Canada's 10 Tallest U/C

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

Okay, I understand what you mean about renders (although I think buyers should not be shown dramatically different designs in any marketing material), but I was also politely asking whether a crown in an approved design could be changed so dramatically by the developer without the risk of legal action from the city. There are some HOAs that dictate the colour of people's doorbells and force conformity with the threat of fines (which is ridiculous).
The city getting an obviously inferior design than to that which was approved is different. It's in public view in the skyline.

You're flipping flopping all over the place. A rendering is not the same as an approved design. It's just an "artist impression". That's no contractual obligation to delivery what is rendered. Site plan applications deals with how the design conforms to approved zoning. I don't think a superficial design change that doesn't affect density, the height envelope, servicing, etc. matters too much to the overworked staff.

HOAs are private associations usually registered as not for profits. It's not comparable. The less government oversight, the more outlandish and autocratic they become. It's a contradictions south of the border. The places that want less government are popular places for these extreme HOAs

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Somebody posted a skyline pic the other day and the black box crowns really stood out, istm. And not in a good way, to my taste.

They do stand out in a skyline picture. They aren't that pretty. It's not something that would stand out walking down a street as they are 200 metres in the air.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Somebody posted a skyline pic the other day and the black box crowns really stood out, istm. And not in a good way, to my taste.

I actually preferred the black crown, made them different and less like a typical Concord-Pacific style tower (Maple Leaf Square in Toronto *gag*).

[koops65]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Somebody posted a skyline pic the other day and the black box crowns really stood out, istm. And not in a good way, to my taste.

We all have an opinion, and mine is usually diametrically opposed to the majority of the forum members who post here in the Canada section. (About architecture) This case with the Harbour Plaza twins is yet another example of that.

I think the black makes the tops of the towers stand out. If they were white, they would probably just fade out, or blend-in with the sky. That happens with 4 Seasons and I don't like that effect. Better when the tops come to an "end".

It's also possible there is cladding yet to be installed. Time will tell...

[O-tacular]

From the Telus Sky thread:

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Mine from Friday.

[O-tacular]

Should make for an interesting contrast to the Bow.

Originally Posted by excel

Yesterday:


mine.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You're flipping flopping all over the place. A rendering is not the same as an approved design. It's just an "artist impression". That's no contractual obligation to delivery what is rendered. Site plan applications deals with how the design conforms to approved zoning. I don't think a superficial design change that doesn't affect density, the height envelope, servicing, etc. matters too much to the overworked staff.

HOAs are private associations usually registered as not for profits. It's not comparable. The less government oversight, the more outlandish and autocratic they become. It's a contradictions south of the border. The places that want less government are popular places for these extreme HOAs

I didn't flip-flop. I asked two questions. It appears that you don't know the answer to my question about whether the city can take action following a bait and switch on an approved design; your point about whether city staff would care in an overworked state of mind is not what was asked. so I'll just leave it at that.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by koops65

We all have an opinion, and mine is usually diametrically opposed to the majority of the forum members who post here in the Canada section. (About architecture) This case with the Harbour Plaza twins is yet another example of that.

I think the black makes the tops of the towers stand out. If they were white, they would probably just fade out, or blend-in with the sky. That happens with 4 Seasons and I don't like that effect. Better when the tops come to an "end".

It's also possible there is cladding yet to be installed. Time will tell...

While I'm not personally a huge fan of the crown at HB, I'm all for using a lot more black materials in TO skyscrapers. I've always loved the boldness of TD Centre.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

From the Telus Sky thread:

Telus Sky is turning out beautifully as expected. Very envious of Calgary for this one.

[Black Star]

Telus Sky is sure a beauty. Cant wait until till shes topped out.

Will there be a lighting treatment?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I didn't flip-flop. I asked two questions. It appears that you don't know the answer to my question about whether the city can take action following a bait and switch on an approved design; your point about whether city staff would care in an overworked state of mind is not what was asked. so I'll just leave it at that.

Okay then. If you aren't confusing rendering with something official (site plan application, for example) than I don't understand the need for followups.

Last time:

First (being specific to this project): We haven't seen the site plan application.

Second: The city wouldn't be bothered to take legal action over something as cosmetic as a parapet providing it exists within the approved height envelope for the parapet.
Second: (specific to this project and assuming the site plan is like the renderings) This isn't even a parapet on Harbour Plaza. It's just some decorative cladding slapped on the side of the mechanical penthouse.

Third: I don't know exactly whether the city would be in a legal position to fine the developer over something this minor and cosmetic. It doesn't matter one iota. They would never fight a developer over this.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

C'mon, seriously? Renderings are marketing material. There is nothing that binds a developer to them. If someone is going to throw down 300K plus over a rendering than they are really stupid.

