My buddies and I had a discussion on our group chat last weekend about the greatest hockey player of all time.
One of my friends said that it was Connor McDavid, and I just about jumped out the window.
Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time, and about that, there is no doubt. It’s not only because he’s actually called “The Great One,” or because when he retired in 1999, he held 61 records. It’s because he was the greatest player, relative to his peers, at any point in the history of hockey, and the gap between himself and his peers was the largest gap in the history of hockey.
Having said that, Connor McDavid is a more skilled hockey player today than Wayne Gretzky was from 1979 to 1999.
Why?
Because seemingly everybody is more skilled today than they were twenty, thirty, or seventy years ago. So that means Connor McDavid is doing things that Wayne Gretzky never did; he’s just not doing them that much better than his peers, compared to Wayne.
The conversation then went to your “top five players of all time,” ie. to watch, enjoy, or follow. A “favourite,” if you will.
My friend Tucker said:
1) Steve Yzerman
2) Doug Gilmour
3) Sidney Crosby
4) Mario Lemieux
5) Mats Sundin
Totally fair, and great picks!
When it was my turn, I wrote:
1) Eddie Shore
2) Charlie Conacher
3) Aurel Joliat
4) Maurice Richard
5) Gordie Howe
He sarcastically wrote back, “I’m sure a lot of people have the same five.”
Eddie Shore, Charlie Conacher, and Aurel Joliat played in the 1930’s, and Maurice Richard played in the 1940’s and 1950’s, whereas Gordie Howe’s epic career actually spanned from 1946 through 1980. So for me to say these are my “favourite players” just reeks of showmanship, right?
Except that, I have been a historian of the game since my Dad bought me my first copy of the “NHL Official Guide & Record Book” in 1988. I got a new copy every single year, and this damn thing called “The Internet” ruined all that in the late 90’s. I love the history of the game! I love 1920’s and 1930’s hockey!
You might think the greatest Toronto Maple Leaf of all time was Mats Sundin, or Dave Keon, or Tim Horton. But how many Maple Leafs have ever led the NHL in goals? Most of you will name Auston Matthews in 2020-21, and some might know Gaye Stewart in 1945-46 from all those articles written about Auston Matthews last year. But Charlie Conacher led the NHL in goal-scoring five times in a six-year span from 1930-31 through 1935-36. It could be argued that he is the greatest Toronto Maple Leaf of all time. Charlie also had brothers, Lionel, and Roy, who both joined him in the Hall of Fame. Charlie’s son, Pete, played in the NHL. Lionel’s son, Brian, played in the NHL. The Conachers are the 1930’s version of the Sutter Brothers.
In the end, I could tell you that I was a huge fan of Gary Leeman, Stephane Richer, Brett Hull, Pavel Bure, and Pat LaFontaine growing up. But at this point in my life, spending much of my free time collecting 1930’s hockey cards with my old man, I think my original list above holds water.
So then: does this make me a show-off? A know-it-all? A smarty-pants? Would you want to talk hockey with me, knowing that I’ll delve into players and time periods that are completely irrelevant?
It could be really annoying, right?
But there’s something to be said for people who talk and act like this because they believe it, and another thing entirely to be said about people who talk and act like this because they want to sound important.
I come across this a lot in my line of work when it comes to architecture and design.
My cynical side says that 99.9% of condominium buyers have no clue who a particular designer or architect actually is.
Case in point, when 75 Portland Street first debuted, we were inundated with the name “Philippe Starck.” I had no clue what, or who, this was. And yet, I seemed to be the only person who would freely admit this! Every MLS listing mentioned that the building was “Designed by Renowned Philippe Starck.”
I’m not kidding.
A quick search of the MLS archives reveals that since 2007, there have been 451 listings in the building, and 272 of those listings include the word “Starck.” Another 27 include “Stark,” where agents spelled this “renowned” individual’s name incorrectly. There is one listing with “Strack.”
But how many of those agents, or sellers, or buyers, had a clue who this person was?
