - they may not win architectural awards at low price points, but they can be good. Concord usually doesn’t even operate in a low price environment and still puts out crap.

Ironically Park Place is concords best work in Toronto IMO, and that’s their lowest price point product. And best work is relative here.
 
I haven't done any work in Vancouver on valuation, but I bet the buildable rate to acquire land is lower than Toronto, even if the end-user unit price is the same or higher. Land values might be higher here due planning policy around the growth centres; when you pack all demand in to a few smaller areas, you increase the land value. Not sure if Vancouver's planning rules are quite as containing when it comes to developable land.

The development industry often doesn't mention high land costs at their conferences.

But, I also agree with PE, our development industry here is not very creative and very conservative. Personally, I find their greed tacky, and ethical lapses (some of which you know about from recent news, but also hiring expensive lawyers and unethical appraisers to get to below-market values for taxation) to be problematic, since it shifts tax burden on to regular people. In short, they do not pay their fair share of taxes, so when they cry about taxes, just know in the background they are welfare recipients.

And now I will apologize for taking this thread off the rails, as per my MO. ;)
 
UrbanAffair said:
I haven't done any work in Vancouver on valuation, but I bet the buildable rate to acquire land is lower than Toronto, even if the end-user unit price is the same or higher. Land values might be higher here due planning policy around the growth centres; when you pack all demand in to a few smaller areas, you increase the land value. Not sure if Vancouver's planning rules are quite as containing when it comes to developable land.
Click to expand...

I will offer that I am no expert in the Vancouver marketplace, but I am not at all certain this is an issue.

biv.com

Vancouver land prices top all cities in Canada: Colliers

Vancouver has the highest land prices across three real estate asset classes, according to real estate firm
biv.com biv.com

Vancouver real estate is very pricey. I know a site traded this year for 95M (for ~ 1 acre)

Pssst, Vancouver not only has a Greenbelt at its outer limits

1697633130090.jpeg

From: https://bcfarmsandfood.com/farmland-protection-is-not-enough/

But also Mountains and National and Provincial Parks:

1697633242010.png


There is a bit of sprawl room left beyond Surrey as you head up the Fraser Valley, but not that much.

UrbanAffair said:
But, I also agree with PE, our development industry here is not very creative and very conservative. Personally, I find their greed tacky, and ethical lapses (some of which you know about from recent news, but also hiring expensive lawyers and unethical appraisers to get to below-market values for taxation) to be problematic, since it shifts tax burden on to regular people. In short, they do not pay their fair share of taxes, so when they cry about taxes, just know in the background they are welfare recipients.
Click to expand...

This in spades. Lazy clients and lazy arch. firms.

Let's allow that the City's more officious planners over the years w/their really hard stick to the square building, and the angular plane don't help any. But note that the best buildings we've seen in this City have arisen the same planning environment.

If you know how to talk nicely to Planning and the Councillor, and sell a vision, more often than not, breathing room has been available.

UrbanAffair said:
And now I will apologize for taking this thread off the rails, as per my MO. ;)
Click to expand...

You did no such thing, we all took it off track several posts ago; but we probably should steer it back to the specific problematic, design-challenged building at hand!
 
Last edited:
UrbanAffair said:
Interesting, I had no idea Vancouver land for residential was that expensive.
Click to expand...
It is extremely so. And while @Northern Light is correct re: the 'Greenbelt', you need to remember that Van does have an extremely tight 'yellowbelt' too. Mix that with view cone / corridor policy and the absence of any board of appeal (OLT, OMB, etc.), and you've got a very different entitlement culture there. This has caused the very-high density (50s+) explosion in places like Burnaby, Coquitlam, Burquitlam, Surrey, etc. in the last decade - they were more permissive and Vancouver really just got more NIMBY.
 
Absolutely love reading about these details and facts from above from those who know the in's and out's of the various factors at play which could make a developer/development so uninspiringly cheap, bland and drab.

The general synopsis from what i'm taking from above is that in Concord Adex's case, they just couldnt care less about their designs/build quality and just choose to continually put out crap because they have no ambition to do better and to pad their profits by a percentage or two. Which is what i've always suspected was the case with them, just good to know it's being pointed out in clearer terms.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It is extremely so. And while @Northern Light is correct re: the 'Greenbelt', you need to remember that Van does have an extremely tight 'yellowbelt' too. Mix that with view cone / corridor policy and the absence of any board of appeal (OLT, OMB, etc.), and you've got a very different entitlement culture there. This has caused the very-high density (50s+) explosion in places like Burnaby, Coquitlam, Burquitlam, Surrey, etc. in the last decade - they were more permissive and Vancouver really just got more NIMBY.
Click to expand...


They still have a "board of variance" to appeal any municipal decision. However, the development approach in Vancouver is more of a round-table discussion per se. The objective is for all stakeholders all agree "Yup, this development is not an eyesore to the surrounding neighbourhood context.'

Compared to Toronto...I mean it's a whole different ball game.

More additional notes! Vancouver's development industry is primarily made up of local family-run businesses that have been in the development game for many decades which contribute to the culture of exclusivity. The city of Vancouver's planning department has connected a long time relationship with the same development family for many years which makes development there more collaborative.

The culture of OLT simply doesn't work in Vancouver due to the fact the City of Vancouver offers a "prescriptive" approach where the city sets a hard limit on the amount of FSI that can be built on a given area. Thus the developer often works with a much tighter constraint. Some construction techniques like "glass curtain wall glazing" are not allowed and this.

vancouver.ca

Protecting Vancouver's views

We are working to protect our spectacular ocean and mountain views, while permitting the development of taller buildings in strategic locations.
vancouver.ca vancouver.ca
 
Last edited:
V shaped columns are common design elements in Toronto. just not to this extreme. It's a good thing as these open ground floors with exposed concrete cores and v shaped perimeter columns as it's about as anti-urban an environment as they come. One tower is cool. The fours towers of Concord Brentwood and 5 towers of Concord Metrotown are architectural boring hellscapes.

You have me on that last rendering.


Vancouver was always ahead of Toronto. It's quality is deteriorating just as fast for the middle
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top