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

hawc said:
It was also the same time we were tearing down Toronto's heritage buildings as fast as we could. Hundreds of great buildings lost forever. Vision. Optimism. Investment in the future.
Click to expand...

Did you even read my post?? I know, i know, in the internet age skimming and shallow comprehension are par for the course but good grief...
 
Tewder said:
It's the idea that developers and designers are justified conceiving projects that pander to low expectations, dishing out mediocrity because it's 'good enough' for the untrained eye. This is not positive for design and architecture in Toronto. You can point to all the (other) boom-burgs out there you want, it doesn't change how a critical eye is going to view Aura specifically or millennial development in this city in general.

A few more rounds of editing and polishing would have made Aura a much better tower in many respects but clearly this wasn't considered necessary... and that is sad commentary!
Click to expand...

Well said. I wish the developer had taken those extra steps. It would have made for a much more significant building. It's as if contemporary Torontonians live in an era of reduced expectations - as if height itself is supposed to make up for a lack of vision and ambition in other respects.
 
P23 said:
christ, not this argument again. here's a little perspective.

lSHpZv9.jpg

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html

this is shinjuku, one of tokyo's most prominent wards. with the exception of the mode gakuen cocoon, any one of these buildings would have a 100pg thread full of people whining about how ugly they are. the majority of buildings in any city are uninspiring or even unattractive, get over it.
Click to expand...

were not asia, bad comparison.
 
Height and design are two separate processes in Ontario's planning system. Council approves a blank grey zoning box, they aren't involved with design.
 
Yes, lots of boxes but they are not all glass/grey spandrel boxes and that makes all the difference in the world. Brick and stone boxes can look very warm and charming. Beautiful design details can be crafted into those buildings, while glass, usually leaves people feeling cold and disconnected.
 
urbandreamer said:
I guess Aura is our Empire State Building moment? It figures Toronto is about 80 years behind Manhattan in terms of skyscraper density.
Click to expand...

Toronto is also 80 years behind Manhattan in terms of architecture. Try to imagine the Empire State Building clad in glass and spandrel, with a crappy podium and even crappier underground mall.
 
P23 said:
oh yeah? how about NYC then?

kl8kh8c.jpg

http://www.wallconvert.com/search/new+york/

my god, what were they thinking? so many boxes!
Click to expand...

I love it when people post a less flattering slice of another city's skyline to prove that their buildings are just as boring as Toronto. Here's a clearer daytime shot that I took last year:

13680609203_f892f66ba5_b.jpg


Unfortunately I don't have photos of the rest of the skyline, but here I see quite a diversity of shapes and colours. To me it looks a heck of a lot more interesting than the view of Toronto from the lake, where repetitive blue and green glass condos dominate.


Here's another shot from above. Dismiss them as boring boxes if you want, but again look at the variety of styles.

13682157265_7dda1c7a0b_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Heck, why talk about New York? Most people would cite Chicago for high-rise architecture... a city much more comparable with Toronto (size, history, population etc), more to the point.
 
Tewder said:
Heck, why talk about New York? Most people would cite Chicago for high-rise architecture... a city much more comparable with Toronto (size, history, population etc), more to the point.
Click to expand...

Chicago and Manhattan architecture are quite similar in my opinion, so if Chicago can build great things then why can't Toronto?
 
There's a big crack in the drywall of the retail lobby by the escalators on the south wall.

I guess it was bound to happen given that the interior spaces are all plastered over with drywall (it's as if even in a project of this magnitude G&C couldn't comprehend of a more appropriate wall treatment), the shoddy level of workmanship and worst of all for the long-term outlook, the poor detailing throughout the project. If a building's design fails at the level of its detailing, maintenance problems are to be expected.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top