Here’s a listing from 2007:
Internationally renowned.
Hey look, I understand marketing, okay! And maybe I’d do this myself if I thought it could add some value to the listing.
But that courtyard at 75 Portland Street is one of the most critiqued aspects of the building. Those that live there, and those that have looked at condos in the building and decided against a purchase, will tell you the same. This U-shaped building with a courtyard below means that most residents stare directly at one-another:
Some people like the courtyard. I think.
But the most common critique, at least in 2021, is that people don’t value the idea of staring at 85 other condo owners. And as a result, I’ve never had a client purchase one of these units.
But the building itself? Oh boy, back in 2007, walking through that lobby was like walking into the future! The fact that it’s in prime King West, literally steps from the nucleus of the area at King & Portland, was a huge draw. There’s always been some cafe, coffee bar, or bake shop in the base of the building, and all of the beautiful people are dolled up on a Sunday morning to get an espresso and a gluten-free something-or-other.
Imagine this architecture back in 2007:
That was the original artist’s rendering back when the building was called “Yoo.”
Thankfully, it’s now called “SeventyFive Portland,” and while I don’t know when “Yoo” was lost, I certainly know why.
I’ve written a lot about architecture and architects in the past, and it’s usually sarcastic.
I know I wrote about the King West project, brilliantly named “King Toronto,” a couple of years ago, noting that 99.99% of buyers have no clue who Bjarke Ingels are, and yet buyers flocked to this over-priced project because of the name of that particular brand of cheese. Er, I meant that Swedish punk rock band. Er, I meant that Danish motorcycle.
See? I can’t talk about this without being sarcastic, but dammit, tell me you knew who Bjarke Ingels were.
Last week, I received a call from a young woman who inquired about a project called “Bianca,” which was actually not named after the 2019 US Open winner that we all know and love, but if somebody told me it was, I’d want to believe them.
My cold-caller told me that she was “in love” with the design of this building and that she had been at their “launch party” years ago when her friend bought a unit in pre-construction, but she wasn’t in the market at that time. Fast-forward a few years, and now that this project is almost complete, she wanted to know if I could help her get on board.
It was an odd call, since I have been writing about the perils of pre-construction for over a decade. But I chatted with her nonetheless.
I asked her what she really liked about the building, and she reiterated, “The architecture.”
Here’s the artist’s rendering:
Yeah, it’s pretty cool-looking.
But my cynical side says you live inside the building, not on the pavement across the street, staring at it.
I wrote about this a little bit back in 2017:
March 27, 2017: “Does Curb Appeal Exist For Condos?”
Four years ago, I was more so asking about the look and feel of the condo.
Today, I’m more curious about the actual name of the person, or firm, who designed that look and feel.
My cold-caller said, “I love Teeple Architects. They do amazing work!”
I, of course, Googled “Teeple Architects.”
When I wrote about Bjarge Engels a couple of years ago, one TRB reader commented that I should “know my profession better,” and that I should have been familiar with their work. I don’t personally believe that I need to have a mental encyclopedia of designers, especially since, as you can tell from this post, I am cynical toward the entire concept.
I looked up the firm and of course, found photos of the artist’s renderings.
Here’s the actual scale model of “Bianca” that appeared in the sales centre:
Well, if there’s an award for making the rendering look like the model, then Teeple Architects can add that to their impressive haul of hardware!
When you look at condos and what constitutes “innovative” or “unique” architecture, you often see renderings like this:
Cool, I guess.
If you were being dangled by your ankles from the roof of the building, in a cartoon world, that’s exactly how “Bianca” would look to you.
But how impressive is this?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
My cold caller said, “I really loved what Teeple did over at Alexandra Park.”
So while we’re showing off artist’s renderings, have a gander at this beauty:
She said, “That project won the 2021 Toronto Urban Design Award!”
It was at this point that I asked her, “Are you in architecture?”
I figured she had to be. How else could she know all this? Why else would she know all this?
“No,” she said. “I’m a jewelry designer. I just love buildings with incredible designs!”
