6VIC (600 Victoria St S) | 3 fl | Proposed

[TMKM94]

I noticed a few houses fenced off between The Daycare and Barber shop on Victoria Street Between Weichel and Alice. There is a Sign that says Coming Soon 6Vic. it's going to be a 3-story condo building https://6vic.ca/

[ijmorlan]

I noticed a few houses fenced off between The Daycare and Barber shop on Victoria Street Between Weichel and Alice. There is a Sign that says Coming Soon 6Vic. it's going to be a 3 story condo building https://6vic.ca/

… at 600 Victoria St S, presumably? Certainly not at 6 Victoria!

[creative]

https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/6vic-condos

[danbrotherston]

I noticed a few houses fenced off between The Daycare and Barber shop on Victoria Street Between Weichel and Alice. There is a Sign that says Coming Soon 6Vic. it's going to be a 3 story condo building https://6vic.ca/

… at 600 Victoria St S, presumably? Certainly not at 6 Victoria!

Yeah, that makes much more sense, especially given the pricing.

Still seems like a solid development.

[Coke6pk]

I noticed a few houses fenced off between The Daycare and Barber shop on Victoria Street Between Weichel and Alice. There is a Sign that says Coming Soon 6Vic. it's going to be a 3 story condo building https://6vic.ca/

… at 600 Victoria St S, presumably? Certainly not at 6 Victoria!

Naming a building at 600 Victoria, "6Vic".  What could possibly go wrong?

Coke

[dtkvictim]

I am back once more to complain that it should illegal to misrepresent the reality of streets like Victoria so badly in renders. The trees shown out front probably won't be like that in the lifetime of the original purchasers leaving it feeling even more exposed.

I think the building looks fine, but I would personally despise living between Victoria and a parking lot. I wish we could see more (or any) buildings of this nature in our core.

[ac3r]

...illegal? Why? Of course they'll need to grow, but they'll look like that one day. It would be odd to release renderings of what a building site would look like immediately post-construction. Would you want the renders to have no grass and patches of gravel instead?

[danbrotherston]

...illegal? Why? Of course they'll need to grow, but they'll look like that one day. It would be odd to release renderings of what a building site would look like immediately post-construction. Would you want the renders to have no grass and patches of gravel instead?

I think the misrepresentation being referred to is showing a four lane high speed highway which has killed several people at this location as a small inoffensive residential street with more pedestrians than cars.

This is what I might WANT, but it is certainly not what exists, and the city's policy will not create that in the future.

That being said, I'm not sure how you legislate this, it's a graphic image, none of it exactly matches reality, so of course it's going to show the development in the best light. Anyone who buys a property without even visiting the site on google maps I dunno...whatever...I know it's a missrepresentation, but it's not a hard to see through.

[dtkvictim]

...illegal? Why? Of course they'll need to grow, but they'll look like that one day. It would be odd to release renderings of what a building site would look like immediately post-construction. Would you want the renders to have no grass and patches of gravel instead?

I think the misrepresentation being referred to is showing a four lane high speed highway which has killed several people at this location as a small inoffensive residential street with more pedestrians than cars.

This is what I might WANT, but it is certainly not what exists, and the city's policy will not create that in the future.

That being said, I'm not sure how you legislate this, it's a graphic image, none of it exactly matches reality, so of course it's going to show the development in the best light. Anyone who buys a property without even visiting the site on google maps I dunno...whatever...I know it's a missrepresentation, but it's not a hard to see through.

Yeah, this is more what I was trying to say. It's more about the representation of the road than the trees. That said, I don't know if the term "greenwashing" applies here, but I do think it's a problem in this kind of advertising.

Basically, I view this as a form of false advertising. Of course it's hard or impossible to legislate. Since it's not a photograph of a real thing, it's never going to be perfectly accurate. I think people who do their research before buying a place like this can still be influenced by advertising like this without realizing it.

[danbrotherston]

I think the misrepresentation being referred to is showing a four lane high speed highway which has killed several people at this location as a small inoffensive residential street with more pedestrians than cars.

