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?