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

scrapergeek:

There was an earlier opportunity - it's called RoCP 1&2 and the architects in question chose to do nothing with it. In fact, their design pretended it didn't exist.

AoD
 
Its called Barbara Ann Scott Park. Phase 1 and 2 did back on to it... with 4 storey luxury townhomes each including outdoor terraces, primary frontages, and individual unit entrances facing the park....... Visit the area much? As of date, the developers have given the City over $3,000,000 for on-site park land improvements... to be undertaken following the completion of Aura. I suggest you check your facts before making inaccurate statements.
 
Last edited:
I am aware of the townhomes, just how/what did the they add to the park, exactly? Certainly not by the way of added porosity or access routes from Bay. In fact, one can easily argue that RoCP 1&2 degraded the already subpar access route from Bay & College, with zero engagement from the development.

AoD
 
Last edited:
They didn't improve the park but they fit in quite well with it so I'm not sure what you're getting at "turned their back on the park" ...
 
taal:

You have two residential towers in the 40+ range and all one can do to engage the park is by a series of townhouses? But anyways, I digress - at least Aura should engage the park in a more appropriate manner.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I am aware of the townhomes, just how/what did the they add to the park, exactly? Certainly not by the way of added porosity or access routes from Bay. In fact, one can easily argue that RoCP 1&2 degraded the already subpar access route from Bay & College, with zero engagement from the development.

AoD
Click to expand...

Really.. additional access? Are you not aware of the public mid-block connection points adjacent to the site on either side? What exactly would the need be for a third? There are already a total of four public mid-block connections to the park on all sides, plus access from the townhomes, the college park building, and soon also from Aura. What did they add to the park? Previously non-existent frontage, opportunities for casual surveillance, enhanced landscaping, a new paved pathway spanning the frontage of the townhomes, individual unit entrances, lighting, terraces with views to the park.. what more were you hoping for from an architect?

I will agree that the access from the corner of Bay and College could have been better implemented, but I also understand the need for the placement of utility features. It wasn't a perfect building, but I think it deserves more credit than you are giving it.

Oh, and with $3,000,000 in money for park improvements yes, they will improve the park.
 
Last edited:
Really.. additional access? Are you not aware of the public mid-block connection points adjacent to the site on either side? What exactly would the need be for a third? There are already a total of four public mid-block connections to the park on all sides, plus access from the townhomes, the college park building, and soon also from Aura. What did they add to the park? Previously non-existent frontage, opportunities for casual surveillance, enhanced landscaping, a new paved pathway spanning the frontage of the townhomes, individual unit entrances, lighting, terraces with views to the park.. what more were you hoping for from an architect?
Click to expand...

First of all the College Park superblock in question practically spans 2 regular streets if you go by the pattern of the surrounding urban fabric, and none of the mid-block connections are particularly legible (i.e. just what is on the other side? You can hardly tell from the access point at Bay & College, nor the one at between RoCP & Liberty) or of high quality (like, just how welcoming is the space between College Park and RoCP?). Is there anything wrong with adding an additional one, particularly between the two towers? And just because you have a few townhomes (half of which are hidden by a grove of trees and associated topography from the bulk of the park) doesn't meant that the eyes on the streets is effective - one can argue added porosity and pedestrians through them constitute a far more superior surveillance function. There is a reason why open streets are safer than hidden pathways or enclosed spaces.

AoD
 
Last edited:
No, there is nothing wrong with adding another connection. But its one thing to suggest that an additional path would be beneficial, and quite another thing to say that the architects chose to do nothing with the park, and in fact pretended it didn't exist. I just think that is a ridiculous statement. I walk through the park weekly for groceries, etc. I happen to feel a lot safer in the evening now that people live facing onto the park at street level. One could also argue that intensification of any form provides an improved surveillance function. For instance, since the first two phases were completed, there are a lot more people traversing through the park, sitting on benches, or walking dogs. Its quite noticeable, and makes the park feel that much safer.
 
I use that space quite often as well as I work in the area, and I find stretches of it wanting, with a general "neither here nor there" feeling that has more in common with suburban open spaces than urban ones. I will agree with you that intensification in general improves surveillance, but I personally think that RoCP dropped the ball when it comes to engaging the park. Putting a few townhomes there is to me is a cliched response when increased animation through other means - i.e. openness on the ground levels, non-residential usage facing the park and added porosity would have been a superior option. Ah well, too late for that now.

Hard to compare it with what was there before, considering there was pretty much nothing on the RoCP site prior.

AoD
 
Last edited:
thedeepend said:
the only thing this project emphasizes is Toronto's emergence as a place where local hack architects get to design 78-story buildings at landmark locations.
Click to expand...

1) Why are you going around attacking people's opinions? Seriously, do you have nothing better to do than to discourage favourable opinions of this BEASTLY building. I mean the massing just makes it such a BEAST, don't you agree? :)

2) Most of New York, Chicago, Vancouver, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. 's prominent buildings are also designed by local architects. What makes them any less of a legitimate choice than foreign architects?

3) Please lose the doomsday anti-Toronto agenda, it gets really annoying.

Lastly, this building is a BEAST! :) Good day, sir.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Please lose the doomsday anti-Toronto agenda, it gets really annoying.
Click to expand...

Too right mate. I think those regular "the sky is falling" members of UT should spend some time in a war-torn country, to help them develop some perspective, and cut the hyperbole! :)
 
I like Aura. I like it quite a bit. It's going to have a strong presence on Yonge St. I think the reality of it will be neither terrible nor stunning - it'll fall somewhere down the middle. Regardless of how it looks once it's build out, I reckon the sky will not fall.

That said, I would like to call for a moratorium on that cliched, tired old word, "beast." That would be fahhhh-bulous.
 
I am increasingly glad that they decided to angle this tower. I was walking up Yonge this evening from south of Dundas, and from down there, it makes it look as if the tower is facing inward, in fact, facing Dundas Square. Obviously it is north from the square and doesn't face directly on to it, but that's the effect it creates. It will certainly be at home in the area. I think the fact that there are lofts in the lower levels of the tower (where the balconies only appear every two floors) will also help animate the street as it will provide large, lit spaces above the podium looking down on to Yonge.

Regardless of its flaws (which I have never hesitated to point out), Aura is already shaping up to at least be an INTERESTING project.
 
April 06 from Yorkville
7092178297_3b94f6ff8a_b.jpg


7092178833_b002e5743f_b.jpg


7092179317_8f8b307483_b.jpg


7092179729_abbfedc1df_b.jpg


6946112444_2fbb5e8463_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top