Northern Light
Superstar
To elaborate on @Ottawan 's entirely accurate critique...............
Understanding we all have different tastes...........I'll put out some thoughts for you with which many here (but not all) would agree:
1) The Podium:
Before discussing general attractiveness, or lack thereof, we have to talk bulk......this thing is just big and 'heavy' and it feels like it. There is no 'granularity' a good explanation of that term can be found here:
The Need For Granularity In Urban Design
A comparison of fine-grained and coarse-grained styles of development.
marketurbanismreport.com
But for short-hand, it means, in this case, visually breaking up the hugeness (ie. use different colours or materials to make the appearance of distinct storefronts/smaller buildings; so that the restaurant feels like its own thing and the bank like its own thing.)
A good example of this (still under construction) is Mirvish Village.
Let me then add, if you must create a monolithic podium (one big blob) you surely could do far better than this......... The storefronts at grade feel dwarfed by the retailers above; yet those retailers themselves have a poor relationship to the street through what feels like a generic office building entrance; on top of which, the retailers, which have spaces that provide views of College Park, the Skyline, Yonge, etc......almost entirely turn their back to that having stacked fully opaque shelving/walls and even back-end storage against the windows, instead of inviting customers inside to enjoy the view, and customers outside to be tempted by an animated retail space.
2) The Basement: Essentially a dead, or very near dead space, where the unfortunate few who purchased retail condominiums have struggled to put any business together.
The entry to the space through the generic lobby noted above is so subtle as to disappear; and so uninviting as to dissuade all but the most stubborn from venturing forth into it.
The space is laid out w/next to no natural light, narrow passages, and was just poorly designed from almost every conceivable perspective, including a total paucity of colour or warmth.
3) The Tower (functional); Before one rips the tower's aesthetics, you need to know condo owners here have had way too many problems for a relatively new building, from failures of water pumps (no water in your unit) to failures of elevators to some of the highest floors requiring people to use the stairs. This build is not hell.........but it has had inordinate problems.
4) The Tower (aesthetics)
This view of the eastern elevations shows a mish-mash of at least 3 different design styles, none of which are done brilliantly, and none of which work with one another particularly well.
It is entirely possible to have 2 different design styles going on and make them work; either by having them be complimentary, or contrasting...............
Here, not so much.
The rounded component of the tower (upper) is probably the best, the developer would likely have been well served to take that look top to bottom, albeit it with some tweaks and maybe a bit of colour........
Then found a way to play off the tower with a granular and less bulky podium.
But that's not the way it went.
*****
At the end of the day, Aura is by no means the worst looking building in town; by a long shot; but it isn't great.
It's also huge, and likely with us in its current form for decades to come.
That makes it sting a bit worse.
Most of all, I think a lot of people were excited to see a long-time parking lot replaced with lots of retail and a very tall condo.
They were looking forward to the potential of that building.
The way it turned out, relative to that potential leads to the harsh critiques you see today.
But that's just my 2 cents, others will vary.
Last edited:
