Yesterday, we went over the hotel-condominiums in the downtown core that have the highest maintenance fees.
Today, let’s look at traditional condos and see which buildings top the list!
I don’t want to give the impression that no building with high maintenance fees is worth buying into.
That’s simply untrue, and it wouldn’t be fair for me to list off the buildings below without making that abundantly clear.
Every buyer is different, and there are all kinds of wants/needs that go into a condo search. In the case of a 23-year-old condo buyer versus a 68-year-old condo buyer – you might make a list of twenty search criteria that those two buyers wouldn’t agree on!
A colleague of mine is about to list a midtown condo where the maintenance fees are almost $1.00 per square foot. I said to him, “I would never, ever sell that unit to my clients,” and he shrugged. He said, “But David, that’s you, and that’s your buyers, your demographic, you, you, you. Everybody is different, and there are buyers that would KILL to get in this building.”
It’s true.
Units with unusually high maintenance fees will cost significantly less than units in the same building next door, so some buyers feel that “it all comes out in the wash.” I might agree, in theory, but most buyers would rather pay a bit more for the unit than get hit with that $900/month maintenance fee charge for their 1-bedroom condo. I might also argue that this unit would be harder to sell in the long run.
But I’m just one voice, and since many of buyers are first or second-time buyers who will only be in the unit for 2-5 years, I advise them to buy into buildings that are less than five years old, where it will be easy to resell down the line.
To each, their own.
And now, without further adieu…
50 Lombard Street – “The Indigo”
Fees in this building check in around $0.90 per square foot.
Several listings on MLS describe this as “an award winning building,” but I have yet to determine what that award was for, and when it was handed out.
The location is fantastic – just up the street from St. James Park (this is usually good, but not when the city’s homeless are camping out…), close to the St. Lawrence Market, and a five-minute walk to the financial core.
But the building itself doesn’t have any features/amenities that justify the high fees, which are usually reflected in the low sale price of the units themselves (often well below $400/sqft!). That’s quite the deal, I must say!
77 Harbour Square
Fees in this building check around $0.90 per square foot, but there have been some discrepancies as I’ve gone back to listings from earlier this year.
Regardless, fees here are based on the “services” offered at the “prestigious” Harbour Square.
Here’s one where I will go on record and say that I don’t like the building. When I speak of “ugly, old” buildings, 77 Harbour Square is one of the first that comes to mind. It’s one of the oldest condominiums in the downtown core, and it looks like it from the outside (no balconies/terraces, but they do have solariums!), and many of the units are extremely dated (wooden toilet seats!). I’ve never been a fan of old buildings, and I don’t see the appeal to living in this gargantuan complex.
Residents do, however, get a free shuttle services as part of their high maintenance fees! Yay, big-yellow-school-bus! In all seriousness though – VIP digital cable is included in the monthly fees, so perhaps the above figure should take that into consideration.
800 King Street West
This one is really a shame. Fees in this building check in around $0.88 per square foot.
King Street west is home to a handful of “mid-rise” buildings that came along before the area gave way to monster towers. 800 King, 833 King, 954 King, 1000 King, and 1029 King are all 8-10 storeys and they offer much better value than some of the newer, flashier buildings in King West.
But for whatever reason, it’s only 800 King Street that has $700/month fees for a 1+1.
I will say this – it’s exceptionally rare that you find an 815 square foot 1-bedroom-plus-den, 2-bathroom unit with parking for $324,000! See what I mean about the ‘value’ in some of these buildings? If you’re willing to foot the $700/month, you’re getting a unit that might cost an extra $60,000 across the street.
71 Front Street – “St. Lawrence Market Lofts”
Fees in this historic building are an unfortunate $0.83 per square foot.
But what a location! Can you get any closer to the St. Larwrence Market? I suppose 80 Front Street across the street is an option, but it too is an older building with high fees and no outdoor space.