This is what I might WANT, but it is certainly not what exists, and the city's policy will not create that in the future.

That being said, I'm not sure how you legislate this, it's a graphic image, none of it exactly matches reality, so of course it's going to show the development in the best light. Anyone who buys a property without even visiting the site on google maps I dunno...whatever...I know it's a missrepresentation, but it's not a hard to see through.

Yeah, this is more what I was trying to say. It's more about the representation of the road than the trees. That said, I don't know if the term "greenwashing" applies here, but I do think it's a problem in this kind of advertising.

Basically, I view this as a form of false advertising. Of course it's hard or impossible to legislate. Since it's not a photograph of a real thing, it's never going to be perfectly accurate. I think people who do their research before buying a place like this can still be influenced by advertising like this without realizing it.

To be honest, even if it was a real photograph, you could take one which makes the road look not that unpleasant.

But you're right, advertising can influence people, even when they are faced with reality. Exhibit A: People buy cars because of car ads, and believe the cultural lies that car ads tell them, even when facing daily traffic on the 401.

Ultimately, I'm not sure it's a bad thing though...the more people there are who are angry about bad roads and traffic, rather than living in a cul-de-sac who pretend the traffic they generate isn't a problem because they don't have traffic, the better.

[ac3r]

If a potential buyer wants to know the little details of the area they need to do their own research. The burden is not on the 3D artist or architect nor could you cram that much information into a few images. 3D renders give a quick representation of a building. They aren't going to be 100% accurate, nor is their purpose to show you how wide streets are or how big the trees are - that's all irrelevant in such an image, because you can find that information from other sources. I wouldn't consider it false advertising nor think we need legislation for this.

[dtkvictim]

If a potential buyer wants to know the little details of the area they need to do their own research. The burden is not on the 3D artist or architect nor could you cram that much information into a few images. 3D renders give a quick representation of a building. They aren't going to be 100% accurate, nor is their purpose to show you how wide streets are or how big the trees are - that's all irrelevant in such an image, because you can find that information from other sources. I wouldn't consider it false advertising nor think we need legislation for this.

Are the trees obscuring half of the building in the picture I posted helping with this? Are the people on the sidewalk necessary to represent the building? I would argue that these are "all irrelevant in such an image" that you are describing. These were conscious decisions by the artist to make the environment that the building sits in more attractive, because these are marketing materials. Whether it's to customers, or the plannings bodies that they seek approval from.

[ac3r]

Well this is just a really bad render to be honest. I have no idea who the architecture firm behind this project is but I definitely wouldn't publish that if this is what one of my artists came up with. However, using brushes that have trees and people is very common to do for scale and atmosphere.

I think this is just the result of a cheap developer using a cheap firm and not putting a whole lot of effort into what they're trying to sell.

[tomh009]

If a potential buyer wants to know the little details of the area they need to do their own research. The burden is not on the 3D artist or architect nor could you cram that much information into a few images. 3D renders give a quick representation of a building. They aren't going to be 100% accurate, nor is their purpose to show you how wide streets are or how big the trees are - that's all irrelevant in such an image, because you can find that information from other sources. I wouldn't consider it false advertising nor think we need legislation for this.

Are the trees obscuring half of the building in the picture I posted helping with this? Are the people on the sidewalk necessary to represent the building? I would argue that these are "all irrelevant in such an image" that you are describing. These were conscious decisions by the artist to make the environment that the building sits in more attractive, because these are marketing materials. Whether it's to customers, or the plannings bodies that they seek approval from.

If you feel strongly that the render is misleading, it's really quite easy to submit a complaint to the advertising council.
https://adstandards.ca/complaints/

[Chris]

Are the renders false advertising? I wouldn't go that far. Misleading? A little but it's marketing.

I don't think they are any different from fast food ads or food packing with professional photography of non-edible product that is not representative of what you are buying or car ads that show optional accessories or concept photos for product representation.