Most buyers aren't as savoy as people here or in other forums like this when it comes to what is marketed to what actually gets built. Most would think what they see in a render is what they would get. Also many wouldn't even care about things such as rooftop elements or curtain wall vs window wall. Too many don't seem to care or notice when they move in and the tower looks nothing like the render they saw. The city should hold developers to account for not delivering what they sold in ads or in the sales offices to buyers.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Most buyers aren't as savoy as people here or in other forums like this when it comes to what is marketed to what actually gets built. Most would think what they see in a render is what they would get. Also many wouldn't even care about things such as rooftop elements or curtain wall vs window wall. Too many don't seem to care or notice when they move in and the tower looks nothing like the render they saw. The city should hold developers to account for not delivering what they sold in ads or in the sales offices to buyers.

It's absurd to suggest more government oversight because some people act like children buying on a whim that will take decades for them to pay off. Developers need buyers. Buyers have other options. Buyer should be in control. The purchase agreements should favour them but, alas, they gleefully sign rather than reading the fine print or hiring someone to explain it to them.

Presales are shifting away from individuals visiting a sales centre and placing a deposit down on a one bedroom which gives me faith that buyers have been balking at the one sided purchase agreements.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Black Star

Telus Sky is sure a beauty. Cant wait until till shes topped out.

Will there be a lighting treatment?

They are installing LEDs on the topm and side of the window frames, will see if I can find a pic.



Check page 28 of this thread, there are some pics of the LEDs being tested. http://skyrisecities.com/forum/threa....23822/page-26

[koops65]

With all the interest generated over the mech penthouse of the HP twins, I amended my drawings, with particular attention paid to the tops of the towers, including those little cranes for the window washers, what are they called again?

Not sure how long till they're approved...

[WhipperSnapper]

The cranes are called building maintenance units. One day, L Tower will have one installed.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's absurd to suggest more government oversight because some people act like children buying on a whim that will take decades for them to pay off. Developers need buyers. Buyers have other options. Buyer should be in control. The purchase agreements should favour them but, alas, they gleefully sign rather than reading the fine print or hiring someone to explain it to them.
.

It's absurd to think things won't improve without getting the government involved. Calling people children and assuming they are buying on a whim because they don't ask about the construction and design of the building is also a little arrogant. The vast majority of buyers are more concerned with amenities and sq footage and don't care about what the exterior ends up looking like. This is why developers continue to do what they do. If people generally cared we wouldn't always end up with a cheapened design when the tower cranes and scaffolding come down.

At least Great Gulfs still u/c 1 Bloorlooks like it's render. And yes it's still u/c Whippersnapper, or should you contact the people who have units on the upper floors and let them know they can move in already without their units being anywhere near completion?

You can tell them to wear a hard hat in a shower.....lol ridiculous.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The cranes are called building maintenance units.

BMU - that's it! Had a short brain freeze there...

[Coldrsx]

Telus Sky I love from the side, not so much from the south.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It's absurd to think things won't improve without getting the government involved. Calling people children and assuming they are buying on a whim because they don't ask about the construction and design of the building is also a little arrogant. The vast majority of buyers are more concerned with amenities and sq footage and don't care about what the exterior ends up looking like. This is why developers continue to do what they do. If people generally cared we wouldn't always end up with a cheapened design when the tower cranes and scaffolding come down.

Understanding a purchase agreement has nothing to do with construction or design. There are many professionals available to explain it without the legalese mumble jumble for a nominal fee. The government already does their part. Having all buyers take responsibilities for their own actions will do more to change these contracts than more government interdiction. (Y'know. Taking responsibility is a key point that separates adults from kids) I do empathize with purchasers that have had occupancy is delayed 18 months; a walk in closet turned into a regular closet; a ceiling height lowered, a massive bulkhead in the middle of their living space however, they agreed to the possibilities of delays and layout changes when they signed the purchase agreement. Don't complain about it now.

You think a developer can delay occupancy for a year without some major ramifications when dealing with a commercial lease agreements? It's the same thing whether its an individual buying a first home or a major corporation leasing a million square feet. They are the customers. Without them, the developer doesn't have much more than the glossy artistic impression.

You understand the hard hat thing was meant as a joke. I just happened to be wearing one at the time in a space that only require one for legal purposes.

The rest has been explained over and over. Get over it. You disagree. Fine. There is no real consensus especially with a large building that has staggered occupancy. See my avatar. See my slogan. It's one of the perks of being an editor. My opinion counts for more than yours. (and you call be arrogant)