Quote:
Originally Posted by constructivism
I think people are very ignorant to what you get with a Claridge condo versus the competition. Granted some projects in the past haven't been completely aesthetically pleasing, I think it would be unfair to say they are low quality.
What Claridge typically excels at is constructing a quality building envelope, which is something the unit owner doesn't own and cannot change. Frankly if I were to be looking for a condo, I would be more concerned with what I don't own because I wouldn't be able to change it.
I believe people buy Claridge condo's because the interior's are cheap, not in spite of. Whether or not you have noticed, rental apartment stock in Ottawa hasn't really changed since the '70's. There isn't much money to be made in 100% rental buildings anymore. Therefore some buildings are built to a lower $/sqft to entice investors or rentals.
What I do find interesting in Ottawa though, people in these forums are more critical of the Developer over the Architect. Most comments whether they be negative or positive are in direct regard to visual aesthetics, which is the Architects domain. The Developer merely writes the cheques.
|
How many Claridge condos have you stepped foot in (not including their models)? If you've had the chance to be in a few of their buildings, I think your opinion may change. I agree with you that most of their project exteriors are not aesthetically pleasing, but their interiors might actually be worse. The materials they use, the workmanship, the way in which their deficiencies are handled, the list goes on and on. Perfect example: my friend owns a place at CP1, they installed the large (12"x12" or 13"x13") bathroom tub surround tiles for his kitchen backsplash - mistakes happen when you're building 150+ condos, but it took him 9 months and the threat of legal action to have them change it to the correct tile. And that's just one of the many horror stories I've heard from Claridge condo owners.
Your theory about people buying Claridge because of, and not despite of, their cheap interior finishes to make it a better investment doesn't really make sense, because it's not as if Claridge's prices are way below everyone elses - in fact, they're prices are average at best. For the savvy investors out there, price isn't the top factor to consider when gauging investment options - value is. And since Claridge offers one of the cheapest finishing packages out there, but charges average prices - is there a lot of value there?
As for your take on the architects share of the blame: Architects are hired by the developer to design what the developer wants - plus they take into account the budget, height variences, by-laws, etc.... Not the other way around. Pointing the finger at the architects for poor and ugly buildings with terrible interior finishes is the same as blaming the roofing guys for putting Scotia Bank Place in Kanata over LeBreton. The developer cuts the cheques, he calls the shots. Any positive or negative comments should be aimed at the developer.
Prev
Linear Mode