You’ve likely driven by 71 Front Street a hundred times but never actually noticed that there are residential units above the LCBO, Starbucks, et al. This strip of commercial/retail properties was one of the first of its kind in Toronto, dating back to the mid-1800’s when Front Street truly was the front of the city of Toronto.
This condo is of the “hard loft” variety and I’ve seen some magnificent spaces. I’ve also seen some very, very dated units as well, but what do you expect in a building like this?
The fees are quite unfortunate, because I’ve shown units in this building to countless buyers, but most just can’t over the fees. Units don’t exactly fly off the shelves either. In the last two years, there have been twenty-five MLS listings for eleven units (most units are listed over and over), and only five units have successfully sold.
25 Grenville Street – “The Gallery”
Fees in this building check in around $0.83 per square foot.
The MLS description for a unit that sold recently read, “Steps to Aura but not at Aura prices!”
Oh, if only the world worked that way! Imagine – “Looks like your expensive medication, but isn’t, and doesn’t cost as much!” Or what about, “Looks like a Mercedes, but costs 1/10th the price because it has no engine.” Just because a condo is near another condo doesn’t mean you can attribute the luxury of one building to the other!
Paying almost $600 per month in maintenance fees is tough to swallow when you own a 1-bedroom condo. Maybe that’s why 39 MLS listings have resulted in 21 sales in the past two years.
_________________________________________
I had a bit of a debate today with a colleague of mine who suggested that $0.70 per square foot is “not that high.”
It’s above average, that’s for sure. But is it truly “high?” I guess I could split hairs and say that anything over $0.75/sqft is definitely high, but the units listed above fall into another category altogether.
Or maybe I’m making too much of this. An 800 square foot condo costs $80 more per month if the fees are $0.70/sqft rather than $0.60 per square foot, so the question becomes: how much does that $80 really impact you?
Compared to the value of the asset – perhaps $400,000, it’s not all that much.
But there are buildings throughout the downtown core that have high fees for seemingly no reason, ie. there are no amenities or services provided. Some buildings have high fees because there were major building deficiencies that needed to be remedied, and monthly reserve fund contributions went up as a result.
I was in 112 St. Clair Avenue West on the weekend looking at a $1.2 Million condo where the fees are $0.92/sqft, and the building is brand new. What are you getting for that money? Are you getting tucked into bed every night by an elf? Does the lobby smell like fresh baked cookies every morning? No. You get nothing more at 112 St. Clair Avenue than you would at most other condos in Toronto. So why the high fees? I can honestly say, “I don’t know.”
Every buyer is different, and some put more importance on maintenance fees than others.
So if you live in one of the buildings above – I’m not hating on you, and I hope you’re happy where you are.
But surely you knew that your building had to be on this list…..didn’t you?
BillyO
at 8:31 am
Another thing I’ve noticed recently are the climbing fees for parking/locker on top of the 0.60-something per sq ft fees (plus electricity, which isn’t included in newer buildings). Like some of these new buildings like Cinema Tower, Karma, etc have and extra $60-$90 in parking/locker maintainence, fees of let’s say $0.60 (they BS during pre con stage and always underreport this figure as we know), and $40-$60 in electricity to Carma energy or whoever, making the true fees cost something like $0.75 per sq ft, and these are for your run of the mill standard condo that is being launched, we aren’t talking Yorkville.
Ash
at 10:33 am
Good Read like always Dave! Thanks …
David
at 11:37 am
That’s not a picture of 71 Front Street. You have a picture of Winners/Nicholas Hoare/etc…
David
at 11:59 am
Also, 71 Front Street East is not St Lawrence Market Lofts… It’s Market Galleria. SLML is 81A Front Street East.
David Fleming
at 12:21 pm
I definitely mixed up the two buildings. The funny part is – majority of the listings on MLS for 71 Front Street have a photo of 81A Front Street! It was enough to confuse me… 🙂
James Taylor
at 9:33 pm
That is why we can’t rely on the pictures taken by others and must confirm their accuracy on our own. In Southern California I have experienced this many times through the decades. It is not a problem unique to any one area.
