Monday, September 1, 2014Mostly Cloudy 29°C

What are Toronto's ugliest condos?

Posted by Derek Flack / June 9, 2011

Toronto CondosOpinion regarding the aesthetic merits of Toronto condos is remarkably varied. What qualifies as a total eyesore to one person, might be considered an absolute gem by another. I suppose a certain divisiveness is characteristic of all architecture, but for all their blandness, condos in this city tend to elicit surprisingly passionate responses. Perhaps this is because they've become so ubiquitous. Toronto is quickly becoming a city of condominiums, and from an architectural standpoint, that might not be a very good thing.

I say might because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with condo development in a city. Setting aside talk of housing bubbles, each new building poses, at least theoretically, an opportunity to improve the cityscape. But whether that actually proves to be the case, of course, is another story.

I've said it before. I'm not convinced that Toronto's filled with ugly condos so much as those that are bland. I tend to look at the CityPlace development with ambivalence rather than the scorn I hear meted out from some urban architecture enthusiasts. But there are exceptions. The faux-Deco stylings of the NY Towers at Bayview and Sheppard have always irked me. Similarly, the stretch of Bay between Bloor and Gerrard just makes me feel hollow inside. And don't get me started on the soon-to-open Bohemian Embassy.

So, with an eye towards a longer and more varied list, please weigh in on what you think are Toronto's ugliest condos. It doesn't matter if they're old or new, they just have to hurt your eyes.

Photo by the author



paul / June 9, 2011 at 11:56 am
Oh god, yes. The fake Chrysler-building-shapes of those North York condos make my skin crawl. The worst part is that they're so tall they can be seen from anywhere in the city.

By the way, are you sure you can handle the deluge of comments this story bound to generate? Why not just ask about the best condo designs and wait for the trickle of responses? ;-)
WayOut / June 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The building at Bayview and Sheppard that looks like a ship is about to set sail!!
Alvin / June 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Condos suck in principle. Add to that their designs that ignore the fact that Toronto is a few degrees hotter than when the first condo went up, and that its climate will increase degree-wise on the days to come and you have eyesores with suffocating added value.
Day late, dollar short / June 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Derek the PUGLYS already exist and YOU wrote the friggin' article on them

Maybe you should do a BlogTO article that asks us what you should write about the city.
AmH / June 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm
What's even worse is that a majority of these condos will look worse in a couple decades once they've been neglected and they run out of money for upkeep. It's inevitable. City Place already looks dirty.
Dmitri / June 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Has anyone been to St. James Town? These condos you are referring to did make an attempt to impress us somehow, someway. But nothing compares to the nasty mistake of the 70's that has been an eye sore for over forty years (and a nursery for meth labs). This video was shot in the neighborhood -
Derek replying to a comment from Day late, dollar short / June 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm
You're welcome to do that at any time:

RealTalk / June 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Cityplace is clearly the winner of ugly monstrosity. It is soulless and feels like an urban ant hill.
JP / June 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I don't see why condo's suck in principle.

Yeah, a big glass condo may not always have a lot of charm, but in a city like Toronto, density is a necessity. Downtown density makes a more vibrant city, and can have a positive environmental impact. If you're not building up - you have to build out. And the sprawl of Brampton is much, much worse.
Sandman / June 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Condo at Lake Shore Boulevard West & Ellis Ave.

It had the potential to be awesome.
But, crappy cookie-cutter design and boring.

Hell, the NORTH facing WINDOWS ARE NOT WINDOWS (so no view)???
Imagine, paying for your unit and you can't even see the great view of High Park??

Next time drive by, and shake your head in disbelief.
Ron replying to a comment from Day late, dollar short / June 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I've never heard of the PUGLYS.
Rob / June 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm
From left to right, top to bottom, the Cityplace condos are without a doubt the ugliest condos in the city. I don't understand how the city or province (OMB?) allowed Concorde to effectively cut and paste a mass of similar looking buildings in a relatively small area. They lack even the most basic imagination - simply built to house the most number of people (i.e. generate the most profit for the builders).

