News   Apr 16, 2024
 579     2 
News   Apr 16, 2024
 842     3 
News   Apr 16, 2024
 513     3 

why new condos have a bad architecture ?

By lifestyle i mean vibrancy and animation for CITIZENS AND NOT ONLY FOR RESIDENTS.In small condos, it not necessary but in big one it a must.Maybe 60 stories and more it fair.I like condos that have are elegant,bold,and sophisticated.I will show you some that bring lifestyle,Some that lack style and pretty condos with balconies.When balconies are well placed it can be awesome.I m not against balconies at all.

Condos with lifestyle.



n these 3 development,there is SOMETHING for every citizens. A fountain in 1 yonge, A park for Wellesley on the park and an awesome animated place for Mirvish towers. I love vibrant city,with green space and great architecture.

Beside 1 bloor,L tower,Aura or 1 yorkville there are pretty condos with well placed balconies.


These towers have elegant and refined balconies.This the style i prefer when there is balconies.
They are not the best skyscrapers in world,but they are decent to watch

Now gross and cheap style that include balconies.Some are very ugly(for me)

These tower lack class,style and elegance.
Why ? Because their balconies are gross.
Secondly,For some the choice of color doesn t work at all.Harmony is mandatory to have a good architecture.
This is why we need 1 yonge,mirvish gehry or 2 carlton street to give the dignity that Toronto need.
Thank for your time and comprehension.
I get it. What you dislike most about modern condos is the amount of exposed balconies, the color, and how it treats the street. However, I am confused by some of your examples. Do you not like Tableau's table podium with a piece of art? While yes, Wellesley effectively makes a good public park, I am not too interested in the design. What condo do you dislike the most?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The condos i dislike the most is lago at Waterfront.
The bad choice of color make destroy the harmony in the tower.
Another i dislike is 488 University avenue.
The style is too gross for this height.

488 AVENUE

6858-44175.jpeg
 
The point totally gets lost in these examples. You are showing renderings of condos from other cities.... not exactly certain how quality of materials and execution can be distinguished from that.

As for the actual massing, since I imagine this is the only thing comparable in these examples, I suppose some like cylinders, some like chopped of boxes, some like staggered balconies.... not exactly hallmarks of outstanding architecture.

It's a condo. A domestic, residential, utilitarian building...
 
The point totally gets lost in these examples. You are showing renderings of condos from other cities.... not exactly certain how quality of materials and execution can be distinguished from that.

As for the actual massing, since I imagine this is the only thing comparable in these examples, I suppose some like cylinders, some like chopped of boxes, some like staggered balconies.... not exactly hallmarks of outstanding architecture.

It's a condo. A domestic, residential, utilitarian building...
People have alternative tastes and some dislike the architecture of certain buildings while liking others. Your post implies an idea that everyone should get along with the architecture of a condo tower. When you say,"A domestic, residential, utilitarian building..." members would disagree and therefore would ask for perceivably interesting architecture.
,lack of parcs
One problem with having them in developments may be how much area the project takes up. If it is like 8 Elm, of course you can't have a park or even a parkette on such a compact site.
 
The reality is almost everyone involved is to blame.

Consumers love large glass area. Consumers are also buying everything as soon as it comes on the market(this is more of the problem than the former imo). Thus builders have no incentive to aim higher in terms of design and quality.

Designers are on tight timelines as they have to just crank them out and reality is even now they're not going fast enough(too many people looking to buy all at once) and they have to rejig everything once the planners get involved.

When the market slows(way down the road), only then will you see truly creative stuff.
 
Urban Toronto, you are actually setting the bar high for developments in Toronto, from my own observations. Maybe that is why you criticize new condo architecture.
When the market slows(way down the road), only then will you see truly creative stuff.
The skyscraper market in the suburbs is not as hot as downtown, and Mississauga City Centre is an example of why I would agree that the market may need to cool down in order to have a greater chance of creativity in architecture.
 
@interchange42, here is my reflection of your post (http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...wallman-architects.8136/page-160#post-1210796) in the TEN YORK thread which also belongs in this thread:

Despite some areas where our taste overlaps with others', everyone's taste in architecture is their own, so you won't find agreement on everything of course. Out of that list of 4 buildings, you wouldn't find much support on UrbanToronto for Aura as an example of a building that has great style. Despite a lot of people liking the lights up top, most UT members commenting on it find Aura ungainly and cheap, and not the kind of building that they want to see emulated.
Maybe it is because of the spandrel that covers more than half of Aura? The lights atop are lit at night but not during daytime.

What do mean by big balconies, and what is it about them that you don't like? I think balconies have been used very effectively on many buildings here to impart some serious style (1 Bloor, Exhibit, 1Thousand Bay, Harbour Plaza, X to name five), but I'd like to get a better idea of which buildings have balconies that you don't like.
Buildings with a vast percentage of their exteriors with balconies can be very well received (for instance the buildings that you listed.)

I'd like to believe that the architecture of our buildings will improve too, but it's worth remembering that developers try to keep the costs down on most buildings (it'll always be that way), so most buildings end up being built as inexpensively as they can, and that reduces architects' ability to make those buildings stand out.
It seems like it is like the developers are in a race to see who can develop the most in the city. New projects appear in their portfolio while others are being built. They then cut costs on the latter projects so that they can work with the former projects.

generalizing that other cities get everything right and we get it all wrong
This happens quite frequently on Urban Toronto, and from more than just @enrigue8.

Dubai, Baku, and Abu Dhabi have tons of oil money pouring in, weaker building codes, and cheap migrant (slave) labour, so they can spend their way to a point that I would normally consider excess.
Agreed with what you consider excess, because of slave labour as you stated.

plus the Aussies just aren't as reserved as we are.
I think you are saying that they have more permissive architectural standards.

You might not like rectangular buildings, but lots of people do, (especially beancounters, as rectangular buildings are typically very efficient). Modernists like well designed ones too: there are a lot of people who believe in the Miesian "less is more", even if you don't.

42
@enrigue8 does like rectangular buildings as long as the architecture is appealing to him/her, and I agree that rectangular buildings are efficient in terms of the layout of the floorplate.

TI
 

Back
Top