Sharon Wright
at 8:39 pm
No, I didn’t know…but thanks for the opportunity to give a heads up to anyone thinking of purchasing a condo. In 1986 I purchased a unit looking west at the Sky Dome on the top floor at 71 Front St. Maintenance fees were $440. a month and the price tag of $220,000. was within budget. What the realtor failed to mention was that the building had not yet been subjected to a technical audit! Within a year of purchase, the audit would be conducted and a figure in excess of a million dollars in deficiencies would force the newly appointed board, of which I had become a member, to triple the maintenance fees. Buyer beware!
Chris
at 1:09 pm
Great Blog David,
Once the current building boom subsides and we return to more normal construction levels, buildings that are newer than 5 years will form a much smaller portion of the overall condo market. Fewer people will have the ability to keep moving into shiny new buildings. In terms of maintenance fees, with many newer condo projects I find you are locked into high-end living in terms of amenities and extensive common elements.
There are in fact older buildings that have stabilized and reasonable maintenance fees with a healthy reserve fund. You should also consider that older buildings offer more respectable and more liveable unit sizes. In some cases electricity is included.
Phil
at 3:45 pm
I agree with the older buildings part. When I was looking to buy, I was shocked at the footage which $300,000 can buy in downtown Toronto nowadays. I looked at Sp!re etc. As glamourous they are from the outside and the lobby, what you own is the 450sf tiny space with a windowless, doorless “bedroom” and a tight livingroom where you don’t even know where to place a sofa, not to say a small dining table. I mean, can people really accept bedrooms with no natural light whatsoever? On the other hand, older buildings in the same price range offer so much more space, sometimes 50% more.
Honestly I have trouble understanding the obession with the newest, hippest condos at such a high premium. In the end, they all age and lose the glamour, don’t they? With older ones, at least I know what they look like when old.
Jeff
at 7:08 pm
David, the photo you are showing is of 55 and 77 Harbour Square. Maintenance fees in those buildings are closer to $0.65 per square foot.
thecondofitz
at 7:23 pm
I find that a lot fo my clients by into a new building for the “new community” factor. Early adopters are a different breed, and can make really good neighbours. Keep in ind that some of my investors also opt to move into the unit for tax purposes. Some of my clients appreciate, as do I, to be surrounded by other sharp minded individuals, even if it’s only long enough to cash in (substantially) on their investment. This only applies to special projects. Examples of such notable buildings are The Icon I, The Hudson, and London on Esplanade. The top candidates for polar opposites of the latter are: 600 Fleet Street, Neo & Montage. I’m just speaking from experience, no emotions attached. I didn’t mean to offend anyone.
thecondofitz
at 7:24 pm
I apologize for my rampid spelling mistakes. I should have reviewed before submitting. But this took me for ever to type on my phone.
WEB
at 10:51 pm
I think you are mixing up 77 Harbour Square up with 33 or 55/65 Harbour Square. I used to live in 77 Harbour Square and half of the units have balconies and none have wooden toilet seats! Also, maintenance fees as of three years ago were about 70 cents a square foot so I’d be surprised if they are now 90 cents. 77 Harbour Square is the sister building to 99 Harbour Square and are the two twin towers on tbe west side of Harbour Square (99 is the south tower and 77 is the north tower.)
77/99 Harbour Square are fantastic condos for the following reasons:
– spacious units (2BRs are 986-1,200 square feet)
– the buildings are a great combination of being modern enough without being the size of a shoe box.
– tonnes of visitor parking (in 10 years that I lived there, I never had a guest that couldn’t park in visitor parking)
– tonnes of resident parking – enought that it is fairly cheap to buy a second parking spot if needed.
– 5 elevators – sounds not too important but I’ve heard stories of it taking 5-10 minutes in many new buildings to just to get out of a building because there are only 2 or 3 elevators.
– the shuttle bus is actually a great feature and is very well used. It is shared by all the Harbour Square buildings.
– Great facilities- great gym, pool, squash courts, restaurant, sun deck, bar/party room etc.
