West Village Towers | 149.95m | 42s | Cidex Group | NORR Dubai Yahya Jan

General rating of the project

  • Great

    Votes: 8 7.3%
  • Very Good

    Votes: 15 13.6%
  • Good

    Votes: 39 35.5%
  • So So

    Votes: 13 11.8%
  • Not Very Good

    Votes: 15 13.6%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 20 18.2%

  • Total voters
    110
I still can't figure out the obsession in this forum about spandrel v glass. What makes spandrel "garbage"? I don't understand how spandrel = poor quality.


Spandrel are filler pieces in primarily glass facades. Solid gold sheets can be used as spandrel. Why it is disliked is because it usually isn't part of the architectural design and in fact tends to compromise it. The spandrel glass used on One tower matches pretty well with the vision glass but, there are plenty of example where developers couldn't even be bothered to match the spandrel with the vision glass.
 
There shouldn't be a difference, but typically the average renter doesn't care much about how the building looks. Cost is generally the most important, followed by location.

As I've been saying all along, it doesn't take a bigger budget to produce more competent designs. Toronto has plenty of players building large numbers of towers. Design isn't determined by ownership structure. It isn't determined by the price point either. Profit margins are fairly consistent. It is determined by the players. A drywall installer turned developer isn't likely to be as interested in design as much as a real estate broker turned developer and there's no incentive to change because he sells or rents. Many people don't care as much about how a building looks. That includes buyers as much as renters.

This isn't about curtain wall vs window wall or box vs structural expressionism. This is about design choices like colour that can turn a dud into a gem. Different colours do have different price tags. The difference is nominal for most choices.
 
Last edited:
One tower probably has the living areas and bedrooms against the window wall, and the rest back awa
I still can't figure out the obsession in this forum about spandrel v glass. What makes spandrel "garbage"? I don't understand how spandrel = poor quality.
To me it looks like an afterthought, someone didn't plan the building properly and had to cover it up. Spandrel is inevitable, but it can be easily minimized with some good planning and a well considered layout.
 
As I've been saying all along, it doesn't take a bigger budget to produce more competent designs. Toronto has plenty of players building large numbers of towers. Design isn't determined by ownership structure. It isn't determined by the price point either. Profit margins are fairly consistent. It is determined by the players. A drywall installer turned developer isn't likely to be as interested in design as much as a real estate broker turned developer and there's no incentive to change because he sells or rents. Many people don't care as much about how a building looks. That includes buyers as much as renters.

This isn't about curtain wall vs window wall or box vs structural expressionism. This is about design choices like colour that can turn a dud into a gem. Different colours do have different price tags. The difference is nominal for most choices.
Agree that better choice in colors. As for cost, spandrel I have been told is less expensive than transparent glass. If that's the case, there will be a cost difference on a high rise tower that plays into it. For me, how much spoandrel is on the tower portion will be less important than the color. We both probably agree on that. We both probably agree about the podium colors.

Regarding renters vs condo. I still say renters in general, care less about the appearance of the building. I'm not saying renters are bad, but renting usually is more temporary. Also the rental market is different in Toronto than it is in Calgary. With rental being a more popular long term approach in Toronto, though Calgary is trending that way also. Here in Calgary it used to be the word 'rental' had a bad connotation because it was so temporary, and a high percentage of people owned. These days it's becoming more popular to rent, and the connotation is going away.
 
As the building code rolls out, and even more so the next one, having complete coverage of vision glass will become impossible unless the developer is willing to invest in advanced systems like double facades, like the project that is going up at UCalgary right now.
 
As the building code rolls out, and even more so the next one, having complete coverage of vision glass will become impossible unless the developer is willing to invest in advanced systems like double facades, like the project that is going up at UCalgary right now.
There may be some types of vision glass that meet the code, but I'm guessing they would be crazy expensive anyway.
 
186172
 
Agree that better choice in colors. As for cost, spandrel I have been told is less expensive than transparent glass. If that's the case, there will be a cost difference on a high rise tower that plays into it. For me, how much spoandrel is on the tower portion will be less important than the color. We both probably agree on that. We both probably agree about the podium colors.

Regarding renters vs condo. I still say renters in general, care less about the appearance of the building. I'm not saying renters are bad, but renting usually is more temporary. Also the rental market is different in Toronto than it is in Calgary. With rental being a more popular long term approach in Toronto, though Calgary is trending that way also. Here in Calgary it used to be the word 'rental' had a bad connotation because it was so temporary, and a high percentage of people owned. These days it's becoming more popular to rent, and the connotation is going away.

I doubt renting has become a more popular long term choice in Calgary. Recent demand is likely due to falling condo prices. People are reluctant to buy with the expectation that future prices will be lower than current prices. New mortgage stress test rules are also likely another factor.
 
I doubt renting has become a more popular long term choice in Calgary. Recent demand is likely due to falling condo prices. People are reluctant to buy with the expectation that future prices will be lower than current prices. New mortgage stress test rules are also likely another factor.