And, having lived in one for a year, they're also very poorly constructed.
Salanth / June 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm
I have to agree with JP. Going up is much more efficient than going outwards. Condos here suffer from a lack of planning. There's got to be neighbourhood infrastructure, like supermarkets, hardware stores and other necessary businesses included. Starbucks and other franchises are easy to squeeze in, but the big ones need to be incorporated as well.
Grimmer / June 9, 2011 at 12:48 pm
123 Eglinton Avenue East. It's a terrible slab with no ground floor retail on Eglinton and they tore down the beautiful Union Carbide Building to build it.
k / June 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm
zip, battery park, and vibe in liberty village.
Joseph / June 9, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Can't go wrong with brick and stone, those never go out of style.

I think we will regret not having thought this through in about 20 years when the Toronto skyline looks like an outdated IKEA catalog
Steve C / June 9, 2011 at 01:10 pm
There are so many to choose from. It is hard to say why so many are so badly planned, but the nimby-ism that many communities suffer from do not help.
I live in downtown east-side, any proposal is immediately met with scorn using the same litany of complainants none of which come to fruition when the project is complete. I have to wonder if people remember the the earth rotates on a tilted axis that rotates around the sun. the sun is never in the same place twice. That more prople mean safer streets, more jobs through the need for more stores and restaurants. Living DT you are less in need of driving, 350 units does not mean 350 more cars. I ask if they remember Yonge street a mere 10 years ago. You did not go there after the sun set.
I have seen developers approach a community for input to be immediately shot down and all efforts are made to stop the project. If the community is not going to work with the developer he/she is going to go to the OMB and skip what the community wants.
So many lost opportunities if only the community worked with the developer.

My vote for the ugliest condos are the ones built during the speculative years of the 80's. I live in one, whe asked were I live I say the big ugly brown condo on the corner of Gerrard and Jarvis. It is looks worse then it is sitting on a corner.
Al / June 9, 2011 at 01:27 pm
If you look at the NY Towers as compared to the buildings they are meant to emulate, they are failures. But, I look at them as quirky condo towers that try something different from the normal glass boxes, and I don't mind them at all.
East Sider / June 9, 2011 at 01:42 pm
The X Condo at Jarvis & Charles. That black metal monstrosity makes me want to vomit every time I walk by. And what's up with the red noodles out front? We're not in a Tim Burton film.
Greg replying to a comment from Day late, dollar short / June 9, 2011 at 01:44 pm
Chill the f-ck out, dude. The Pugs aren't about ugly buildings anymore. That was like five years ago.

I'll take the chance to nominate the Westside Gallery Lofts for this list. Worst building in Toronto.
DF / June 9, 2011 at 02:01 pm
anything built by Pinnacle and/or Urbancorp. Honorary mention going to anything on West Queens Quay.
Fig / June 9, 2011 at 02:46 pm
I agree with WayOut - I think the condo that is supposed to resemble a cruise ship (North East corner of Bayview and Sheppard) is hideous!
GORF / June 9, 2011 at 03:10 pm
The reality is over 90% of our condos are designed terribly! Bland and generic design is abundant in our city. A more suitable question would be, 'what are Toronto's best designed condos'?

If Blog T.O was to ask us to 'name toronto's best designed condos' it would be a much shorter list because there are few condos that feature good and original design. The only builders that I see developing anything aesthetically pleaseing are Freed, Brad Lamb and Great Gulf. Freed being the best of the three in my opinion.

I live in a condo designed by Plaza Corp/Urban Corp. They are developing the majority of Queen and King West. All of their condos look the same. They all feature the same finishes. They're making the city look incredibly uninspiring.
Ryan L. replying to a comment from Salanth / June 9, 2011 at 03:15 pm
"<b>Going up is much more efficient than going outwards.</b> "
Emphasis mine.

A green city is one where people live in towers. Period.

It's a shame that it causes a conflict within the 'bohemian' views of people like Alvin.

Want a world free of corporations where individuals shape the world around them? Do you also want a world that is as eco-friendly as possible? Well, tough shit, because you can't have both.
Todd / June 9, 2011 at 03:36 pm
Has there ever been a period when there were nice condos in Toronto? Seriously. T.O. has very few "pre-war" buildings, and most of the residential towers that have gone up since the 1950s have been bland. At least they don't look as depressingly soulless as they did until the early 1980s.

Our condos lack imagination, but it's been a lot worse. Could you imagine if CityPlace had gone up in, say, 1970?
Ratpick replying to a comment from Salanth / June 9, 2011 at 04:08 pm
"There's got to be neighbourhood infrastructure, like supermarkets, hardware stores and other necessary businesses included. Starbucks and other franchises are easy to squeeze in, but the big ones need to be incorporated as well."