– Great location – 10 min walk to the core, etc. Sobey’s across the street, Loblaws a 2 min drive away. Many new restaurants opening close by.
– Great concierge staff
And check out how many units have been put up for sale over the past few years. You’ll find that very few have. People love it there and tend to stay for a long time.
The only potential negative is the proximity to the airport. With Porter and Air Canada expanding there, the harbourfront can be very noisy at times (and smelly- the smell of jet fuel can waft through the entire neighbourhood.) But some like the convenience of it being so close.
Douglas Scott
at 12:03 pm
You have it exactly right Web-I would not buy a used car from this guy-he probably would try to tell me that a BMW is a Toyota. He sure does not know the Harbour Square buildings. Very poor research.
Chris
at 10:32 am
The sexy glass condominiums that builders are throwing up today are often junk that is disguised by hip development names and glossy sales brochures.
These buildings are going to be the real maintenance nightmares in 15-25 years. Experts are calling modern glass condos “Throw-away buildings”
Sure that older condo may have a wooden toilet seat, but at least it was not purpose-built as some investor ponzie scheme with 450 sq/ft units within a building that literally self destructs after a few years.
Here is a link to today’s CBC article that shed’s light on the short-sightedness of today’s condo construction:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/11/13/tor-glass-walled-condos.html
Jim
at 5:31 pm
I opted for an older condo in King West a few years ago over a newer model purely because of size. I got a two bedroom 1000 square foot unit for the same price as a units in newer building were going for in the 500 square foot range.
And if having a wooden toilet seat puts the buyer off I suggest the go to Home Depot and price out toilet seats 🙂
You can take an older unit that needs some TLC in fit and finish and make it look like a show suite for a reasonable investment, and still come in way cheaper that a new, comparable unit.
David Fleming
at 8:31 pm
@ Jim
I agree for the most part. I caution my buyers that “too old” is not worth looking at, ie. 25-30 years, simply because I believe they’ll have problems re-selling it down the road.
But take a building like 1000 King Street West, for example. Prices are lower than DNA, Electra Lofts, and far, far lower than the new (and apparently “gorgeous/luxurious”) DNA3 which will eventually be built. I sold a 1000 square foot, 2-bed, 2-bath with parking to a client here last year for $410,000. Her monthly fees were around $0.45/sqft, all inclusive.
THIS is the type of older, value building I tell people to look at.
Phil
at 9:29 am
Just by looking at the exterior, I am positive that in 5-10 years, DNA will look a lot worse and cheaper than 1000 King West.
John
at 9:10 am
Well now we have heard about the bad I hope you counter with the good also.
I live at 71 Charles St. E Toronto. I understand you don’t like old buildings however this one does have merit. Fees are $0.50 per sq. foot.
Built in 1982 it has a indoor pool two outdoor terraces and a party room.
And there is 24 hour security.There has never been a need for a special assessment, the reserve is fully funded and the maintenance is kept up to date. I’m sure there must be some other buildings like this around town.
Keep us all informed with your blog. Good job.
Sporsch
at 5:04 pm
David,
Another good discussion…I definitely believe there starts to be an inverse relationship between the value of a unit and the condo fees. Myself, I worry about my own unit. On a p/sf basis, my fee is $0.64 -not great, but not eye-popping. But my unit is over 1,100 sf so the all-in fee is $717! It includes everything and we have 2 parking spaces but I still think its high. When we bought a few years ago, it was just over $600 and I was hesitant at that fee. We were $699 until a recent fairly modest increase bumped us up and I can’t help but wonder if I should have sold when the fee was “only” $699. Question…this might be bad idea but do condo boards ever consider stripping out certain utility costs so that they can claim a lower fee or would you say that no buyer is that naive?
Old Sparky
at 7:08 pm
The Indigo is now at $1.00 sq.ft.
Wonder why it’s a tough sell, eh?
John Penny
at 9:08 pm
Referring to 77 Harbour Square, which twins 99 Harbour Square, I know for a fact (I live there) my 690 sq ft unit fees are $.79 so maybe they are creeping up but as an earlier person suggested you must be referring to the much older buildings adjacent to the Hotel – those are old (33, 55, 65)but over half the units in 77 and 99 have balconies, and are far from old-looking. Great buildings = I think you need to re-check your facts!
Munira
at 2:13 pm
Regarding 77 Harbour, You are very incorrect to say there are no balconies… considering I am sitting on mine right now. This beautiful building may require a revisit by you or your real estate blogging team, but most of the West facing units have a balcony — with exquisite views.
The big yellow bus has never been so. The buses used have recently been updated and are very comfortable and comparable to a grey hound bus.
Also. Have you seen the gym? A-mazing. Squash, Basketball, Swimming (indoor and out), top of the line equipment and personal training services….
77 Harbour is connected to 99 Harbour and is packaged as Number One for a reason 😉
30+ years at Harbour Sq
at 7:16 pm
Munira,
The yellow condo was were the first ones in the 1970’s , 1980’s and in the early 1990’s. the current buses are the third ones.
Seamus
at 10:49 am
A note on the Harbour Square complex … it is actually five buildings making up two condo corps. #77 and #99 are the western buildings at the foot of York. #’s 33, 55, and 65 are the three at the foot of Bay. The MLS listings for all five tend to use the same stock photo.
I used to live in 77 and made good use of the facilities. For me, the value for money in relation to the monthly fees was acceptable. One other notable amenity is that you get on the Gardiner east or west bound very quickly if you are heading out of town. I worked in Richmond Hill at the time, so I appreciated that aspect of the location.
Steve
at 5:15 pm
Toronto’s not my home town, nor will it be. However having once lived in a condo town home, the one thing I’ve not seen you mention are the reserve funds. I’d rather be buying into a condo with mid to somewhat high fees and a healthy balance sheet, than a unit with low fees and a special assessment around the corner. I guess worse still would be a unit with high fees, weak reserves and a special assessment lurking! Actually having once (and only once) lived in a condo, I tell my friends and family – be sure you can put up with condo life before committing. I couldn’t get out soon enough.
Jr
at 2:59 pm
Steve if you’re not from Toronto, it can’t ever be your home town…. Unless you’re literally born again. That said, all condos in Ontario have been required for almost ten years to have a fully-funded reserve fund, or a plan to rectify any deficiency within seven years. Thus, the dramatic increase in some corporations’ fees over the last seven years. Most corps should now be over that hump, and we will see a leveling-off period.
I live in a ‘luxury’ building @$0.71 Including one parking stall. Our increases over the last three years were 2,2, and zero %. We have 2-3 security staff 24/7, which consumes 25%+ of the budget. Reserve fund contributions are another 25%, leaving $0.35 for all utilities, maintenance, landscaping, snow removal, and staff salaries. My cable package (included) retails for $150 per month, and we both use the gym, saltwater pool and rooftop jacuzzi extensively. A similar building would be Palace Place, with fees of $0.79 psf. (The extra covers valet parking.) You may not want these amenities, but obviously enough people do to support the market, especially once people tire of 600sq ft living and want 1300-2500 sq ft.
Anna
at 3:02 pm
What do you think about the Summit condos on King West / 701 705 and 725 / ?
Douglas Scott
at 11:58 am
When is David either going to delete his completely inaccurate comments about 77 Harbour Square or apologize for his errors??-he fails to even mention that 77-99 Harbour Square have what no other condos have-a large private restaurant with good food and very reasonable prices plus lounge bar and with room service no less! As with other comments above, I presume he is talking about the oldest condo at Harboufront-33 Harbour Square and cannot be relied upon for his knowledge of this area.
Marla
at 2:36 pm
33 Harbour Square also does NOT fit the description. Judging from the balance of the statements made about the other buildings, this person should not be judging condos because he does not have the facts correct!
