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

travis3000 said:
You guys are so negative it's beyond belief. We are getting a 900ft building all you people do is complain. Yes we know, Aura is not an architectural gem. It's not a L Tower visually. But to be honest... it's not that bad. Anyone I show the tower to in person, they only say positive things and go on about how tall it's going to be. The general public is not walking by this tower and screaming in disgust. Aura is mediocre at best, but certainly not an eyesore. I think it'll turn out decent enough once completed. The quality isn't overly high, agreed BUT there are WAY uglier buildings in this city let me tell you.
Click to expand...

Don't bother. theshallowend/adam will come after you like a pair of hounds, and will probably curse your name for the rest of their lives. The following are a some facts that they often ignore:

1) Most people will not be disgusted by this building at all. If anything, they'll be impressed by the size.
2) The building isn't even completed yet, and it still looks better than *many* other buildings in the downtown core
3) It will significantly increase the property's tax output to the city, which will hopefully lead to many improvements to the area's public realm
4) The ground level, while very mediocre, is better than 90% of Yonge, N of Queen

Queue aforementioned haters.
 
DtTO said:
Don't bother. theshallowend/adam will come after you like a pair of hounds, and will probably curse your name for the rest of their lives. The following are a some facts that they often ignore:

1) Most people will not be disgusted by this building at all. If anything, they'll be impressed by the size.
2) The building isn't even completed yet, and it still looks better than *many* other buildings in the downtown core
3) It will significantly increase the property's tax output to the city, which will hopefully lead to many improvements to the area's public realm
4) The ground level, while very mediocre, is better than 90% of Yonge, N of Queen

Queue aforementioned haters.
Click to expand...

Actually, *I'm* not necessarily that "disgusted" by the building, either--in fact, I'm more in the travis3000 camp than you're bargaining on.

And keep in mind that when we "come after you", it's more often than not not for your defence, but for how you contextualize the defence with stuff like, well, the bashing of "90% of Yonge, N of Queen". Which, as I've suggested, seems to come from the sensibility that results in a lot of the aesthetic abortions discussed in this thread.

And there, too, technically speaking, "most people will not be disgusted"--but it's a more effective slur against said "most people" than discussions of Aura's aesthetics could ever hope to be...
 
DtTO said:
1) Most people will not be disgusted by this building at all. If anything, they'll be impressed by the size.
Click to expand...
Disgusted? Really? That's harsh. Some may have a "wow tall building moment", and then move on. Unlike, say, a condo like L Tower where tourists will be snapping photos
DtTO said:
2) The building isn't even completed yet, and it still looks better than *many* other buildings in the downtown core
Click to expand...
That's fair that it's far from complete. I'm curious what you think looks better than this. Scratch that, it's not done.
DtTO said:
3) It will significantly increase the property's tax output to the city, which will hopefully lead to many improvements to the area's public realm
Click to expand...
Tax output, that's really reaching. The public realm in the area is fine, unless you think that College Park should be replaced by another Graziani + Corazza.
DtTO said:
4) The ground level, while very mediocre, is better than 90% of Yonge, N of Queen
Click to expand...
Obviously you haven't walked Yonge Street north of Queen.
DtTO said:
Queue aforementioned haters.
Click to expand...
Hate is a strong word. Let's meet back here in the fall.
 
They seem to ba awfully slow getting the glass on the east side of teh building. The framing has been in place for a while now but no glass going in, not even on balconies. Are there supply problems or a labour disruption?
 
Automation Gallery said:
No kidding, there is also a big difference between the sales market price per sq. ft.
Click to expand...

You know, I don't buy that, other mid-priced condos can use curtainwall but that's besides the point. The glass is fine here (save for what they are using on the balconies), it's all coming down to bad design and poor choice of materials.
 
After reviewing the last few pages of entries... I think I can pull together the best description of the Aura...

Wow(1), looks great (2), kinda interesting(4), from that angle(9), 'in that light' (5), with its many different patterns(8). Mostly, it's kinda cheap looking(8), with terrible use of spandrel(3), almost schizophrenic(1), as it's an ugly(11), mess(14), with uneven floor heights (10). However, we should give it a chance(7), even though... it lack decent retail(3), because it's TALL.(15) :)
 
macookie said:
After reviewing the last few pages of entries... I think I can pull together the best description of the Aura...

Wow(1), looks great (2), kinda interesting(4), from that angle(9), 'in that light' (5), with its many different patterns(8). Mostly, it's kinda cheap looking(8), with terrible use of spandrel(3), almost schizophrenic(1), as it's an ugly(11), mess(14), with uneven floor heights (10). However, we should give it a chance(7), even though... it lack decent retail(3), because it's TALL.(15) :)
Click to expand...
Hahaha!!! That really sums it up!!! ;)
 
The funny thing about these DtTO types is how they get jumpy and defensive at *any* criticism of *any* new multistory project--like "it's all good", it's all stuff that "will significantly increase the property's tax output to the city", and any critical judgment, however measured or nuanced, is the utterings of "haters". And when the DtTO crowd *is* critical, it's whenever whatever outside forces--NIMBYs, hysterical preservationists, planners and politicians all too willing to bow to either--lop off storeys or force-feed facadectomies. Otherwise, these new-development phreaks are undiscriminating--whether it's Mies or G&C or worse, it's better than 90% of the crap that presently exists. And said 90% is invariably either "old" or "underscaled" or "dated"--like, there's nothing worse than a city that looks, well, so-called old and worn and piddly and dated. It has to be completely new and self-renewing; otherwise, we're hiding our heads in the sand on behalf of Stepford. (Never mind that their solution is more like a worse-than-Stepford forcing of silicone double D's and Botox.)

These goofs are the CBD equivalent of upmarket McMansion merchants who welcome all teardowns and drastic disfiguring expansion/renovations because they're a market-value-raising emblem of "progress" and "investment in a neighbourhood".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top