Toronto Karma Condos | 165.8m | 50s | Lifetime | a—A

Poking up through College Park. Samsung quality.

20150604_203313_resized.jpg


20150604_192127_resized.jpg


20150604_113554_resized.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20150604_203313_resized.jpg
    20150604_203313_resized.jpg
    582.3 KB · Views: 2,447
  • 20150604_192127_resized.jpg
    20150604_192127_resized.jpg
    657 KB · Views: 2,466
  • 20150604_113554_resized.jpg
    20150604_113554_resized.jpg
    484.9 KB · Views: 2,435
Yesterday evening from Yonge and Wellesley:

DSC02138.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC02138.jpg
    DSC02138.jpg
    634.4 KB · Views: 1,641
Take away the surroundings and context of the photos, and for some reason, I find Karma and INDX looking very similar at their current construction phases. I almost forgot that they share a same developer too. hehe.
 
I think INDX is looking a lot nicer than karma. Not to say it's looking bad but there are a lot more details on INDX the overall shape of the floor plates, the varying glass colour. Let's hope they both turn out nice. Karma does not do it for me. I hope it's height will impress but the design and the glass do not. It's like a boring version of burano... Which other than its angles isn't the most exciting either
 
I don't understand this mentality. If a building doesn't look good to someone, then why would they want it to at least be tall (which would make it stand out even more). Wouldn't one want such a building to be as unnoticeable as possible? It's kind of like having a cold sore on one's lip and highlighting it with lip gloss.
 
Armour said:
I don't understand this mentality. If a building doesn't look good to someone, then why would they want it to at least be tall (which would make it stand out even more). Wouldn't one want such a building to be as unnoticeable as possible? It's kind of like having a cold sore on one's lip and highlighting it with lip gloss.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a Bloor & Spadina condo discussion. Plenty of ranting going on against Kirkor (as usual), from the same people who want that thing to be as tall as possible because there's a subway station and that's all that matters. Low rise neighbourhood be damned.
 
salsa said:
Reminds me of a Bloor & Spadina condo discussion. Plenty of ranting going on against Kirkor (as usual), from the same people who want that thing to be as tall as possible because there's a subway station and that's all that matters. Low rise neighbourhood be damned.
Click to expand...

Even where height is appropriate though, why would anyone want something they find unattractive, to be very tall, (which means its ugliness will be even more prevalent). Why even consider the design of a given building at all if one chooses to ignore that in favour of greater height? How is that any consolation? Wouldn't it make more sense to want an ugly building to be as small as possible? It's like: I've got a wart on my nose, but at least it's a really big one.

I bet these guys would be fine with a supertall made of bare cinderblocks. As long as they can see it from great distances, it contributes heft to the skyline and it makes them feel puny, then it becomes great, or at least salvageable. Such an utterly ridiculous way of rationalizing things.
 
Last edited:
kirkor has a design for Adelaide which is not a far stretch from stacked cinder blocks and personally I think it looks really interesting and can't wait to see it. Good for them.

If I really hated a building no, I wouldn't want it to be super tall. However despite my wishing for more interesting designs this does not mean I hate the less exciting ones. I would rather a nice well designed tall tower over an ugly one.

But I can admit without shame that I like tall structures. Keep them coming.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top