Godel
at 3:33 pm
I own a suite a 33 Harbour Square, and like most owners love the building and it’s services, which include, water, electricity, heat and hydro, Cable TV in suite, and WiFi in all common areas in addition to beautiful well maintained facilities: Gym; salt water pool, party room, hobby room, children’s play room, 6 guest suites, etc
Enjoy the carefree life
at 11:47 am
I live at 33 Harbour Square and find the quality of service and the maintenance fees reasonable. These fees include, heat, hydro, water and cable TV (as well as reduced cost internet) – There is an excellent gym, outdoor garden, salt water pool, guest suites for occasional visitors, and many other services. It is a quiet, very well maintained building with the best view of the harbour and toronto islands in the
city.
thirst Design
at 11:58 am
THE INDIGO.
50 Lombard – THE INDIGO
A statement about downtown life. Finished in granite, glass, and steel, it celebrates the neighbourhood and brings a strong sense of place to the street.” “There’s a big difference between the Indigo and most of the other downtown condos. Peter Clewes is a Canadian architect and the principal of the Toronto-based firm architect Alliance. He has been one of the leading architects in the condo boom that has reshaped Toronto in the first decade of the 21st century.
‘A Strong Sense of Place’: The Indigo’s Beginnings
When Indigo developer Henry Kim conceived the idea of bringing high- end highrise living to Toronto’s downtown core, his aim was to create the “finest condominium” in Toronto. He hired archi- tect Peter Clewes to design the building, and he assembled a team of engineers and contractors who were committed to creat- ing an environmentally friendly, energy-ef- ficient luxury residence for busy urbanites.
Unfortunately, Henry Kim—so pre- scient in his design and engineering choices—didn’t foresee the economic recession of the early 1990s. In a newslet- ter distributed to Indigo purchasers in late 1991, while the building was in its early construction stages, he tried to put a posi- tive spin on the situation: “The economy is recovering and the real estate market is moving upwards,” he wrote, more opti- mistically than accurately. He told buyers that he had made “a strategic decision” to proceed with construction, and indeed the building was completed. But critical praise and awards for outstanding architectural design and energy efficiency couldn’t pre- vent the project from going into receiver- ship when the original buyers defaulted. The building stood empty for a period,
and suites eventually went on sale at what Constantine Karbaliotis, the Indigo’s first resident—and first board president—de- scribes as “significantly reduced” prices.
“I was on my way to the St. Lawrence Market,” says Constantine, who still owns a suite in the building. “I saw the sign ad- vertising ‘luxury condos,’ and I came back to check it out. I loved what I saw, and I knew that now was the time to buy.”
The first board members—Angelo De Filippo, David Beach, Steve Devries, Garth Mitchum, and Constantine Karbali- otis— were faced with more than the usual number of challenges. “The biggest problem was electricity,” says Constantine. “The building was built as an energy-effi- cient structure, with big ice-making units that allowed us to strike a deal with Hydro to buy power at a lower off-peak rate.
This was one of the virtues of the building. The problem was that the receiver hadn’t actually closed the deal with Hydro, and the financial projections that had been presented to buyers didn’t apply.
Our first problem was that energy costs had gone through the roof, and we had to take drastic steps to make sure that we managed the building properly.”
The board was able to cancel a number of unfavourable contracts that the receiver had entered into, including security and maintenance contracts, which led to a higher level of service and significant cost savings. When Hydro ultimately agreed to honour its original off-peak energy agreement, and when the Royal Bank finally settled builders’ deficiencies and other issues, things began to look up. “We put part of the settlement into the reserve fund and part into improving the rooftop patio,” says Constantine. “We’d had to do some deficit financing during the first two years. We entered into equipment leases, and we authorized some special assess- ments. But the residents kept re-electing us, so they must have appreciated the fact that we were running a really tight ship. Things stabilized.”
That stability remains a characteristic of the Indigo. “One of the great things about this building is that more than 90 percent of the units are owner-occupied,” says Constantine. “Quite a few of the original residents are still here. When the Indigo was built, there weren’t nearly as many condos downtown as there are now. The original buyers were doing something very new at the time. That’s one of the
great strengths of the building—it attracts people who stay.”