Perhaps that made sense. She’s in the business of jewelry design, so she’s creative, has a flair for the arts, and I can see the overlap in the Venn diagram there.
I then asked her, “Is your objective to get into Bianca then? Alexandra Park is a completely different area.”
She said that she didn’t actually care where she lived. She just wanted a building with “an exciting design,” and beyond that, her criteria were unimportant.
I couldn’t make sense of this. Try as I might, I honestly can’t reconcile overlooking location for something like the type of concrete and glass used to construct the damn building. That old adage about real estate, “location, location, location” has to be considered, but I would also look the price and value, not to mention the interior layout and features.
I explained all of this to her, and she responded that she’s also interested in buying a property that was designed by interior designers that she likes. She mentioned Cecconi Simone, which is a designer I’ve heard of, but that still wouldn’t move the needle at all, in my world.
She mentioned Panda Condos on Edward Street, which apparently start at almost $2M because the smallest units are more than 900 square feet, and I felt like we were going in circles. When I asked her what budget she was working with, she said, “I don’t know. I’m honestly not sure yet,” and that’s probably as sign as any that a buyer isn’t really ready to start his or her search.
Once again, the location of Panda was in a whole other neighbourhood than Bianca, which was in a whole other neighbourhood than SQ at Alexandra Park.
I’ll have clients that consider King East and King West, maybe the Distillery and the Entertainment District. So the idea of looking at condos that are designed by a particular firm, but nowhere near one another, isn’t the end of the world. I was just so surprised that she had put something like the name of an interior designer at the forefront of her search!
Am I alone in this?
Be honest, you won’t hurt my feelings.
Does the exterior of a condominium really matter? If so, how much?
And does the name of the design firm that drew up plans for that condominium exterior matter either?
I’m not naive. I understand that the word “Nike” printed on the side of a shoe might not add actual value, but it sure does increase the price!
The difference here is that if a buyer of a condo is specifically seeking out “Turner Fleischer Architects” or “Tomas Pearce Interior Design,” that buyer might be volunteering to pay more for intangible aspects of a condo in a market where magic beans are sold on the daily.
But in the case of my cold caller, I don’t think she really knew all that much about real estate. She had never owned real estate before. She lived at home with her parents, and not that there’s anything wrong with that, but despite the fact that she knew the names of designers and architects, I think her knowledge is memorized. It’s textbook rather than real-world, considering she told me she’s never actually been out to look at a single condo before.
I see a lot of flash and pizzazz in these new developments and so much of it is contrived.
Personally, I believe a buyer who is filled with knowledge about the condominium developers, construction companies, architects, interior designers, and the marketing firms associated with the projects, not to mention the pre-construction real estate sales brokerages, could use this information to find out which projects to avoid.
Or maybe that’s my cup being half-empty rather than half-full?
Francesca
at 7:04 am
I think more than the architecture or the name of the architect, possibly the name and reputation of the builder are better criteria when buying a condo. Of course everyone would prefer to live in a beautiful modern building but other criteria like builder, location, layout, building demographics, amenities, price, maintenance fees are more important. We bought a condo in February and when we were looking we were actually focusing on location, layout and age of building as only the older buildings in our Yonge and Sheppard area feed into the HS my daughter is currently enrolled in. Our building is the typical concrete and glass building of the 80s, nothing overly hideous but nothings glamorous about it but we have a very large two plus one that was completely renovated in a great location that we got at a great price. The building we face is a beautiful newer building but the units are so small and much more expensive per sq footage. You have to compromise. One thing I would mention when it comes to exterior architecture is possibly avoiding buildings that are all glass since there are so many potential issues there. It sounds like this lady who contacted David was more interested in the prestige of living in a beautifullly designed building rather than anything else. Seems rather foolish and immature to me.
Ed
at 8:25 am
No one mentioned Bobby Orr????????????