How about transit? We've just built a forest of hi-rise condos downtown WITHOUT PUTTING A CENT INTO TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT.

A little dumb, no?
Enrico Pallazzo / June 9, 2011 at 04:24 pm
Spire (33 Lombard) gets my vote. 40+ stories of nothing but cheap green glass and mismatched drapery. The fact that it's built across the street from St. James Cathedral doesn't help either.
_Justink / June 9, 2011 at 04:33 pm
I HATE the "ARC" condo beside Loblaws at Bayview Village. It looks like a giant cruise ship. When you drive up Bayview to Sheppard it looks like a giant barge is approaching. I used to live in one of the Condos across from Bayview Village, thank god I moved out before they built that thing.
Vanessa / June 9, 2011 at 04:46 pm
"What's even worse is that a majority of these condos will look worse in a couple decades once they've been neglected and they run out of money for upkeep. It's inevitable. City Place already looks dirty."

The vast majority of condos charge monthly fees that are used to upkeep the buildings and are stashed away for future maintenance. It would be very difficult for these condos to "run out of money" unless they stopped charging condo fees and/or people stopped paying them.
lister / June 9, 2011 at 04:55 pm
All-glass condos suck, in my opinion. They look boring, like office towers. I want some brick involved to give some character.
andrew / June 9, 2011 at 04:56 pm
if I do not return to city place by 530pm they will activate my collar
Jamie / June 9, 2011 at 04:57 pm
How about the faux-french condo tower on the southwest corner of Richmond and Jarvis? Am I supposed to pretend I'm on a Paris boulevard?
Jeff / June 9, 2011 at 05:03 pm
The ugliest condo in definitely the Be Bloor condo. It actually looks like all ht those slab apartments. What a waste.
Sandman / June 9, 2011 at 05:06 pm
I guess we can't include Mississauga's 'Marilyn Monroe' towers?

Drove by it yesterday, and it looks like the developers 'ran out of money' so they stopped adding floors and capped it off with a 2-story mismatch window panels!
Merits replying to a comment from Vanessa / June 9, 2011 at 05:34 pm
"York Condominium Corporation 506, located near Finch and Kipling Aves., is in crisis. The 202-unit condo building needs millions of dollars in urgent repairs — but at the same time, it has an operating deficit of $670,000, a depleted reserve fund and a community that can’t agree on a fix."
"The judge attributed the condo’s problems to successive boards of directors who have depressed monthly fees while neglecting to make necessary repairs, aided in part by the support or indifference of unit owners." -

This isn't the only case like this. Just because you're paying HOA's does not mean you're paying enough. Or even that there is a reserve "stashed away".
Steve / June 9, 2011 at 06:24 pm
I have seen plenty of neglected houses. Everyone has a story of someone that has bought a money pit. Ever watch Holmes inspection.
It does not take much investigation to find out if the building is properly maintained. All finances are disclosed, do you buy a house without a lawyer looking into its finances. The same goes for a condo. A condo building 'must' have a reserve fund, its regulated.
I have little sympathy for those who bought into the neglected buildings, if it seems low for the area, buyer beware. I looked at one when I was shopping, as soon as walked on the property I knew something was not right. I did not care I would get lots of space for my money, or if the unit was upgraded. If it looks like an average rental I walk way.
It is not inevitable that a building will fall into disrepair. That goes along with the myth about a glut of condos, nobody says anything about those hectors of tract houses causing a glut.
ss / June 9, 2011 at 07:23 pm
there's tons of ugly condos in the city

but you know what's even uglier? the ugly homes in brampton, vaughn and mississauga --- i'll stick with my great vibrant city

