Toronto The Whitfield | 130m | 39s | Menkes | Giannone Petricone

They are finishing off the painting of the concrete - I must say i am still puzzled about why they did not just order coloured concrete!

1730906444008.png
 
DSC said:
They are finishing off the painting of the concrete - I must say i am still puzzled about why they did not just order coloured concrete!

View attachment 610139
Click to expand...
Maybe it's cheaper this way. If that is so, I hope this will inspire other developers to use the same method so that we'll see more colours. Then again, cheaper still means extra $$$, so who knows if they'll do it ...
 
Rascacielo said:
Maybe it's cheaper this way. If that is so, I hope this will inspire other developers to use the same method so that we'll see more colours. Then again, cheaper still means extra $$$, so who knows if they'll do it ...
Click to expand...
We just had some coloured concrete poured on walkways and it was a bit more expensive then regular concrete but I doubt painting is cheaper (and, though the developers will usually not care) it will probably need to be repainted sooner or later.
 
Rascacielo said:
Maybe it's cheaper this way. If that is so, I hope this will inspire other developers to use the same method so that we'll see more colours. Then again, cheaper still means extra $$$, so who knows if they'll do it ...
Click to expand...
It's probably cheaper (and easier to quality control) to paint the precast vs have the entire depth of concrete be a certain deep red tone. And, rather than painting in the factory (which would be cheaper but risks paint chips and damage during transportation) it's painted on-site. Just a guess. Painting on site is certainly more expensive.
 
DSC said:
We just had some coloured concrete poured on walkways and it was a bit more expensive then regular concrete but I doubt painting is cheaper (and, though the developers will usually not care) it will probably need to be repainted sooner or later.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head there - developers will usually not care once they’ve completed the building and condo boards are often too cheap to spend on anything that’s purely aesthetics. Look at Aura’s crown lighting - the strips are dying a slow death, and no one’s bothered to replace the burnt out ones. Just hope this one won’t end up grubby-looking with faded paint in a few years.
 
The precast they did this with looked expensive though. And odd. Perhaps it was designed to absorb paint better...or a type of paint that was used is better suited for the elements where this type of surface works best with. I can't really tell...
 
It's amazing how much this already standsout from virtually every other building in the area. Your eyes are just immediately drawn to it and it's easily identifiable.

Similar to the conversation above about the painted precast brick panels, does it really cost a developer a significant sum more to have fins in colours asides from white or black? Because if not, i don't get why developers in this city don't do it.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Same reason this is a thing: resale.

View attachment 610460
Click to expand...

I understand the premise PE........... but are you really able to generate sales data that show overall that red brick buildings sell less easily on average or in any given year than black-coloured buildings?

I have my suspicions that the data is not there.

Absolutely there are safe choices and niche choices in architecture.

But I think 'natural' red spectrum colours associated with brick are generally in the 'safe' category, and I think perhaps more so than a building done in black/charcoal pre-cast.

We're not talking teal blue, lime green or shock pink here. I get those are niche tastes.
 
I too doubt there's any data in it, but what you will hear anecdotally but consistently from brokers is neutrals sell the strongest. More people would not want to be in 'the red building' or 'the blue building' than would want to be in 'the black building' or 'the grey building'. You're always maximizing the breadth of your buyer pool and potentially-divisive colour choices aren't the best way to do that.

It sucks, to be clear, and our gray city pays for it, but maximizing value and creating an amazing city are too-often antithetical goals.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I too doubt there's any data in it,
Click to expand...

That's something we should get someone to look into..........there ought to be a profit-goal in discerning whether end buyers or renters actually have a profit-affecting bias that's clear.

ProjectEnd said:
but what you will hear anecdotally but consistently from brokers is neutrals sell the strongest.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Here's the thing, I would categorize 'standard red brick' as a neutral in the context of architecture. It's ubiquitous in Toronto.

Poppy Red is a different matter.

ProjectEnd said:
More people would not want to be in 'the red building' or 'the blue building' than would want to be in 'the black building' or 'the grey building'. You're always maximizing the breadth of your buyer pool and potentially-divisive colour choices aren't the best way to do that.
Click to expand...

I'd really like to know if typical red brick is actually 'divisive'. I think if you go to virtually any community meeting on any development proposal you'll here people come up and say why can't it be brick?

And they don't mean charcoal either.

Maybe my perception is skewed.../off here. I don't know. Hence why I would really love to see some supporting data.

ProjectEnd said:
It sucks, to be clear, and our gray city pays for it, but maximizing value and creating an amazing city are too-often antithetical goals.
Click to expand...

On this we are in total agreement.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top