David Fleming
at 9:07 am
@ Ed
I’ve told this story before…
Years ago, I decided that when I bought a house, I wanted a “man cave” and on one wall, I would display framed, autographed jerseys of the greatest five hockey players to ever play the game. I bought those jerseys in 2013. I had them framed in 2014. They sat in storage until 2018 when we moved into our house.
Who are the five players?
Ed
at 10:53 am
in no particular order.
Bobby Orr
Gordie Howe
Wayne Gretsky
Rocket Richard
Mario Lemeiux
???
David Fleming
at 11:57 am
@ Ed
You nailed it.
Those are my five. I don’t think it’s up for debate either.
I ordered them chronologically, so it goes Richard, Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux.
JDog
at 7:56 pm
Would love to see a photo if you’ve got one.
Sirgruper
at 9:17 am
Absolutely. Before his injuries and him starting from behind his own net and going around a whole team to score. He was amazing. And for pure entertainment value Derek Sanderson on the same Bruins.
Tony Bourdain
at 8:30 am
Toronto is not a good-looking city. It’s not a good-looking town. You’ve got all the worst architectural fads of the 20th century.
SABI
at 5:10 pm
YES!!
Chris
at 8:47 am
I could see the architect mattering to someone buying into Frank Gehry’s buildings on Queen Street, for example.
Sirgruper
at 9:28 am
City of Toronto makes great architecture difficult based on planning and zoning requirements. They require set podiums and angular planes. There are shadow restrictions and height limits. And to maximized value you need density so all you can do is play with the skin and a few bells or whistles. Tough to profitably produces something architecturally unique. I think the Marilyns was a great melding of density and design. But then again curved walls and strange angles make crappy living spaces. Also there is risk. Look at the Emerald at Yonge and Shepard. Sometimes it’s just basic economics to stay in the box and the reason so many buildings are a bit boring.
Condodweller
at 10:55 am
I was thinking the same thing. I’d imagine most condos are restricted to box shapes to maximize the square footage/height allowed. I often wonder if the constraints were different for some of the bildings which stray from this. I don’t know the address but there is a building on the eastern part of Queens Quay that has a staircase shape which I like not so much because of the design, though it does look pleasing, but because I like large terraces and that shape lends itself nicely to have more than the usual large terrace that is elevated.
I do like architecture, but I’d be hard-pressed to come up with three names of designers in Toronto. What matters to me is the looks rather than the name. I actually find the award-winning condo on Alexandria quite ugly. The shape is different but all it does is change the lines a bit by making blocks of units stand out as smaller boxes and I find the colour particularly ugly. There is no imagination in these types of designs.
I would use reverse selection when it comes to architecture in my search criteria and avoid ugly buildings rather than seek out good designs, but the importance I’d place on it would be relatively low because if the unit met my other criterion I would still buy in an “ugly” building. The internal layout, price, maintenance fees, amenities, exposure would be my top selection. A design would have to be really dysfunctional for me to avoid a building based on design.
London Agent
at 11:19 am
The aesthetic of a building makes up about 10% of the architectural design and thought that goes into creating something. There is so much more to a great architectural design than just how it looks. The spaces that people live in, as well as how humans interact with the building, are at the forefront of the list and a good architect will create a design that enhances the lives of the occupants through both of those characteristics.
Of course, money is more important than any of these things which is why you end up with the same old garbage dressed up as something new and sold to people who latch onto shiny things and don’t think critically about what they are being sold.
Otis
at 12:16 pm
Couldn’t care less about the architect, unless I was hiring them to reno my suite. I’d rather know the (working) elevator to occupant ratio.
Edwin
at 6:01 pm
Having lived in the east end, one of my favorites is Mozo (333 Adelaide St. E.). The red brick + glazing combination on that building just works, very well.
Insomniac
at 1:01 am
Condos today are the luxury ghettos of tomorrow. Built fast won’t last, majority of them site empty or sold to investors and most are built with poor standard materials. Half of them are borderline ugly to look at, on top of that Toronto has lost a lot of historical architecture due to the condo boom. They also push out low income people out of there neighborhoods and communities including most small businesses. There a blight let alone a eye sore on this city.