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

I can't imagine that BBB is making any money, every time I go it seems abandoned, compared to the BBB in the suburbs that are often overflowing, anyone have any insight into how the store is doing ?
 
smably said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-lesson-for-toronto-planners/article33621784/

Apparently city staff were unaware of the nature of the lights on the crown. The article is mostly about the lights (which I find much less offensive than Mr. Bozikovic does), but there are also some great lines about how Aura turned out so ugly:

The illustrations they use to promote their proposed buildings are very handsome, but bear the small print: “artist’s concept” or “artist’s rendering.” Then there is the real thing, as at Aura, where the bottom levels are clumsily articulated in cheap windows and precast concrete. When I raised this with Mr. Graziani, he actually laughed. “That’s the rendering,” he said. “… And in Toronto you build to a budget.”
Click to expand...

That is tantamount to laughing at being willfully engaging in deception, artist rendering or no.

AoD
 
I don't consider the building as ugly as most of you, but definitely put me in the camp that the lights are the best thing about the building. I like 'em a lot! I'm not sure how the people with units beside the lights are affected by them though.
 
Developers will do what developers need to do. The fault here lies with the City, which too often does not do enough to secure the architectural design, features and materials which are promised during the approvals process.

And add me to the list of people who like the lights.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Window displays don't drive as much sales as actual merchandise on the shelf. When dealing with awkward/limited spaces, the retailer needs to use as much of the floor space as possible to ensure the entire assortment is available for shoppers. Sometimes it means sacrificing window displays for storage or more shelving.

It's something I've been coming to terms with in my job where I'm planning stores. Sometimes, I just need that space to make sure I can fit every product into the store. I've already shrank non-productive categories as much as possible, and my only option is to sacrifice display space.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tuscani01 for sharing your industry-experience. It's always good to read perspectives from those who are up close to the subject matter.

I think Canadian conservatism may also play a part in this. Comparatively speaking, Toronto does not "show off" its conspicuous consumption or even holiday displays to the same extent as other world cities. Clearly, Toronto is very wealthy and ultra sophisticated, but there seems to be this undercurrent of "keeping a modest profile".

Surprisingly, cities in non-Christian countries such as Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul etc., have significantly more elaborate Xmas displays than what's normally on display in Toronto. And correspondingly, the architecture and displays - especially at night - of stores for global brands tend to be much "louder" there too. So I think it all boils down to what each society wants to emphasize, and I think Canadians value a more practical and modest approach, which may be a contributing factor for the sense of stability and predictability that makes Canada the enviable "safe haven" during times of uncertainty.
 
I think it is less about conspicuous consumption and more about having to squeeze every last buck out of it using a suburban big-box MO. It's basically the urban version of putting up silkscreen ads on windows in power centre outlets.

AoD
 
I don't understand why everybody doesn't like this building. It's not like it's the worst building in the city, and it's definitely not the worst new building in the city either.
 
I think it is undoubtedly one of the worst "new buildings" in the city without really a shadow of a doubt.
 
The spandrel (uneven spandrel spacing, etc.) and street level interactions are awful.

The curtain wall and decorative lighting help improve it a bit.
 
I feel the exact same way as WilsaHD. I can see what people mean by the cladding being not so great, or the pretty strange retail setup (underground one). Then again, it does have a pretty respectable design, and has a beautiful lighting scheme. It's a building that's quite subjective to one's tastes, no matter the individual.
 
There are at least 100 towers built since 2000 that I like less than AURA. Re-clad the bottom two-thirds and gut the basement and AURA will shine.
 
As others said, the thing I really lament about this building is the terrible PATH mall underground, the terrible connection to College Park, and the terribly boring street-level commercial use.

But those things are not related to the building itself as it appears above ground-level.
 
alienhenny said:
I don't understand why everybody doesn't like this building. It's not like it's the worst building in the city, and it's definitely not the worst new building in the city either.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but then again, while this is technically a run-of-the mill condo, it was done at a scale that had not been seen here before, in addition to a sizeable mixed-use component open to the public at high-traffic location. Aura was bound to garner more attention regardless, which is also why you hear more feedback in general (take the size of this thread for example)
Personally, I still believe this is in the mid-to-upper percentile as far as Toronto condo design standards are concerned (I'd say around the 70th percentile). And I stand by the light feature as one of the best contributions to the skyline in decades; but as a recent link to a news column a few posts back would suggest, even the lighting has its critics.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top