Toronto Pinnacle Centre Condos | 161.84m | 55s | Pinnacle | P + S / IBI

Not at all. Everyone knows a lady's name only appears in the paper three times in her life - her birth, her wedding, and her death.
 
^Well said.


As for balconies, I live in abuilding without one - and hate it.
 
Hydrogen said:
^Well said.


As for balconies, I live in a building without one - and hate it.
Click to expand...

I lived in an amazing highrise for 9 years without a balcony and it sucked. Balconies may not always look great aesthetically but they're a necessary evil for many highrise dwellers. We get 5 good months out of them in this climate plus they're a handy alternative to smoking inside. I'm guilty of that disgusting habit but I never smoke inside my home.
 
Some of the ugliest apartment buildings I've seen have no balconies...many seemingly superfluous or poky little balconies are redeemed if only through the way they make a slab or cereal box look like a residential building instead of a sterile, squalid vertical tomb (like 1001 Bay St, for example).
 
To clarify the Pinnacle Centre's balcony situations...

The first tower to go up at the PCtr and the latest to be in sales - Pinnacle - are situated along the north side of the complex. The north sides of those towers abut the Jarvis off-ramp of the eastbound Gardiner, so the balconies along their north faces at least are only above an off ramp, and not directly above the highway itself. Not that that suddenly makes them havens of open-air peace, but it could be worse...

All that said, I'd never buy a unit right on the Gardiner...

42
 
I live in one of those 80's buildings with the sunrooms. Thankfully the previous owner had it removed so we have a larger living room. The deck with pool on the roof more than makes up for the lack of a balcony.

My brother-in-law owns a unit at City Place. The balcony is all of 25 square feet. Enough for a couple of people having a smoke. Considering the unit itself is only 520 square feet I'd would have preferred they put the 25 square feet towards making the unit larger.
 
^How do those 80's buildings compare to the new condos? I'm a bargain hunter and can't believe the value on resales at the summit condos@ king&bathurst. They have sunrooms that look bigger than any balcony i've seen at sales centres.

Anyhow, some of you missed my point about Toronto balconies; i'm not saying they're useless but rather that many Toronto developers/architects don't know how to design a nice looking condo with balconies. (Peter Clewes and a few others excepted.) Look at ROCP for example: the tacky base and awkward balconies ruin what would otherwise be an average-but-bareable-looking highrise. Then compare that development to Spire: balconies done right! Then there's those Prii 1960's apt's (done right!) vs. those slabs seen all over town and the suburbs (ugh.)

Granted, i'm a hypocrite! Nothing better i love than relaxing quietly on a saturday or sunday morning with the globe/nytimes and breakie outside during the summer--on the balcony.

Just don't put cheap Home Depot/walmart/zellers lawn furniture on your $400,000 condo balcony--criminal imho!
 
The 80's buildings aren't very pretty but they are generally much larger. 1000sq. ft. was much more common then, now anything that size seems to be only on penthouse floors.
 
For $400,000 you can get 1300 sq ft on a lower level in my building (Front and Church). That includes parking and a locker and the pool on the roof. Maintenance is a higher compared to a new building because it is older. Though that will equalize over time as the new buildings age. The pool is a major contributor to the higher rates as well.
 
The balconies on ROCP are so timid, considering how big these towers are. The whole development is remarkably timid and lacking in the kind of bold gestures that can make tall buildings noteworthy additions to the skyline.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top