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

Well said, AlbertC. Soaring skyscraper canyons in and of themselves never have been a benchmark for urban greatness. Mid-rise neighbourhoods, with a funky mix of history and forward-thinking verve, are what makes for great "people" cities.
 
caltrane74 said:
Been said before, I'll say it again, .. Toronto is no New York.

Filling out the empty lots is the first step. Pretty sure New York didn't get it right thr first time out, no reason to expect Toronto would be perfect out of the gate either.
Click to expand...

First of all, Toronto's been building tall since the dawn of the skyscraper so it's not our first time out. Secondly, no one's asking for perfection just for our developers and architects to try a little harder. I don't mind AURA, but Yonge Street is in trouble if all our retail at street level ends up looking like that (and I'm not talking about the crap downstairs). It's not difficult to build quality retail fronts, but few seem to get it right for some inexplicable reason. The retail treatment seems to be an afterthought.

This type of wall treatment is about as low brow as one can get. It's cheap, cheap, cheap. AURA's is only marginally better:

storefront%20door%202_full.jpeg


Thirdly, what's the point of filling in an empty lot first just for the sake of filling it in? Build it right the first time.
 
Last edited:
Seems everyone thought I was comparing this to the ESB in appearance despite the fact that I used the word "effect". *rolls eyes*...
 
AlbertC said:
Truly engaging pedestrian experiences can be found in charming lower-midrise areas such as SoHo, NoHo, East Village, Meatpacking District, West Village or many parts of the outer boroughs.
Click to expand...

Even without talking about skyscrapers, I feel like we'll never get the mid-rise feel you see in parts of NYC and in Europe because of zoning laws and NIMBYism. We're restricted to building on main streets and avenues, with everything in between being detached single family housing. Anything else disturbs the "character of the neighborhood". People want to protect their property values and want their street to be ultra quiet and peaceful.
 
defence5 said:
To make money. Sometimes I think people forget that.
Click to expand...

This is a 78 floor building and they couldn't design one floor at street level to be attractive? It doesn't necessarily cost more to make something attractive; it just takes more effort. The level of design in Toronto buildings has gone up because people demand it and good design sells. Perhaps, developers will slowly realize that it extends to retail as well.

I suppose it will have to be demanded by retailers before developers start paying attention to these things.
 
Agreed.

However, something being "attractive" is highly subjective. I'm sure the financial backers of this project find the street level adequately attractive for their needs.

isaidso said:
This is a 78 floor building and they couldn't design one floor at street level to be attractive?
Click to expand...
 
defence5 said:
Agreed.

However, something being "attractive" is highly subjective. I'm sure the financial backers of this project find the street level adequately attractive for their needs.
Click to expand...

Bankers & financial backers don't always know what's best for them. Sometimes their short sightedness can prevent them from seeing the big picture. Investing a bit more (in a better designed building or better quality materials) can result in higher profits. Sometimes the city, and its people, know best. Market Wharf is a good example of that. Developers wanted a 1 story building for just a Shopper's Drug Mart but the city and St. Lawrence residents fought that. I'm sure the developers are now glad the neighbourhood won that battle. The end result is Market Wharf, which is a pretty nice building. Building better quality buildings with great design, usually pays off in the long run.
 
Last edited:
I still think Auras gonna be an over all beauty on the skyline. Of course not till its absolutely completed. That last picture is great, thanks for posting it SMT.
 
isaidso said:
This is a 78 floor building and they couldn't design one floor at street level to be attractive? It doesn't necessarily cost more to make something attractive; it just takes more effort. The level of design in Toronto buildings has gone up because people demand it and good design sells. Perhaps, developers will slowly realize that it extends to retail as well.

I suppose it will have to be demanded by retailers before developers start paying attention to these things.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't agree. Most of these projects are sold out before a shovel goes in the ground. Most people buy based on a price that they can afford for the suite that best reflects their lifestyle - from floorplans. Location plays a part, and so do amenities for some people - the rest are investors who could care less about anything beyond a pad for their kid going to school for a few years, to flip or for rental investments. I wish people buying into these projects demanded better architecture but most don't. If you note however, office buildings that are going up generally look sensational and use excellent materials inside their common areas (i.e. lobbies) and on the exterior because their leasing base demands excellence. Big difference between the quality of office buildings going up and condos - though to be fair many condo designs are getting much better in the past few years and we've also had some real gems built in the past 10 years too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top