Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

Though final judgement should be reserved until it's complete, it appears to be growing into a building that is unattractive in every way except possibly its ultimate height. Even most of the oft-slighted Cityplace buildings have more aesthetic flair and harmony to them. It's too bad.
 
BobBob said:
Though final judgement should be reserved until it's complete, it appears to be growing into a building that is unattractive in every way except possibly its ultimate height. Even most of the oft-slighted Cityplace buildings have more aesthetic flair and harmony to them. It's too bad.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. I think it is very attractive and will be much more so on completion.
 
GenericUser said:
+1. Completely disagree. This is turning out to be quite an attractive structure. Then again, I think that the Waterclub condos are attractive while most people here think they're hideous.
Click to expand...

Ha... great minds or fools... I really like the Waterclub condos too! :)
 
It is not surprising that if you like Waterclub you will like Aura, and vice versa, given the window wall treatment. I didn't mind Waterclub when it was built (at least the glass was blue) but it has started to show its age very quickly. I expect the same of Aura, but hopefully the curtainwall in the middle will take some attention away from it.
 
At what point do design issues become maintenance issues? Granted, if the material is poor, and stains quickly, it was a bad choice, but the blue glass in Waterclub hasn't "aged". Surely it's just dirty?

**Edit** Realized you were possibly referring to the staining of the frames, not the glass. Ignore me!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he meant the design hasn't aged well... Like Bell-Bottom pants and Platform Shoes? Not the actual condition of the materials.
 
I meant the frames have not aged well.

Perhaps the design too, but I was referring to the frames.
 
I have to agree the more this tower grows - so too the untenable volume of mullions.

If only they had stuck to the same wall treatment as the podium.
This building will date and age very quickly – and will never look as elegant as it could/should have. (imo)
 
I must agree that the *tourmaline-coloured podium glass with mullion-free framing is preferential to the tower treatment. Perhaps once the balconies are clad, the effect will be somewhat mitigated.

*referring to the very dark green cladding on the rear of the podium seen here:

g7gp1.jpg

(Original courtesy Steveve in this thread found HERE )
 
Last edited:
^That is the exact place (2 Carlton) from which I need a whole bunch of pictures of College Park. Enough to stitch together to see the entire block. Many people have asked me to do a render of what the whole block would have looked like if they had actually built the whole complex Eatons was planning. I can find no pictures online that give the best angle to do a proper render.

Is that a place anyone could grab a few pics or is that out your dentist's or lawyer's office window?
 
Traynor said:
^That is the exact place (2 Carlton) from which I need a whole bunch of pictures of College Park. Enough to stitch together to see the entire block. Many people have asked me to do a render of what the whole block would have looked like if they had actually built the whole complex Eatons was planning.
Click to expand...

Ah, you didn't forget. I believe he took some more from that spot and posted them in the Mars thread. I'll wait patiently. :)
 
Last edited:
It does indeed look "slabby" right now, but will it still look that way when it is twice its present height? I don't know so I will wait before venturing a definite opinion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top