Toronto Discovery at Concord Park Place | ?m | 28s | Concord Adex | BDP Quadrangle

[sixrings]

I also think it is premature to judge the condos until the entire site is developed... In comparison I would say at the beginning of City Place I thought the design was terrrible... However after everythings coming together its starting to look pretty good... Im not saying that individually any of these buildings will win design awards, Im simply saying that as a group they might compliment each other.. In the end, its to early to tell right now...But what we do know is that the price is right.

 

[TheKingEast]

I never said they looked better some of the buildings at CityPlace and neither did sixrings. What we did acknowledge however was that DESPITE being bland, people will still buy the condos because they are willing to sacrifice good design for good price and good location.

In addition, I was only just responding to your original query as to what people see in these buildings and I never denied that giant grey mechanical box IS hideous and the design IS rather unremarkable. However, you can't seem to get over the fact that there is more to a building than just design characteristics which is what I am trying to point out to you.

And you can't seem to get over the fact that I think the project you purchased in is a bland glass box. Talk about being defensive. Money, location, etc is IRRELEVANT with regards to this discussion.

My comment about "what do people see in these buildings" was in response to those who thought they looked good, or that they looked better than the buildings at Cityplace. Where were you in that disussion? You only mentioned location and price points once I criticized the design. Is this not what this site is about? Critiquing design?

I have no dog in this race. I have no affiliation with Cityplace or Park Place....but you do. Funny.

 

[a-kau]

hahaha....i DO think its funny because YOU can't seem to get over the fact that i actually AGREE with you that it is a bland glass box. My POINT to this discussion is that DESPITE (you do know what that means right?) is that while it is not the most attractive building, there are redeeming qualities to it which is what all the sensible people who have contributed to this discussion can actually see. Besides, there are many many facets to "design" and price and location is most CERTAINLY a sub-set of this discipline. Nobody would buy a marvellously "designed" building if it is built in the middle of nowhere and not everybody can buy the $28 million dollar condo at Four Seasons which I am sure is beautifully "designed".

When building a condo, it is imperative that it be "designed" with the target market in mind which in this case is people might find it acceptable to sacrifice design for a good price and location and obviously not you, since you are so totally hung up on how it looks.

What seems to be the case here is that you can't accept that fact that somebody has agreed with your point and offered a rebuttal for which you have no argument to.

So "Yes", you once again correct. I do think it's funny but I hope you note that I am not laughing with you, I am laughing AT you. =)

 

[TheKingEast]

hahaha....i DO think its funny because YOU can't seem to get over the fact that i actually AGREE with you that it is a bland glass box. My POINT to this discussion is that DESPITE (you do know what that means right?) is that while it is not the most attractive building, there are redeeming qualities to it which is what all the sensible people who have contributed to this discussion can actually see. Besides, there are many many facets to "design" and price and location is most CERTAINLY a sub-set of this discipline. Nobody would buy a marvellously "designed" building if it is built in the middle of nowhere and not everybody can buy the $28 million dollar condo at Four Seasons. It needs to be "designed" with the target market in mind which in this case is people might find it acceptable to sacrifice design for a good price and location and obviously not you, since you are so totally hung up on how it looks.

What seems to be the case here is that you can't accept that fact that somebody has agreed with your point and offered a rebuttal for which you have no argument to.

So "Yes", you once again correct. I do think it's funny but I hope you note that I am not laughing with you, I am laughing AT you. =)

Again, I'm not sure how price point or location or what buyers feel about a building has any relevance to a discussion about design. If something is unpleasing to the eye, it's unpleasing to the eye. End of discussion. What's gut busting funny is your snarky attitude about it.

And how you can spout that location, price point, target market garbage when there are a good 20+ condos within a 10KM radius of that area (most of which are nicer looking and were CHEAPER) is the biggest laugh at all.


"We can't have nice looking buildings outside of downtown, no one's going to buy them." - and you're laughing at me?

 

[Wildymyst]

I think those matchbox rooftops at the Discovery 1 buildings will get lit up with some rainbow colour panels based on those models in the showroom.

The brown color in the Discovery 2 Building 'D' looks a bit out of place compared to the other buildings' colours, but I guess we'll see how that looks when everything in the Discovery buildings are built with completed landscaping. I don't think it was on the model in the showroom with that colour or in the pamphlets, or at least the color tone was different.

The project does seem to take longer than other projects around the area to complete. They haven't moved anyone in yet, but the building has been topped up for awhile. I don't know what to assume whether the longer wait is a good thing in that they are making sure the quality is ok before they start moving people in, or that something is wrong with the buildings, hence the extra time needed to make things right - whatever that is.

Does anyone have any factual information as to why it's taking them this long and still haven't moved people in the lower floors yet? I recall some posts in this thread in the past indicating something to do with the underground parking. I still don't quite understand those posts.

 

[a-kau]

Again, I'm not sure how price point or location or what buyers feel about a building has any relevance to a discussion about design. If something is unpleasing to the eye, it's unpleasing to the eye. End of discussion. What's gut busting funny is your snarky attitude about it.

And how you can spout that location, price point, target market garbage when there are a good 20+ condos within a 10KM radius of that area (most of which are nicer looking and were CHEAPER) is the biggest laugh at all.


"We can't have nice looking buildings outside of downtown, no one's going to buy them." - and you're laughing at me?

sigh... this is why I asked you if you knew what "despite" meant. "Despite" ParkPlace being unpleasing to the eye, people still bought it. Why? Because it's close to highway. Because it has a good price. And mostly for me, because it was close to the subway which I use a lot. Therefore, the location is important to me and that is why I am bringing MY "garbage" (or opinion most would say) to this discussion.

Also, I have no idea where you came up with that quote because I sure as heck didn't say it so I fail to see the relevance of bring that up.

And yes, I am laughing at you because you are tragically failing to see my point is even though i have already said it so many times. I mean it can't be that hard right? The previous couple of posts by other users seemed to have got it right away. Hmmm.

 

[Wildymyst]

I think the price points to buy into Concord Parkplace isn't that cheap (anymore). In fact, when I look at the prices of the remaining units, or what they're going for these days, I think everywhere is quite pricey. If people thought it was cheap to buy into the area before, they may want to check the prices now for the remaining units available. Whether the quality is good or not, its anyone's guess until the first people move in and check themselves. If Concord is to build 18 or so buildings, it should be in their interest to make a good impression with their first products.

 

[a-kau]

I think the price points to buy into Concord Parkplace isn't that cheap (anymore). In fact, when I look at the prices of the remaining units, or what they're going for these days, I think everywhere is quite pricey. If people thought it was cheap to buy into the area before, they may want to check the prices now for what's available and the price points. Whether the quality is good or not, its anyone's guess until the first people move in and check themselves.

Agreed. The VIP discounts from previous events are most certainly not going to be there any more and in regards to quality, I am hoping that they have learned to do better since CityPlace. Though I am feeling optimistic since I haven't heard too many complaints in regards to the newer condos Concord has built.

 

[TheKingEast]

sigh... this is why I asked you if you knew what "despite" meant. "Despite" ParkPlace being unpleasing to the eye, people still bought it. Why? Because it's close to highway. Because it has a good price. And mostly for me, because it was close to the subway which I use a lot. Therefore, the location is important to me and that is why I am bringing MY "garbage" (or opinion most would say) to this discussion.

What does any of this have to do with good design? Please tell me how this is relevant to the conversation?

And yes, I am laughing at you because you are tragically failing to see my point is even though i have already said it so many times. I mean it can't be that hard right? The previous couple of posts by other users seemed to have got it right away. Hmmm.

One thing I can't stand is a condescending idiot. LOL@ you using "despite" as if that gives you a pass to say some irrelevant bullshit.

 

[a-kau]

There are many factors to a good design as opposed to just looking nice. The most important aspect when designing should always be about what your target market would want because ultimately, you are trying to sell them something.

If you build this marvellous building but its priced out of your target market's affordability, then its useless because nobody will buy it hence why price is important. Specifically for real estate, the location is always THE prime variable in determining your target market. You wouldn't build ParkPlace in Bridal Path because it would be too expensive and your target market wouldn't buy it. By the same token, you wouldn't build a bridal path mansion in regent park either because even if your target market CAN afford such mansions, the location is not where want it to be hence why location is important.

