Dundas Square Gardens | 156.05m | 50s | Gupta | IBI Group

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
4,377
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Grid turned out to be better than average. Maybe it's the lack of balconies, maybe the pattern, maybe because it's sleeker, without a bulky and mismatched podium. I live in the area and I like it. But DSG just looks sloppy, overbearing and cheap
 

Yegger

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
636
Reaction score
871
Location
Downtown
the best part about this building is that it looks onto Grid. From afar, Dundas Square Gardens plays off Grid well, but damn, from up close it's nauseating
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
29,585
Location
Davenport
Childhood nostalgia


196244
 

TheSix

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
486
Reaction score
1,345
the best part about this building is that it looks onto Grid. From afar, Dundas Square Gardens plays off Grid well, but damn, from up close it's nauseating
I don't think this mess looks good from any distance, let alone any angle. If anything, DSG is what's holding the Grid back from really shining.
 

urbantorontoUser123

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 25, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I think you have your priorities messed up. Given a choice between a wrap-around balcony at Dundas Square vs. no (or tiny 80 sq ft Juliet balcony) balcony in Grid, majority of people would opt for Dundas Square Gardens, even pay a premium for it. Majority of units in both these apartments are small (in fact, tiny). Given that, a nearly 280-300 square feet balcony addition on top of 650-750 square feet of condo space makes the Dundas Square Gardens much more livable. Moreover, the covered balcony space in Grid allows the developers to include the area in the apartment square feet pricing, which is a joke. Dundas Square Gardens is a much better investment that way.

As per aesthetics of the buildings for outsiders -- who cares. Most Toronto buildings are ugly to look at. And many of those that are even slightly better looking have tonnes of issues including rattling noises, poor construction and so on. Most dwellers would trade livable over boring any day.

I don't think this mess looks good from any distance, let alone any angle. If anything, DSG is what's holding the Grid back from really shining.
 
Last edited:

TheSix

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
486
Reaction score
1,345
I think you have your priorities messed up. Given a choice between a wrap-around balcony at Dundas Square vs. no (or tiny 80 sq ft Juliet balcony) balcony in Grid, majority of people would opt for Dundas Square Gardens, even pay a premium for it. Majority of units in both these apartments are small (in fact, tiny). Given that, a nearly 280-300 square feet balcony addition on top of 650-750 square feet of condo space makes the Dundas Square Gardens much more livable. Moreover, the covered balcony space in Grid allows the developers to include the area in the apartment square feet pricing, which is a joke. Dundas Square Gardens is a much better investment that way.

As per aesthetics of the buildings for outsiders -- who cares. Most Toronto buildings are ugly to look at. And many of those that are even slightly better looking have tonnes of issues including rattling noises, poor construction and so on. Most dwellers would trade livable over boring any day.
I don't think this type of generalization is very constructive. Plus, you missed my point. My observation wasn't around "liveability", I was simply commenting on the exterior ascetics of the two buildings. Which is what this thread is for. So you know for next time, real estate comments are for the real estate thread.

Side note - I'm an owner, and I'd pick a balcony-less Grid unit over DSG any day of the week. I take pride in what the outside of my home looks like. And I assume I'm not the only one.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
24,655
Reaction score
24,317
Location
by the Humber
I don't think this type of generalization is very constructive. Plus, you missed my point. My observation wasn't around "liveability", I was simply commenting on the exterior ascetics of the two buildings. Which is what this thread is for. So you know for next time, real estate comments are for the real estate thread.

Side note - I'm an owner, and I'd pick a balcony-less Grid unit over DSG any day of the week. I take pride in what the outside of my home looks like. And I assume I'm not the only one.
The threads in the Buildings Forum are not restricted to exterior aesthetics, it's just that the Real Estate threads are meant for the concerns of actual and potential unit purchasers.

42
 

differential

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
122
Reaction score
194
I think you have your priorities messed up. Given a choice between a wrap-around balcony at Dundas Square vs. no (or tiny 80 sq ft Juliet balcony) balcony in Grid, majority of people would opt for Dundas Square Gardens, even pay a premium for it. Majority of units in both these apartments are small (in fact, tiny). Given that, a nearly 280-300 square feet balcony addition on top of 650-750 square feet of condo space makes the Dundas Square Gardens much more livable. Moreover, the covered balcony space in Grid allows the developers to include the area in the apartment square feet pricing, which is a joke. Dundas Square Gardens is a much better investment that way.

As per aesthetics of the buildings for outsiders -- who cares. Most Toronto buildings are ugly to look at. And many of those that are even slightly better looking have tonnes of issues including rattling noises, poor construction and so on. Most dwellers would trade livable over boring any day.

The ugly to look at is overblown. I don't think any of these buildings are ugly to look at.

Not architecturally stunning by any means, but to the layman they are shiny new glass highrises that lend a modern feel to the cityscape.
 

Lachlan Holmes

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
464
Reaction score
2,446
Location
Hamilton
The ugly to look at is overblown. I don't think any of these buildings are ugly to look at.

Not architecturally stunning by any means, but to the layman they are shiny new glass highrises that lend a modern feel to the cityscape.
Agreed, not a masterpiece but I certainly wouldn't label it ugly. It's a fine filler and I personally like the look of it. The only missed opportunity that jumps out to me is the clear balcony glass. Could look better with white fritted panes.
 

Top