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

I generally agree that it's unfair to judge an unfinished building, either positively or negatively. However, in this case, there is a growing list of negative attributes that warrants all the negative criticism. Those who like the building will continue to like it, irregardless of the poor design and execution. They will continue to defend it. Very few will change their position, either for or against it. Harsh criticism, where deserved, will certainly help to influence developers, architects, and city planners to improve upon their mistakes. It's better to have a voice than to remain silent. Our city deserves better.
 
DarkSideDenizen said:
I generally agree that it's unfair to judge an unfinished building, either positively or negatively. However, in this case, there is a growing list of negative attributes that warrants all the negative criticism. Those who like the building will continue to like it, irregardless of the poor design and execution. They will continue to defend it. Very few will change their position, either for or against it. Harsh criticism, where deserved, will certainly help to influence developers, architects, and city planners to improve upon their mistakes. It's better to have a voice than to remain silent. Our city deserves better.
Click to expand...

So people will continue to like it with regard to the poor design and execution? Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
So people will continue to like it with regard to the poor design and execution? Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just as others will dislike it with respect to features that some would see as good design and execution.
In other words, and just to "clear it up" further, I'm saying, it's different strokes for different folks. It is most certainly evident, especially in this case, that you can't please everyone, not even some of the time.

Is the building a champion? Is it your champion? Though it holds some interest to me, it's certainly not mine..
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
So people will continue to like it with regard to the poor design and execution? Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

yes, some people will continue to insist on the principal of 'mob rule' when it comes to assessing the merits of a given building (or film, or piece of music, or work of art).

it is based on the thoroughly discredited idea that the principles of good design and good architecture are simply 'matters of taste', and that everyone's opinions on these matters must be seen to be equal.

it is a good part of the reason why we have buildings like this POS and Trump, why buildings like 88 Scott and 460 Yonge are in the pipeline, and why G+C are still in business.
 
Let's get this straight. Some buildings are quite easy to judge when they aren't complete. aA buildings often have monolithic glass facades. Once you see the first few floors clad in glass, you know what the rest of it will look like--save for how the roof will be treated. A project like Trump and to a lesser extent, Aura, is different because the facades and cladding change in segments. It's not always possible to foresee what the execution of the next segment is going to be like.
 
junctionist:

True, but one can definitely see patterns in the quality of execution (not to mention the initial design) that would allow someone to judge. Aura isn't the only tower built in Toronto to have cladding and stepping changes - and besides, when you have what, more than 2/3 of the tower already built and clad, it is kind of hard to argue that the remaining 1/3 is going to save the project from being architecturally subpar.

AoD
 
Last edited:
There are varying extents to which you can judge a building under construction. If you see just the first stages of a project like Aura, there's not much you can say about how it will turn out, as opposed to many an aA building with glass on the first few floors. But at this point with most of it built and clad, I think people can make solid inferences about how Aura is going to turn out.

It's unfortunate that a handful of our tallest towers have subpar architecture--including First Canadian Place. It hurts how people perceive this city's architecture.
 
junctionist:

I would put FCP in a different category from "subpar" - bland, forgettable but in no way indicative of gross violation of good taste (and it certainly wasn't cheap to clad it in marble).

AoD
 
My last post for awhile in this current debate in this thread, as it's getting really tiring.

1) Please do not tell me to lower my standards. I keep up on architecture from around the world and I base my standard for buildings on an array of architectural styles and solutions from various firms. I recommend that more people look to examples outside of just Toronto's condominium market, or else you are going to have pretty low standards or at the very least, a narrow view of what contemporary architecture is and can be.

2) The completed roofline of this project will not be enough to change my opinion. No, it is not finished construction yet, but the way the building is resolved will not take away from the mish-mash of design details, the cheap materials, the crappy interiors, the awkward massing of the lower part of the tower, the monolithic podium, etc. etc. Maybe the roofline will be handled wonderfully, but that wouldn't change all the other issues with this project.

I am not telling people that they shouldn't like this tower or that they cannot enjoy it; that's a personal choice, and I have very much enjoyed watching it grow, the many times I have walked past since it began construction. However, if you are asking me to pretend that it has architectural merit or that I cannot make such judgements until it has completed construction, you are not going to be successful.
 
junctionist said:
It's unfortunate that a handful of our tallest towers have subpar architecture--including First Canadian Place. It hurts how people perceive this city's architecture.
Click to expand...

NYC seemed to do just fine having a PAIR of boxes as their tallest buildings for decades. As for this city's architecture; we have several high profile buildings that are universally loved world wide (Scotia, Mies Van Der Rohe's greatest work, etc.). Toronto's architecture is only viewed as subpar on this forum. Go look at Chicago's new Ritz Carlton; do you still envy them?
 
SP!RE said:
My last post for awhile in this current debate in this thread, as it's getting really tiring.

1) Please do not tell me to lower my standards. I keep up on architecture from around the world and I base my standard for buildings on an array of architectural styles and solutions from various firms. I recommend that more people look to examples outside of just Toronto's condominium market, or else you are going to have pretty low standards or at the very least, a narrow view of what contemporary architecture is and can be.

2) The completed roofline of this project will not be enough to change my opinion. No, it is not finished construction yet, but the way the building is resolved will not take away from the mish-mash of design details, the cheap materials, the crappy interiors, the awkward massing of the lower part of the tower, the monolithic podium, etc. etc. Maybe the roofline will be handled wonderfully, but that wouldn't change all the other issues with this project.

I am not telling people that they shouldn't like this tower or that they cannot enjoy it; that's a personal choice, and I have very much enjoyed watching it grow, the many times I have walked past since it began construction. However, if you are asking me to pretend that it has architectural merit or that I cannot make such judgements until it has completed construction, you are not going to be successful.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you weren't constantly spewing negativity about it, you wouldn't get the feedback you do.

Same goes for a lot of people around here... I can appreciate that people don't like it and have indicated so, but to continually beat this dead horse after seemingly every picture that's posted is incredibly tiresome.

Its not like the thing is suddenly going to go from bad to great between the 64th and 65th floors. Give it a rest.
 
Looking down Yonge - From Carlton - Caltrane74
9407904978_5cf21997fe_b.jpg

This is my perspective on the debate:
Compared to the residential towers we use to get in the 1980's and 1990's Aura is amazing. So are the majority of the new towers, at least they incorporate curtainwall glass. I think it's a mark and beginning point into our evolution. It's sad that it has taken this long for it to happen, but that it is beginning is very promising. Back in the day, residential towers in Toronto looked really, really bad, and everyone here probably understands, that as we move up from a smaller center globally, to a mid-tier global center our quality of construction here is reflecting that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top