I think the idea when people say something looks "dated" is not so much that the style identifies it as being from a particular time period. Any architectural style will do that. Rather, it refers to elements of a style that were considered "cool" or fashionable during a very limited period of time, but that don't withstand the test of time. In clothing, for example, we can still admire the style of a good Brooks Brothers suit from the 1950s. That's because the esthetics of that style can survive the test of time. A pair of polyester chocolate brown bell-bottom trousers from 1978, on the other hand, looks ridiculous because it was just a passing fad. That's the kind of thing you would call "dated."
No need to retract your statement ptbotrmfn (that is the weirdest handle I hav ever seen, b/t/w. How do you pronounce it?) The building you are referring to may very well be dated in just that sense. I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know.
Yes I am talking about that one, I do not understand how some people view aesthetics or architecture but I will take this building any day over Aura ..... To me Aura seems to me a very tall Glass slab box with no archtectural merit to it ..... It's no different from all those city Place buildings east of Spadina ....
This thing is horrible. A block-busting, oversized, cheaply constructed pile of awful architecture featuring garbage retail and a basement level that is beyond comprehension. Just my opinion.
This thing is horrible. A block-busting, oversized, cheaply constructed pile of awful architecture featuring garbage retail and a basement level that is beyond comprehension. Just my opinion.
Well he is right about the horrible basement. I see nothing positive about it, except it has an escalator in the main entrance. If they wanted to really cheap out, they could have just put stairs.
Aura isn't some architectural marvel but its a 900ft skyscraper that believe it or not will look much better once the curtain wall is finished and the building is all cleaned up.
I second that and have a high belief that its the end resault that will make this building a beauty on the skyline. Scotia tower is my favorite of so far and always has been. But i think ill change my favorites when Aura is completed. Have faith they know what they are doing with this project. Its very different for Toronto yes, but it will be a great starter for the area in the future for the next generation of buildings to spring up around it in the future.
Who does? The developer whose primary goal is to turn a profit (and have a bad architectural track record in the area) or the architect, whose taste is highly questionable (as is evident from their past work)?
It's certainly a dramatic change for Yonge & Gerrard which is exciting in its own way, but this building is a prime example of a project that has been over-engineered and left little budget for high quality architecture. (Not that I think G+C have a very good eye to begin with).
By the way, I keep seeing something that puzzles me greatly on the north side of this tower.
Amidst the spandrel, there is a strip of vision glass several feet wide, facing north, but what appears to be a column running the entire height of the building set only slightly back from this window.
Somebody please tell me there is a very good reason for this. Maybe a floorplan would shed some light on this strange move. I am genuinely curious!
Being creative with the space will go along way. Just saying, its nothing to complain about. omg a column. put a plant there or if your not into nature.. then a piece of art. just two out of thousand solutions.