As Calgary's economy reverts to the mean, homeownership rates will also likely drop to levels more in line with the other major Canadian cities. At the moment Calgary's homeownership rate of 73% is an anomaly compared to the other large cities: Montreal (55.7%), Vancouver (63.7%), Toronto (66.5%), Ottawa (66.6%), and Edmonton (69.6%). In fact, at the moment, Calgary's homeownership rate is closer to rural Canada (77.7%)! (Source)
 
I doubt renting has become a more popular long term choice in Calgary. Recent demand is likely due to falling condo prices. People are reluctant to buy with the expectation that future prices will be lower than current prices. New mortgage stress test rules are also likely another factor.
I think you're incorrect on that. Part of the recent popularity in renting is due to those factors you mentioned, and but also due to other factors. I'm not sure of your age or economic position, etc but as someone who is heavily exposed to people in the 25-35 year old age group I can tell you very few people in that age group have a strong desire to own property, definitely not the desire I had when I was their age. Renting is only going to get more popular and Calgary will be moving toward percentages seen in the other major cities that Silence and Motion posted.
 
As Calgary's economy reverts to the mean, homeownership rates will also likely drop to levels more in line with the other major Canadian cities. At the moment Calgary's homeownership rate of 73% is an anomaly compared to the other large cities: Montreal (55.7%), Vancouver (63.7%), Toronto (66.5%), Ottawa (66.6%), and Edmonton (69.6%). In fact, at the moment, Calgary's homeownership rate is closer to rural Canada (77.7%)! (Source)
Agreed. Calgary has been an out-lier for a long time. Let's put it this way, today's Calgary is not your father's Calgary.
 
Agree that better choice in colors. As for cost, spandrel I have been told is less expensive than transparent glass. If that's the case, there will be a cost difference on a high rise tower that plays into it. For me, how much spoandrel is on the tower portion will be less important than the color. We both probably agree on that. We both probably agree about the podium colors.

Regarding renters vs condo. I still say renters in general, care less about the appearance of the building. I'm not saying renters are bad, but renting usually is more temporary. Also the rental market is different in Toronto than it is in Calgary. With rental being a more popular long term approach in Toronto, though Calgary is trending that way also. Here in Calgary it used to be the word 'rental' had a bad connotation because it was so temporary, and a high percentage of people owned. These days it's becoming more popular to rent, and the connotation is going away.

I agree with the second part. I just don't think its applicable to the subject at hand which is new rental construction. It's almost always finished to higher level standards like new office construction is built to higher class standards. No one is going to confuse these units with being "rentals" New construction condos and rentals in Calgary's smaller sample are indistinguishable from one another and quality of the architecture boils down to whomever is building it. Renters and buyers aren't setting the tone. They are just as indifferent to design They buy or rent what they like. It may be location. It may be square footage. Or worst of all, It may be Stucco Deco Dreck.
 
Agreed. Calgary has been an out-lier for a long time. Let's put it this way, today's Calgary is not your father's Calgary.
I don't have any evidence other than anecdotal evidence, but the 5 people I'm close to who are in their 20's don't want to purchase. They might change their minds down the road, but now they want to live somewhere downtown or in one of the inner city neighborhoods, and renting is much easier to do so. When I was even younger than they are I was already looking at ways to buy a house, in part because it was relatively easier back then, and also the draw of inner city living wasn't as strong at the time.
 
I agree with the second part. I just don't think its applicable to the subject at hand which is new rental construction. It's almost always finished to higher level standards like new office construction is built to higher class standards. No one is going to confuse these units with being "rentals" New construction condos and rentals in Calgary's smaller sample are indistinguishable from one another and quality of the architecture boils down to whomever is building it. Renters and buyers aren't setting the tone. They are just as indifferent to design They buy or rent what they like. It may be location. It may be square footage. Or worst of all, It may be Stucco Deco Dreck.
I'm not an expert on building costs, but I wonder sometimes what the difference in cost is for exterior materials between say The Royal, and The Hat East Village. Or say Park Point...vs Aura Towers. IMO Park Point point looks much nicer, but probably has the same amount of glass/spandrel ratio as Aura. Is it the quality of the spandrel, or the color arrangement?
 
I'm not an expert on building costs, but I wonder sometimes what the difference in cost is for exterior materials between say The Royal, and The Hat East Village. Or say Park Point...vs Aura Towers. IMO Park Point point looks much nicer, but probably has the same amount of glass/spandrel ratio as Aura. Is it the quality of the spandrel, or the color arrangement?
Park Point is a beautiful building IMO, but there is certainly a 10-15% premium on the increased complexity of exterior. Once the uniformity is discontinued, price increases. Using Hat at EV as an example, it is totally uniform all the way up the tower - this isn't necessarily bad design; simplicity can be appealing as well - even the spanrel is fine IMO, but the color selections are so questionable I'm wondering if anyone on the design team feels regret.

I also know that spandrel is considerably more expensive than vision glass. It's also required given new energy code standards. The spandrel panels are usually insulated at ~R4/inch.

Ultimately, there is no excuse for bad color selections and this seems to be the root of most bad design we're discussing ATM.

Also, regarding rent v buying - also anecdotally, no one in my social circle is interested in buying. Not a financial consideration either, purely lifestyle. The market is shifting, as the industry can clearly see... how rent v sale units translates to good/bad design is not clear in my mind
 

Back
Top