confusion
Active Member
The hills and extra dirt are there so that trees will have something to grow in. Much of the western portion of this new park already has underground parking beneath it.
Toronto Wellesley on the Park | 194.15m | 60s | Lanterra | KPMB
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
The hills and extra dirt are there so that trees will have something to grow in. Much of the western portion of this new park already has underground parking beneath it.
Benito
Senior Member
This building certainly has potential. The tower looks pretty good with all the curves surfaces, hopefully it will be built close to the renderings.
ushahid
Senior Member
this park will look awesome if they plant some blossoms in it.
Is that not just a tad hyperbolic Roy? Lots of lawns make it through the summer just fine here. It's just that they have to be maintained, (watered, mowed), and you've got to put hard surface paths where people are going to walk.
It makes me crazy when the diagonal traces that people make across green space are not made paths in the first place, because they'll turn into either muddy or dusty tracks (weather dependent) nevertheless, but we do have a number of recent spaces where this seems to have been thought out in advance. The extreme example is the park at Sheridan College's McCallion Campus at Square One where the angled pathways are everything; it's pretty great.
Similarly, landscapers now have more tools in their arsenal to keep grass green as long as the money is there, and in ground drip systems seem to be the way to go. They use less water than sprinkler systems and don't get people wet. If the community is clear that they want lawns I here, they should insist on the money going into the infrastructure to keep it all properly watered.
42
Condo George
Active Member
Condo George
Active Member
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
This is preconstruction, so none of those renders mean anything.
Condo George
Active Member
It gives us a feel for what's to come, no?
Hyperbole. Of course they mean something. Sure some details may change a bit, but the end result will be recognizable.
42
Benito
Senior Member
The pool area looks awesome. Hopefully it will turn out well. At least there's the potential for it to have these features. If they weren't even in the renderings it would make it near impossible to have any of it.
JKDM
Banned
interchange42 -
Yes, but how many times after a building's been built do folks say, "Boy, that looks nothing like I/we thought it would."
Yes, but how many times after a building's been built do folks say, "Boy, that looks nothing like I/we thought it would."
Well, it's pretty rare for a building to look nothing like its renderings actually.
There are instances where we pounce on a project because it's experienced some value engineering, something we call The Cheapening™, where some details may have been omitted in the end. That seems to happen more often to canted elements than anything else: Vü condos and Limelight both lost angled columns.
The most frequent difference between renderings and finished buildings would be spandrel. Spandrel sections are frequently left out of renderings, and simply shown as windows. One of the reasons why is that sometimes the exterior is designed and the renderings created before the suite layouts have been finalized. Without them settled, it's not known where some of the interior walls and spandrel panels will be. That said, I believe that developers should do what they can to minimize the difference between vision glass and spandrel if they aren't going to render them.
Okay, I'm blathering. Yes, there are occasional differences. No, buildings are rarely "nothing like" the renderings. I'd be surprised if this one turns out significantly different from it's renderings.
42
There are instances where we pounce on a project because it's experienced some value engineering, something we call The Cheapening™, where some details may have been omitted in the end. That seems to happen more often to canted elements than anything else: Vü condos and Limelight both lost angled columns.
The most frequent difference between renderings and finished buildings would be spandrel. Spandrel sections are frequently left out of renderings, and simply shown as windows. One of the reasons why is that sometimes the exterior is designed and the renderings created before the suite layouts have been finalized. Without them settled, it's not known where some of the interior walls and spandrel panels will be. That said, I believe that developers should do what they can to minimize the difference between vision glass and spandrel if they aren't going to render them.
Okay, I'm blathering. Yes, there are occasional differences. No, buildings are rarely "nothing like" the renderings. I'd be surprised if this one turns out significantly different from it's renderings.
42
prettyflamingo
New Member
modernizt
Senior Member
The form of the tower makes zero sense to me, but the material palette looks fresh and appropriate for a park setting. Interested to see unit layouts etc.
Southcore
Active Member
The layouts can be found here:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...t-W-(Lanterra-Developments)-Real-Estate/page2
While most units are small (like every pre con project these days), the floor plans for the most part are square so less wasted space, especially compared to Lanterra's ICE (which has turned out great but has terrible floor plans).