dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I like the podium, at least from the Jarvis Street side. It seems a waste of space (no planned retail) but it still looks good.
Toronto Couture The Condominium | ?m | 42s | Philmor | Graziani + Corazza
junctionist
Senior Member
It's not the most sophisticated facade, but it's bold and well executed. The wings of different heights framed in white for maximum contrast and the seamless transition between the residential floors and the mechanical penthouse are striking features. The architects tried to maximize the positive visual impact of the building, perhaps after X set an ambitious standard. Americans often seem more inclined towards such boldness, and ordinary people tend to appreciate it more.
Ramako
Moderator
Wings of different heights, framed in white, the seamless transition between the central column of the building and the volume above the squared wings.... Aura and Couture (both by G+C) really are very similar designs. If you were to take the mechanical box of Couture, round it and raise its height substantially, you'd more or less have Aura. Let's hope that Aura comes together in the end the way Couture did.
kweku
Active Member
Let's be honest here; lots of forumers are blindly in love with X so they always give Couture bad grades .... Fact is, Couture ended up waayyyy better than X architectually, and I am sorry to tell you that Aura will never tend up like Couture because Aura's Glass are cheap, really cheap looking .......
Last edited:
Edward
Senior Member
Couture is certainly better than Aura so far. But Aura still has time to get it right.
4grand
Active Member
Good God. This has got to be one of the worst buildings in the city.
Cold grey steel (What does Toronto have against black wrought-iron?) has become nauseatingly ubiquitous in this city of cheaply made buildings.
This building is horrendous. It looks like something out of the 70s Battlestar Gallactica.
Symmetry is important! When I look at this lopsided, sterile, bland disaster of a building, I feel angry and depressed.
And what is with these nasty mechanical boxes on top that completely ruin everything?
X may be a nice building, but once you get to the roof, it is completely ruined. Builders are so cheap these days, and so greedy, that they don't even bother with roof elements anymore. Why didn't they build around the box and square it off like the TD Centre buildings? Well, I know why, because that would have cost a bit more money, which would mean less in the developer's pocket.
The more bland, grey steel and glass buildings that are built in Toronto, the worse.
Why do all of our condos have to look like futuristic factories?
Cold grey steel (What does Toronto have against black wrought-iron?) has become nauseatingly ubiquitous in this city of cheaply made buildings.
This building is horrendous. It looks like something out of the 70s Battlestar Gallactica.
Symmetry is important! When I look at this lopsided, sterile, bland disaster of a building, I feel angry and depressed.
And what is with these nasty mechanical boxes on top that completely ruin everything?
X may be a nice building, but once you get to the roof, it is completely ruined. Builders are so cheap these days, and so greedy, that they don't even bother with roof elements anymore. Why didn't they build around the box and square it off like the TD Centre buildings? Well, I know why, because that would have cost a bit more money, which would mean less in the developer's pocket.
The more bland, grey steel and glass buildings that are built in Toronto, the worse.
Why do all of our condos have to look like futuristic factories?
4grand
Active Member
Yeah! What's with all these Play-Mobil looking buildings we're getting in Toronto? Snap-and-go plastic and steel sheeting is all I've seen recently.
BRICK! Red Brick! It's tried and tested and true. It adds warmth and charm and character that grey, cold steel, concrete and glass don't!
There is a reason Chicago, New York, London, Paris etc. have such classic feels.... They're built out of decent materials and at least a modicum of heart went into the design of the buildings that define their skylines.
Toronto just looks like a place where avaricious, philistine developers with no sense of character or human dignity made their money.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Totally agreed. But it's become very very expensive. Bricklayers are an increasing rarity, hence why those pre-cast brick-pattern-stamped panels are still cheaper than bricklaying, even when you take into account all the colour that has to be painted on them once they are in place.
4grand
Active Member
If I ever become some successful billionaire/multi-millionaire, I am going to build a M-F red brick tower, smack dab in the middle of the core, or at least somewhere where it can get some exposure.
...Maybe a few blocks west of the core. It will have a dichromatic brick pattern and elegant scaling and appropriate set backs. It won't rely on cheap, afterthought, architectural 'elements' made out of some timely fashionable material, such as today's clinical and sterile, grey steel.
edit: My parents have a Patterned Concrete driveway which looks great and requires little maintenance. It's an odd concept, but when I see it in person every time I go over, I'm reminded about how good it does, in fact look. However, when it's the skin of a building, I feel completely different...
Last edited:
Attachments
So the problem is that no-one becomes a billionaire/multi-millionaire and then builds an M-F brick tower out of altruism for the under-bricked denizens of Toronto. It's all economics, and while we are still getting some brick buildings when developers see fit, unless every purchaser demands it and is willing to pay more for it, we won't see it on a high percentage of buildings.
42
4grand
Active Member
Still looks better than Couture, albeit quite suburban.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Symmetry serves no functional purpose and generally creates very uninteresting spaces. I doubt you'll find any modern architect who sees it as having any place in the modern context.
(Yes, some features are going to be symmetrical, naturally, but to design an entire building or facade that way is generally problematic.)
(Yes, some features are going to be symmetrical, naturally, but to design an entire building or facade that way is generally problematic.)
4grand
Active Member
I wish there was an autosave with these replies, because I just lost a lot of writing I had done.
Essentially, buildings can still be made out of brick economically. Glass can be supplemented when needed, and there need be no concrete or corrugated steel.
It's obvious that builders want to squeeze an extra 15% out of the profit and as a result, sacrifice and forsake quality for money.
628 Fleet Street is a good example. So is 88 Spadina Rd.
I'm pretty sure Tridel, Monarch, Condord Adex, Menkes, Daniels etc. could easily afford to build a simple, yet elegant red brick building.
They just want that extra 15% and maybe an extra 5% if they just ignore the roof completely.
Why do all of these new buildings have to look like futuristic factories?
4grand
Active Member
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on that. Symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion.
Symmetry (from Greek συμμετρεῖν symmetreÃn "to measure together") has two meanings. The first is a vague sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance.[1][2] The second is an exact mathematical "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated with the rules of a formal system, such as geometry or physics. (wikipedia)
Some of the words most amazing buildings are symmetrical. Some of the worlds most amazing churches and monuments are symmetrical. Some of the most awkward and depressing buildings to look at are not...