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

The rational thing would be to stop looking at it and focus on the buildings that you really like. Some of us like Aura. A lot. It's almost like we are supposed to be scared of liking something for fear of being trashed.
 
I've walked through the basement and was surprised at how ghetto it feels, dozens of 100-200 square foot commercial condos. What kind of tenants do you suppose would rent there?
 
TOCondoGarden said:
The rational thing would be to stop looking at it and focus on the buildings that you really like. Some of us like Aura. A lot. It's almost like we are supposed to be scared of liking something for fear of being trashed.
Click to expand...


you underestimate how angry some of us are that a building of this appalling quality and size has been deposited like a gigantic cow patty in the heart of downtown.

further, some of us are extremely annoyed at the fact that a developer feels they can justify putting up a 78 story monstrosity in downtown Toronto without employing a real architect.

and don't tell me that Aura was subjected to “Toronto's first ever, international architectural peer review processâ€

all you need to do is look at the photos of the retail spaces and the podium that have been posted to know that the city has been shamelessly duped.




"Designed by the Canadian firm of Graziani + Corazza Architects, CanderelStoneridge, in August 2006, initiated an independent architectural review of AURA to support their proposed design. A review was conducted by the celebrated architects Eberhard Zeidler of Zeidler Partnership Architects and René Menkès of Menkès Shooner Dagenais Letourneux Architectes, who endorsed the project. Following their positive report, the City of Toronto then requested a further independent review and KPMB's Bruce Kuwabara, along with American architects Jon Pickard from Pickard Chilton and Josh Chaiken of Kohn Pedersen Fox Architects joined Zeidler and Menkès for an additional review. Echoing the results of the first review, this panel again reported favourably on CanderelStoneridge's proposed designs. "The independent review was an important step and served to echo our longheld belief that this was the right architecture at the right location," says Barry Graziani, of Graziani + Corazza Architects. "We encouraged the developer to challenge themselves, and our firm, by subjecting our vision to the most stringent evaluation possible - by some of the best minds in the business. The resulting recommendations made by our esteemed colleagues, particularly in terms of the manner in which the podium meets the street, were welcomed and have made for an even better design.""


 
TOCondoGarden said:
The rational thing would be to stop looking at it and focus on the buildings that you really like. Some of us like Aura. A lot. It's almost like we are supposed to be scared of liking something for fear of being trashed.
Click to expand...

+1. The interior actually looks good in those pictures by kram74. I can see it being busy with little indie shops in the near future.

thedeepend, I don't think many people in this thread bother reading your hate speech, so I'm not sure why you still find it necessary to post here so often. Shouldn't you be busy taking pictures of cracks in the sidewalk near Aura to highlight in your next update?
 
The interiors look like a typical mall. I don't see what the big deal it. No one was expecting the Eaton Centre were they. Now the outside base is another matter.
 
Uncle Teddy said:
The interiors look like a typical mall. I don't see what the big deal it. No one was expecting the Eaton Centre were they. Now the outside base is another matter.
Click to expand...

I take it we're supposed to be happy with how a typical mall looks? Seems blandly complacent to me. The commercial spaces look horrid. For such a would-be "signature" building it's appalling. It's not so much a fall from grace as it is settling for unrelenting mediocrity from the get-go.

And why wouldn't the interior of this building - especially its public spaces - not be subject to the same critical scrutiny as the exterior?
 
uncle teddy said:
the interiors look like a typical mall. I don't see what the big deal it. No one was expecting the eaton centre were they. Now the outside base is another matter.
Click to expand...

I personally request whoever grades projects on this forum re-consider the five stars given to Aura ........ Honestly, we cannot give projects like these five stars ..... Because aura is definitely not an architectual jem, it's rather a huge disappointing monstrousity .... I hereby advise all its die-hard fans to just stop wasting our ears with thier silly excuses ......
 
thedeepend said:
you underestimate how angry some of us are that a building of this appalling quality and size has been deposited like a gigantic cow patty in the heart of downtown.

further, some of us are extremely annoyed at the fact that a developer feels they can justify putting up a 78 story monstrosity in downtown Toronto without employing a real architect.

and don't tell me that Aura was subjected to “Toronto's first ever, international architectural peer review processâ€

all you need to do is look at the photos of the retail spaces and the podium that have been posted to know that the city has been shamelessly duped.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've toured it. I live in Toronto. I DO understand that people are angry with a building. It's constant and persistent (read:annoying) negative comments of Aura. I get that. But it's just a building.

