Toronto in.DE Dundas East & Jarvis Condominiums | 65.53m | 21s | Menkes | Turner Fleischer

ProjectEnd said:
Why would that force developers to use colour?
Click to expand...
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I think it's more of an exercise so interested parites can have better idea what it looks like, IMO. Would it "force" them to use colour in the end? Who knows.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's ^. It allows communities/planners to see how the building looks like in less appealing (and normal) conditions.
 
In the low late autumn light, this corner looks so depressing.

IMG_1744-001.JPG
 
ProjectEnd said:
*Spoiler Alert*: it wouldn't 'force' anything because if you're hiring TF for anything but AoR (and even then), you just don't care.
Click to expand...
They care enough for them to show the rendering in the current light though. Even if it's just a tool for marketing purposes.

...but you are right to a degree. That is, they'll still likely do what they do, because the bottom line is only what they really care about. It gets back to my point of grey being cheap.
 
Coloured panels costing half as much as grey ones? Some imaginary situation where it's demonstrably clear that colourful buildings sell better or faster than grey ones?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Coloured panels costing half as much as grey ones?
Click to expand...
Are you asking if they do cost less? Or are you claiming they are in a question? (Citation would be needed for the latter, please.)
 
allengeorge said:
Any ideas what could force a change away from the current situation where everything is grey/glass?
Click to expand...
ProjectEnd said:
Coloured panels costing half as much as grey ones? Some imaginary situation where it's demonstrably clear that colourful buildings sell better or faster than grey ones?
Click to expand...
Question and answer.
 
Amare said:
This is shaping up to be the most visually, soul-suckingly depressing neighborhood in the city. Street level is horrible everywhere around here, and the grey/black spandrel fest acts as the cherry on top.
Click to expand...

I live on this block and it really isn't that bad. Once some retail and the indigenous community hub open in square gardens plus the ryerson building, filmores, and grand hotel it will be a pretty lively area which will hopefully in turn cause the city to take care of the homeless a little more.

I'm tired of people who don't live in the area and just see low quality photos from the ground comment on how an area is because my soul sure hasn't been sucked out of my body.

The views are great, amenities in my building are awesome once they are more accessible, a lot of people around, they parks and community spaces are about to be refreshed in the area, and its a good location thats close to everything.

Not every neighbourhood has to be a 5 star area, we need locations that are affordable if we actually want people to live here.

It's hard for a developer to put in a ton of money in such a terrible area.

I get the buildings aren't the most attractive out there but for the neighbourhood and just being cheaper student housing it really isn't that bad.

I know they could be better but is it really worth it because I sure as hell would rather more affordable housing that doesn't look the best over satisfying a bunch of randoms on the internet who cry too much.
 
reteequa said:
I live on this block and it really isn't that bad. Once some retail and the indigenous community hub open in square gardens plus the ryerson building, filmores, and grand hotel it will be a pretty lively area which will hopefully in turn cause the city to take care of the homeless a little more.

I'm tired of people who don't live in the area and just see low quality photos from the ground comment on how an area is because my soul sure hasn't been sucked out of my body.

The views are great, amenities in my building are awesome once they are more accessible, a lot of people around, they parks and community spaces are about to be refreshed in the area, and its a good location thats close to everything.

Not every neighbourhood has to be a 5 star area, we need locations that are affordable if we actually want people to live here.

It's hard for a developer to put in a ton of money in such a terrible area.

I get the buildings aren't the most attractive out there but for the neighbourhood and just being cheaper student housing it really isn't that bad.

I know they could be better but is it really worth it because I sure as hell would rather more affordable housing that doesn't look the best over satisfying a bunch of randoms on the internet who cry too much.
Click to expand...
You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say: "It's hard for a developer to put in a ton of money in such a terrible area" while on the other you say: "I live on this block and it really isn't that bad". So which is it?

In my opinion, you're giving developers too much of a pass here. If the area/location is good, or even half-decent, a developer can easily afford to put in more money towards developing a high quality build, and in this particular area there is really no excuse not to do so asides from being just a cheap profit-maxing corporation that couldnt care less of the quality of their product. This area's proximity to various post-secondary institutions, rapid transit, retail, etc should be enough of a selling point to put money into any necessary funding into their builds. Regent Park which was once considered to be a "terrible area", was able to gain quality builds (for the most part) simply because the developers chose to invest in quality material selection. If it can happen in Regent Park, there is definitely no excuse for builds like this regardless of the location.

My original comment was from a pure aesthetic point of view. I've been around this neighbourhood very frequently and I am quite familiar with what's around there. The recent builds we've been seeing are not inspiring in the least and are visually dull and depressing (with the exception of the new Ryerson building), and I will stand by that.
 
"Cheap and ugly" vs "expensive and aesthetically pleasing" is a false choice. Good design and aesthetically pleasing material sets can be done on the cheap. It is simply a matter of laziness, lack of creativity and simple incompetency that the "cheap" buildings in this area (this condo, in particular) are ugly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top