Constantine’s knowledge of Indigo his- tory is extensive, but there’s one question even he can’t answer. “I don’t know why the building is called ‘The Indigo,’” he says. “No one ever explained that to us. But the theme was carried through, from the colour of the building’s awning right down to the marketing materials.” Among the many condominiums that are being built today, the Indigo still stands apart as one of the first examples in To- ronto of a “sliver” building, or point tower. Architecture critic Christopher Hume de- scribed the building as a “statement about downtown life. Finished in granite, glass, and steel, it celebrates the neighbourhood and brings a strong sense of place to the street.”
“There’s a big difference between the Indigo and most of the other downtown con- dos,” says Constantine. “The architecture is striking, the suites are spacious, and there’s no wasted space in the hallways. This is one of the most beautiful buildings in the city. I don’t know the process by which Peter Clewes was chosen as the architect, but I’m grateful that he was. The Indigo has the potential to be a classic structure in downtown Toronto. In twenty years’ time, people will still be writing articles about what a remarkable building this is.”
His projects include SP!RE, Casa Condominio Residenza, Murano, Burano, X Condominium, 20 Niagara, and MoZo. He most often works for Howard Cohen of Context Developments.
Clewes designed buildings can be described as neomodern. He is notable for creating unadorned towers with large expanses of glass and well thought out interior layouts. He is a critic of neo-historical and postmodern structures, arguing there is no reason to force tiny windows and aged styles when modern technology can create expansive floor to ceiling windows. He has argued forcefully against contextualism, and has not employed it for projects such as his Distillery District designs. He told the Globe and Mail “We need to create buildings of our time. Architecture is a record of where a city and a culture was at a particular time.”[1] His designs have been well received by customers and critics. Christopher Hume is one of his strongest advocates. Hume, the architecture critic for the Toronto Star, has given rare A ratings to several of Clewes’ designs and has called him “the leading condo designer of his generation”
Over 30 years of practice, Peter Clewes has developed a body of work that is shaped by the clarity and functionality of modernism, and which expresses a deep
commitment to urbanism and city-building
Peter Clewes is a Canadian architect and the principal of theToronto-based firm architectsAlliance. He has been one of the leading architects in the condo boom that has reshaped Toronto in the first decade of the 21st century. His projects include SP!RE, Casa Condominio Residenza, Murano, Burano, X Condominium, 20 Niagara, and MoZo. He most often works for Howard Cohen ofContext Developments.
Clewes designed buildings can be described as neomodern. He is notable for creating unadorned towers with large expanses of glass and well thought out interior layouts. He is a critic of neo-historical and postmodern structures, arguing there is no reason to force tiny windows and aged styles when modern technology can create expansive floor to ceiling windows. He has argued forcefully againstcontextualism, and has not employed it for projects such as hisDistillery District designs. He told the Globe and Mail “We need to create buildings of our time. Architecture is a record of where a city and a culture was at a particular time.” His designs have been well received by customers and critics. Christopher Hume is one of his strongest advocates. Hume, the architecture critic for the Toronto Star, has given rare A ratings to several of Clewes’ designs and has called him “the leading condo designer of his generation”
Loving it
at 10:11 am
Please update this list…. it is not longer true that 71 Front st. east is amongst the top 5 highest maintenance fees in the downtown core by square footage. Your article was written in 2011.
We have been living here for 20 yrs and love it. Retired couples who downsize from a larger home like our large units, they also like being to walk to all the city has to offer. Other couples use it as pied de terre. New couples like the size of units for a new addition to their family in the future.
Seriously, update your database on the maintenance fees. Or remove this post bec it is not longer accurate.
David Fleming
at 10:51 am
@ Loving it
There’s a date on the blog post – it says 2011.
Did you email the Toronto Star to ask them to remove any story referencing the 1992 Blue Jays as “World Series Champions,” because now in 2018, they no longer have that title?