I find it funny, however, that someone can trash a building with a simple one-liner and yet my comments aren't considered "rational" or "well-thought out opinions".

I can still think that Aura is a striking building though, right? I find this project a lot nicer than I'd ever expect on a (formerly) crappy corner.
 
Silly rabbit. Don't you know that UT is only for hating, criticizing and expressing generally negative opinions? How dare you post something positive. I suggest you take the approach that I, and many other site visitors that I know, have taken, which is to scroll past the commentary and appreciate the amazing pictures that certain contributors take time out of their day to snap and post.

The persistent negativity on here can be exhausting. The transformation taking place in Toronto right now is world-class and inspiring, and developments like Aura are a significant component to that transformation. I can't argue with the fact that there is inherent value in encouraging the architects to push the envelope and take risks, and holding the construction firms to account for the shoddy craftsmanship that seems to be cropping up more and more regularly, but that doesn't change the fact that we should be thankful to witness this transformational period (which won't last forever) and excited about Toronto's trajectory. Even if you hate Aura for its architectural shortcomings and lack of polish, surely you can appreciate (and express such appreciation) for the impact it will have on the skyline and intersection and the general statement it is trying to make about Toronto's arrival as a world-class city.
 
langstarr: I'm all for balance. The irony is you're being negative about the negativity. In the end, complaining is complaining - on the internet, anyway.

It's good to be a civic booster - great, in fact - but there's nothing wrong with being critical of what goes up Toronto during a pivotal time in the city's evolution - especially those structures which will be seen from a variety of vantage points, thanks to sheer size and height.
 
Totally agree that it's exhausting. I love all the contributions by members with new construction photographs. I try and take as many as I can when I'm out and about in the City for people to enjoy, too. The problem is that while I want to get updates via email of new photographs of new projects that I'm interested in, I get inundated with negative one-line comments rehashing the same things over and over again in my e-mail.

So keep up the great photography peeps! It's inspiring. I will never be an sMT, SkyJacked, Udo, or Razz (for example, among other great photographers!!), but you guys keep me motivated, that's for sure :)
 
Last edited:
I went through there a few weeks back and it simply feels like part of the PATH. That doesn't make it pretty but then most of the PATH isn't.

I did find there were issues in terms of navigation to and from College Park due to poorly designed and palced signage and two sets of metal fire doors that don't give you the feeling that the way to and from College Park is through those doors. Maybe if they had gone with some proper glass doors, it would be different.

I just hope that Aura and College Park actually get connected to the PATH (along with the Chelsea and parts of Ryerson.) so that these stores actually get some foot traffic. Otherwise, they will be dead in teh water.
 
Those underground stores were marketed as being part of the PATH. On the map there's a door in the southeast corner labelled Future PATH Connection. I've seen for lease a unit next to that door advertising its proximity to the PATH. If Ryerson, with its heavy student traffic and facilities on both sides of the Yonge-Dundas intersection, can't make the economics work for the short connection from its new Student Centre to the PATH and the subway then what are the chances of it reaching AURA anytime in the next twenty years? Dead in the water it is then. Poor investors.
 
Uncle Teddy said:
The interiors look like a typical mall. I don't see what the big deal it. No one was expecting the Eaton Centre were they. Now the outside base is another matter.
Click to expand...

The interiors here are not of the quality of an average Toronto mall. You are not looking too closely at this building. Go look at the food court. It is build with much cheaper materials. You obviously are looking at the superficial aspects and not the quality of the design, materials or the fine details. This is about as low end as it gets in Toronto. It's comparable to Dragon Mall. Nobody would guess that this is one of the biggest developments in the country or that it has multi-million dollar penthouse condos. I find that so bizarre.
 
I wonder how the maintenance and upkeep of the common areas of the concourse work. Is it set up like a condo corporation, where the retail unit owners collectively own the hallways, benches, signage, etc? If that's the case it would make sense that Canderel went cheap on the finishes, and maybe we'll eventually see things get upgraded. I'm kind of wondering if the unit owners are also able to replace/upgrade their own storefronts, because even that would make a huge difference to the feel of the corridors if some of those units got nicer doors and windows
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top