Also, since you seem to be such an expert in "critiquing" real estate, im sure then, that you are aware of the old adage than when you buy real estate, its all about location, location, location. Therefore, when you conveniently disregard these 2 important elements in "critiquing" a piece of real estate, im not exactly sure who the condescending idiot that is spewing irrelevant bullshit is and after all this back and forth, if you still don't get my point, im not sure if you ever will and i couldn't be bothered any more in trying to explain concepts which seem to so foreign to you.

have a nice day. =)

 

[TheKingEast]

There are many factors to a good design as opposed to just looking nice. The most important aspect when designing should always be about what your target market would want because ultimately, you are trying to sell them something.

If you build this marvellous building but its priced out of your target market's affordability, then its useless because nobody will buy it hence why price is important. Specifically for real estate, the location is always THE prime variable in determining your target market. You wouldn't build ParkPlace in Bridal Path because it would be too expensive and your target market wouldn't buy it. By the same token, you wouldn't build a bridal path mansion in regent park either because even if your target market CAN afford such mansions, the location is not where want it to be hence why location is important.

Also, since you seem to be such an expert in "critiquing" real estate, im sure then, that you are aware of the old adage than when you buy real estate, its all about location, location, location. Therefore, when you conveniently disregard these 2 important elements in "critiquing" a piece of real estate, im not exactly sure who the condescending idiot that is spewing irrelevant bullshit is and after all this back and forth, if you still don't get my point, im not sure if you ever will and i couldn't be bothered any more in trying to explain concepts which seem to so foreign to you.

have a nice day. =)

I'm not critiquing real estate. That's where you FAIL (miserably). I'm critiquing BUILDING DESIGN. Location, location, location is a term used in REAL ESTATE. You can't possibly be this dense....

 

[a-kau]

I'm not critiquing real estate. That's where you FAIL (miserably). I'm critiquing BUILDING DESIGN. Location, location, location is a term used in REAL ESTATE. You can't possibly be this dense.

And your critique of "bland" is so epically wonderful I am left speechless. Bravo TheKingEast, bravo. And besides, I never claimed I was critiquing the building. I was merely providing a rebuttal as to people would want to buy a "bland" building but it seems not only can YOU not critique, logically following another's arguments seems to be beyond your grasp as well.

 

[TheKingEast]

And your critique of "bland" is so epically wonderful I am left speechless. Bravo TheKingEast, bravo. And besides, I never claimed I was critiquing the building. I was merely providing a rebuttal as to people would want to buy a "bland" building but it seems not only can YOU not critique, logically following another's arguments seems to be beyond your grasp as well.

And how dumb does that sound when your rebuttal has nothing to do with the "argument"? I never even questioned why people would buy into the building. Heck, I'd buy into it if the price was right. My only critique was of the building's design...and not of the people whou would buy it. You got defensive for absolutely no reason.

 

[a-kau]

And how dumb does that sound when your rebuttal has nothing to do with the "argument"? I never even questioned why people would buy into the building. Heck, I'd buy into it if the price was right. My only critique was of the building's design...and not of the people whou would buy it. You got defensive for absolutely no reason.

And you say I am the one that's defensive? LOL. Not only did I "AGREE" with what you said about ParkPlace, I am not the one resulting to petty insults such as going around calling people "idiots" and "dumb". Perhaps you should re-read some of your posts to see who the defensive one is.

 

[CasssiusX]

A few weeks ago, I thought this thread was dead!! Quite a lively discussion.

Most of us were given move in dates starting in Late Decemember 2011 to Late March 2012. Makes you wonder why they would have a massive movement of people in the middle of winter. Last year, I marched into the sales office to see the reason for all these delays. It was mentioned initially of some sort of river underground/contaminated land that prevented immediate development of the parking garage. The waiting has been killing me all these years but it seems that everything is still on progress. I saw plants in the court yard and by passing by, it looks like the underground parking lot it officially complete with two potential side entrances. I guess now more work needs to be done internally.