ap / June 9, 2011 at 07:28 pm
My issue is not with the outside look but the inside.
I work in the field and have access to most new medium high end condos floor plans.
You would not believe what kind of the Architecture has been made in this city. I always make a copy of the most nasty architectural solutions...One day I will put all together, make a book and send to OAA.
gadfly / June 9, 2011 at 09:04 pm
Wow, so much misinformation and pure conjecture on here. Hmm, where to start.
St. Jamestown - sorry, once again revisionist history rears its ugly head. When they were built in 1960s, not 1970s, they were the place to be. They were designed for the newly emerging young professionals who were not married. Has the fountain at Wellesley/Parliament worked in 30 years? No. The YMCA long ago closed. Ditto the underground swimming pools. The tennis courts are rotting heaps. When Dominion was new and real stores existed in the shopping area, the place looked a lot better than it does now. Rent controls, Adults only buildings being struck down by the courts and 10 people living to an apartment killed that complex, not the design or their age. I lived there from '79 to '81 just as the slide began. The Vietnamese boat people moved in, 10 to an apartment and everyone else moved out. But, hey, it's so much better to build right to the curb and create a tunnel, no?
Those New York towers were truncated by the NIMBY nutjobs. The reason they look stupid is because they are out of scale. Add 20 floors to them and they'd look pretty cool.
My vote for the ugliest condos goes to any of them built in the '80s. You know, those nasty pre-cast stucco beige travesties with no balconies. The N-E corner of Jarvis/Carlton (the gas station that was there before looked better), the Lexington across from Maple Leaf Gardens, Paxton Place (now there's a name for a hideous eye sore) at Church/Charles.. oh, the list from that era is endless. Relatively speaking, the green glass towers are an improvement.
@ Merits - you cite one example of a corporation that is in trouble; however, those previous Boards who ignored the performance audits can be held PERSONALLY responsible. D&O insurance will not cover directors who ignore the engineering reports. It is the law. The condo Act (1998) gave older buildings until 2011 to play catch up. There is absolutely no excuse. The auditor answers only to the owners. The Board cannot fire him/her. He/she has a duty to be present at every AGM, and the AGM MUST be called within 6 months of the fiscal year end. Owners should read the F/S that goes out with the package before the AGM and ask questions.
The Corporation has a duty to have a fully funded 30 year plan in place (updated every 3 years) and this must be adhered to to the letter. No exceptions. The Reserve Fun cannot, under any circumstances be used for anything other than the items listed in ther Performance Audit. That means the Board cannot raid it to put in a golf course or buy parking spots for the property manager. There is no excuse for owners to be ignorant of how their building is being run. 15% of the owners can requisition a meeting and force the Board to follow the plan. The same owners can hire a lawyer (which the corporation must pay for) and sue former Board members who ignored the plan.
gadfly replying to a comment from Steve / June 9, 2011 at 09:09 pm
When making an offer on a condo unit, read the damn status certificate. Really read it. The 10 day recission period is there for a reason - so you can't turn around later and say you 'didn't know.' Whomever prepares the status certificate (usually the Management Company) is financially liable for its contents. If a huge repair is in the works, it must be documented. If a special assessment has been tabled by the accountant, even if it is not yet approved by the Board, it should be noted in the status certificate. Due diligence.
Judges frown upon Boards or Management companies who fudge the books. I know of a building that just got a notice from the Administrator (a court appointed clerk who has god-like powers when a building becomes ungovernable) for a 60% increase in CEA fees. A couple Board members think they are being clever by putting their units up for sale now - ah, but if the status certificate is not properly updated, the new owner can sue the previous owner AND the management company for damages.
jake / June 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm
the cruise ships are awful
seanm / June 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Any one of those Kirkor designed faux historicist nonsense condos are in the running for most obnoxious ugly designs (read: NY Towers along the 401). Same goes for Page + Steele's messy and overwrought copy+paste designs cluttering up Lakeshore.

Everyone likes to rag on CityPlace, and I agree that the grouping looks too homogeneous, but individually most of the buildings west of Spadina are quite well designed. People complaining about "boring glass boxes"? Clean Modernism will age a lot better than gimmicky styling tricks; face it, we're done with the days of ornate stonework and classical buildings, so architects need to stop trying to emulate it.

Every decade has its good and bad, but the mid-20th century was the best time for architecture in this city, and we should embrace our Modernist heritage. The urbanism from that era needs some work, which is why new-Modernism works so well; Modernist design principles coupled with the urbanity of the 19th and early 20th century. Win-win. Now if we could only banish Pinnacle, Pemberton, and their ilk from developing downtown we'd be golden.
seanm / June 9, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Additionally, thinking of Pemberton in particular, Toronto's worst condo has got to be Uptown. Not only does it fail spectacularly at trying to emulate classical skyscrapers, the cladding looks so embarrassingly like cardboard.

