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

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.

oh relax. there are 20 fawning fanboy "oohs" and "aahs" over this pile of garbage for every negative post. if you don't want to have your precious opinions contradicted, don't go online.
 
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.

The negative comments are starting again because of the recent revelation that the glass on the upper two floors before the last setback is all spandrel and looks horribly miscoloured. People are just responding to this new information.
 
Caltrane74,

I find it refreshing to read your post. While I am reserving judgment on the final product, I can say some things in defence of the building, or what there is of it, at this point.

... unfortunate, but the pre-existing "College Park" set the tone for this building, and the architect did the right thing. Aside from the original Eatons College St. building, the complex is composed of really bad work, and Aura manages to look good and at the same time pull up the other buildings as much as is humanly possible. Someone posted a picture of a better, yet similar building -- quite imaginative and lovely -- in Chicago, way long time ago in this thread ... well fine, that building didn't have the adjacent baggage that Aura has to deal with. To summarize, this architect had equally to produce a good building, and at the same time not turn the neighbours into limburger. The conservative nature of this building was necessary.

There are disappointments at this stage, for me. The podium is just so damned sad and bland. Then there is the detail work and the crappy stores.

Finally, something sort of curious. The building at 70% complete is a strange thing viewed from Carlton and Parliament. I get the idea that there is too much going on: an inverted L (the non-balconied parts) encasing the balconied strip, all to be topped off with an ovoid with a slanted top? I am wondering .. how will it finally work out? I will remain optimistic. I must, because man, this thing will be huge.

I agree with you that Aura is more than one step forward after some seriously dull residential work of our past.
 
One of the saddest intellectual exercises I have ever witnessed was a conference hall full of professional architects crapping on each other's ideas.

I was looking out over the city from the rooftop of a condo in the area a few weeks ago and I agree with Caltrane's sentiment. This is not going to win any architectural prizes but it's sure better than most of the buildings in the area and hence must be considered an improvement. An area by the way that will soon enough be saturated with projects that will cluster around this building and make it much less noticable.
 
if you don't want to have your precious opinions contradicted, don't go online.

nerd-464221.jpg
 

Attachments

  • nerd-464221.jpg
    nerd-464221.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 604
Aside from the original Eatons College St. building, the complex is composed of really bad work, and Aura manages to look good and at the same time pull up the other buildings as much as is humanly possible. [...] this architect had equally to produce a good building, and at the same time not turn the neighbours into limburger.
So it didn't want to be too good, so that the buildings around it didn't look even more crappy? That argument seems...silly.
 
Caltrane74,
... unfortunate, but the pre-existing "College Park" set the tone for this building, and the architect did the right thing. Aside from the original Eatons College St. building, the complex is composed of really bad work, and Aura manages to look good and at the same time pull up the other buildings as much as is humanly possible.

ok, let me get this straight, the reason Aura sucks is because of the surrounding buildings?? G+C deliberately had to make sure that Aura failed--because then it might um, embarrass the other buildings??

whoa.
 
One of the saddest intellectual exercises I have ever witnessed was a conference hall full of professional architects crapping on each other's ideas.

I was looking out over the city from the rooftop of a condo in the area a few weeks ago and I agree with Caltrane's sentiment. This is not going to win any architectural prizes but it's sure better than most of the buildings in the area and hence must be considered an improvement. An area by the way that will soon enough be saturated with projects that will cluster around this building and make it much less noticable.

Unfortunately, this building's presence extends well beyond its immediate area which is why something this prominent should be of a higher calibre than just typical infill. I don't necessarily agree with your sentiments either. This building is current with styles of today however, would say it is one of the worst in offenders in the area when it comes down to aesthetics over function. Irregular placements of spandrel glass and floors heights is the laziest attempt at working design with function.
 
Last edited:
Many of you love to mislabel architectural critique as "negativity". I would love to see you guys try to survive in an architecture program where every single design you submit is critiqued in front of groups of students and instructors. Please quit your whining. I've never told anyone else what THEY should believe; aesthetics are largely subjective, and I respect that. But I am entitled to state my opinions, even if for some reason they offend you.

G+C are big boys; I'm sure they can handle online geeks' critiques, if they even care.


As for that image of me; how did you find it? ;)
 
Last edited:
no one should post here period.. as no one takes into consideration that questions and comments made are opinions and nothing else. not facts. as no one here really knows much as to the whats whys and whens. i say lets just look at the pretty pictures some are gracious enough to share with us "confrontational" l members.(even when one isn't being confrontational)
 
renvel:

The DRP is a consultative body and at the end of the day, council approved the project. Are you saying that responsibility of architectural quality ultimately rests on the approval by a body without the power to dictate project execution and not the architect or developer?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Drl

renvel:

The DRP is a consultative body and at the end of the day, council approved the project. Are you saying that responsibility of architectural quality ultimately rests on the approval by a body without the power to dictate project execution and not the architect or developer?

AoD

In any case this one went to DRP most of the new projects do not) though...
 

Back
Top