Bloor Street Neighbourhood by Cresford, over on Charles is pretty atrocious too, but they developed the gorgeous CASA across the street so I guess we can forgive them.
Sandman replying to a comment from seanm / June 9, 2011 at 11:53 pm
@seanm Yes, most of the Pemberton Condo designs are awful (stuck in the 80's designs).
The ones on the Lakeshore, Dundas & Kipling, etc. -- pathetic.
torontoviewer / June 10, 2011 at 11:26 am
Village By The Grange condo complex should get a mention here I think.
I lived in it 15 years ago (for 2 years) and the water pipes were forever sprouting pinhole leaks throughout the building...a sure sign of cheap materials used during construction.
Dark hallways. Tiny balconies. Garbage area directly underneath a few units. Screetching TTC roundabout under a section. Lower floor sinks would fill with foaming dishwater when upstairs units pulled sink plugs. A mass of indifferent brick from street level.
I could go on but I'll spare you.
Canadian_National / June 11, 2011 at 01:30 am
I think the worst in the city are seven that sit closely together: 18 Yonge, The Pinnacle Centre (4 towers) and the World Trade Centre (2 towers).
Individually, they're just bland. But together, they're embarrassing.
They've been built a few decades apart, but are barely distinguishable from one another. All clad in cheap green glass save for a few strips of precast, they have the unimaginative monotony of a megastructure.
The fact that they're also on prime waterfront land means you can't miss them while looking at the skyline, or trying to enjoy a stroll to the lake.

Runners up:
Crystal Blu and The Uptown.
Again, because they're crammed so close together, and built at exactly the same time, these two get one mention. Like unfortunate siblings.

I really, really wanted to like the Uptown. In it's bones, it really tried. But someone drastically compromised the materials used to clad it. Void of detail, the weirdly bland result looks like the unformed pod duplicate of a real deco building.
As for Crystal Blu, it's a glass shack built on spec, a puny meagre thing. The wonderful Uptown Theatre was torn down to make way for these?

Waterclub, at Queen's Quay and York:
Three surprisingly squat cylinders on a big, turgid podium that weighs heavily on the lakeside atmosphere of harbourfront. The truncated backs, jagged tops and unnoticable roof details on the towers don't help, nor does the restless over-all window framing, which undoes any sleekness the towers might possess.

The Three Ugly Sisters, at Queen's Quay and John:
We might be able to ignore the towers if the overbearing above-grade parking (which looks like it's slowly squashing the retail below it) didn't stick us in the eye, every time.

On a side note: Same goes for the parking lot at the Harbour Square complex at the ferry docks. The parking megastructure at the base of those towers irremediably kills the street life of Harbourfront between Bay and York. Could someone look into this?

The stuccoed eyesore at Richmond and Victoria:
A personal vendetta against this one - only because I remember there was a remarkable red sandstone building there once, torn down to make way for this streaked and venal lump.

Honourable Mention:

The proposed twin-towered building that efficient and unsympathetic interests want to put at 501 Yonge Street, just north of College. Two six hundred foot towers would adorn five levels of above grade parking (!) above a single plain level of retail. All this on an urban lot that wouldn't fit a proper bowling alley, on a street already choked for walking space.

kn / June 11, 2011 at 03:49 pm
the biggest issue is that all of these massive structures are built without some architectural panel reviewing them. (berlin has this). imagine, instead of a show like canadian idol but it was a panel of top international architects reviewing proposals for new condos in toronto?? a hour long rip fest on what's wrong with the proposed designs. then the public and the panel could vote someone or all of them off to revise. most of the condos treat the street like toilet paper.
Patrick / June 11, 2011 at 07:30 pm
I agree with the few people that posted about the suburbs being far uglier than any of the condos in Cityplace. I actually live in Cityplace, and I totally get what you're all talking about, it's pretty ugly, and strange. Nothing is as bad, though, as Vaughn, Mississauga, Ajax and Oshawa. I'll take my glass box in the sky with my lake view over that any day.
Enrico Pallazzo replying to a comment from kn / June 11, 2011 at 09:30 pm
The City started a project Design Review Panel in 2006 (made permanent in 2009) which oversees new developments within certain areas in the city. To be fair, most of the recent and even current projects were probably approved before this panel was in existence. I'm not sure how relevant it's decisions are in any event.
Leo / June 14, 2011 at 05:08 pm
I find it interesting when people start railing against condo communities but if you work downtown why would I live outside of the city in a cookie cutter urban sprawl home that requires me to spend $20 worth of gas for a $2 loaf of bread just to say I have more space and big yard. The bigger the space the greater the utility costs with a yard I could only use 6 months out of the year. Condo builders are in business to make money same as any home builder. They both could be poorly built. If you have a poorly built condo and make the renovations and fix up your space if its in your common area talk to your board. Condos aren't bad provided you have good, competent management.
Dmitri replying to a comment from Derek / June 19, 2011 at 02:02 am
Thanks! Good to know. Sorry for late reply, was working on the new website project.
Larry Thomas / June 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm
I can't believe nobody has mentioned the ugliest by far condo development in this entire city. That awful slab of condos called Mystique Point by Monarch. I drive by this awful mess everyday. Once there was a spectacular view of the city from this location - equal to none. Now I feel depressed every time I look at it every single day. Shame on the developers and shame on the lack of planning in this city that would allow this mess
Alyssa replying to a comment from Ryan L. / March 30, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Actually, a green condo would be one that is
1.Durable: It must be at or near the same level of serviceability for at least 25 years post-construction
2. Energy efficient: The heating/cooling operational costs must be sustainable and affordable for the occupants
3. The buildings must be bird-friendly (particularly those by lakeshore and larger park areas)

+ lot more criteria. It isn't necessarily about height but about planning and proper adherence to building science.

You can have a very tall building housing lots of people that wreaks utter havoc on the surrounding environment.
CM / June 29, 2012 at 10:08 pm
The faux deco abomination on the north side of lakeshore just west of bathurst. What are those panels above the windows?? It looks like parts of the building fell off. It's such a hideous mish mash. Also good call on those Chrystler building knock offs in North York. I puke a lil bit everytime I see them.
x / March 5, 2013 at 11:03 am
I have to say that Metro Place (by Liberty) on Sheppard and Allen Road is the worst one.

Condo itself is not bad but the garage/parking is very painful, very narrow entrance and exit.\
X Condo Sucks / August 7, 2013 at 09:48 pm
The X Condo is a terrible building. Beware before overpaying for the trash that it is. Here are a few things wrong with this ugly hulk of a building:

-The walls/"doors" in every room are paper thin. I can literally hear my neighbour moaning while she has sex
-The washroom fan, when turned on, shakes the bedrooms. Seriously
-Something is broken or wrong with the building every week. Gym wipes out of stock, roof collapses from flood, A/C broken, hot water turned off, mail not being delivered, fire alarm testing, elevators turned off/stuck/broken. This is all in a week's time, by the way
-You need to swipe your fob pass at every occasion. Management is overly anal about security and won't even let you in if you've forgotten your key or fob. You have to sign out a special key just to go on the terrace
-If you're not a party type, be careful who your neighbours are. As mentioned, the paper thin walls will ruin your beauty sleep as you'll hear everything next door. I've had occasions where parties in the condo next door at night woke me up
-Have to pay like $150 or something ridiculous to sign out the party room. Other condos it's simply a deposit and you get your money back
-Gym only open til 10pm. Rule had to be implemented because the noise was unbearable for the people who lived upstairs. Well, no shit, you used sandpaper as your wall material
-If you own a room you have to pay $500+/month just for monthly maintenance
-Visitor parking spaces usually always full, don't count on letting your friend park here

There you have it, the wonderful X Condos. If you don't believe me please try living here yourself
Greg / August 17, 2013 at 03:17 pm
I live in CityPlace and I love it. I think that it's beautiful. I enjoy walking around Toronto and taking in the new buildings going up. Anyone that complains otherwise is wasting their breath...
andrew / April 14, 2014 at 06:13 pm
Sadly, the interesting, sleek condos in Toronto can be counted on one hand, maybe two hands but no more. I agree that the x condos or the uptown look very depressing and lower the value of this city. Toronto needs more projects like the newly planned Plaza condominiums (for small developments), ONE Bloor (has a curvy sweet feel to it) etc. Ice condos are pretty cool too, so is Aura by Canderel developers. Broavo Candarel for planning to bring us also YC condos:

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Montreal