I can't deny the fact, I am a height fanboy on this project. That's Forsure!

The secondary elements that it brings to the street, with the prodding of the city, are no doubt positives that other recent, and well received projects are obviously wanting for. When you bring up 10 Dundas/East, I can only imagine, what a better deal we would have had, had this project gone there instead. This is what we wanted, when Metropolis was first proposed. - We wanted Aura!!
 
caltrane74 said:
I can't deny the fact, I am a height fanboy on this project. That's Forsure!

The secondary elements that it brings to the street, with the prodding of the city, are no doubt positives that other recent, and well received projects are obviously wanting for. When you bring up 10 Dundas/East, I can only imagine, what a better deal we would have had, had this project gone there instead. This is what we wanted, when Metropolis was first proposed. - We wanted Aura!!
Click to expand...

IIRC, you haven't been touting Aura's architectural elegance, but I just wanted to point out that all of the reasons you've listed for liking Aura have nothing to do with the architectural critiques of Aura by other form members. I think this furthers my point that the former and latter views are not inconsistent, and also AOD's point that to respond to critiques on the design of Aura via comments on program and height is to conflate two separate issues.
 
I'm not sure how discussing both Aura's architecture and retail presence is a conflation of the issues, given that they each features that are pretty easy to distinguish from one another. They're also both fundamental features of this project. Why can we not praise the positive aspects that Aura brings on the retail side, and cite that feature as reason for liking this project?
 
fouronesix said:
IIRC, you haven't been touting Aura's architectural elegance, but I just wanted to point out that all of the reasons you've listed for liking Aura have nothing to do with the architectural critiques of Aura by other form members. I think this furthers my point that the former and latter views are not inconsistent, and also AOD's point that to respond to critiques on the design of Aura via comments on program and height is to conflate two separate issues.
Click to expand...

IIRC, I am a big proponent of many of the architectural features of this project. Namely the curtainwall glass at the podium level. I understand that there are some that dislike the mullion colour choice and that is totally their prerogative. I think the taller this tower is getting, the better it looks. I'm excited about how this project looks in contrast with it's run down and beat up neighbours. It's bringing up the quality of the street, by a wide margin. In that there is no doubt, that Aura has much game.
 
caltrane74 said:
IIRC, I am a big proponent of many of the architectural features of this project. Namely the curtainwall glass at the podium level. I understand that there are some that dislike the mullion colour choice and that is totally their prerogative. I think the taller this tower is getting, the better it looks. I'm excited about how this project looks in contrast with it's run down and beat up neighbours. It's bringing up the quality of the street, by a wide margin. In that there is no doubt, that Aura has much game.
Click to expand...

I am all for developing this stretch of Yonge but:

1. Having ugly neighbours does not excuse building an ugly building.
2. This project does nothing to improve the overall look of the streetscape. There's 3 fine historic buildings on the other 3 corners of the intersection, and of course there's College Park. This project does nothing to acknowledge them, integrate with them, or invest in them. That's a shame.

large.jpg
 
k10ery said:
I am all for developing this stretch of Yonge but:

1. Having ugly neighbours does not excuse building an ugly building.
2. This project does nothing to improve the overall look of the streetscape. There's 3 fine historic buildings on the other 3 corners of the intersection, and of course there's College Park. This project does nothing to acknowledge them, integrate with them, or invest in them. That's a shame.
Click to expand...

That's just your opinion. My statement was, that the quality design and retail at ground level, would bring up the quality of Yonge Street. This area now is ringed by dilapidated and concrete slabs (with the exception of college park as you noted), that suck the little life this section of the street has. On top of everything else, and especially at night, this area is very poorly lit. Aura with it's glass streetwall, retail and restaurants will be the new standard for the area in terms of design and function. Those that feel it can be bested will have ample opportunity with the surrounding properties in any future redevelopment.

What do you mean, when you say integrating with the buildings on the south side of the intersection? - The podium level matches off perfectly against College Park which it is being developed in concert with. If it had tried to respect those buildings, then it wouldn't integrate with College Park and all hell here would break loose. It's almost like you want it to win every battle, which is probably not possible.
 
Last edited:
caltrane74 said:
That's just your opinion. My statement was, that the quality design and retail at ground level, would bring up the quality of Yonge Street. This area now is ringed by dilapidated and concrete slabs (with the exception of college park as you noted), that suck the little life this section of the street has. On top of everything else, and especially at night, this area is very poorly lit. Aura with it's glass streetwall, retail and restaurants will be the new standard for the area in terms of design and function. Those that feel it can be bested will have ample opportunity with the surrounding properties in any future redevelopment.

What do you mean, when you say integrating with the buildings on the south side of the intersection? - The podium level matches off perfectly against College Park which it is being developed in concert with. If it had tried to respect those buildings, then it wouldn't integrate with College Park and all hell here would break loose. It's almost like you want it to win every battle, which is probably not possible.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. At a guess, everything that has been written on this thread in the last 6 months is just somebody's opinion.

By integrate with other buildings I meant something more than building the podium to a certain height. It could integrate by repeating certain design elements or using similar materials, and so on. Anything so that the end result is a harmonious streetscape. (And I agree that the Savoy Theatre would need recladding too.)

This building is not in harmony with the others. Heck, it's not even in harmony with itself.

123-1908.jpg
 
k10ery said:
By integrate with other buildings I meant something more than building the podium to a certain height. It could integrate by repeating certain design elements or using similar materials, and so on. Anything so that the end result is a harmonious streetscape. (And I agree that the Savoy Theatre would need recladding too.)
Click to expand...


Adding historical design elements is stupid. - Of course, that's just my opinion. Just one of many of this board.
 
Ramako said:
I'm not sure how discussing both Aura's architecture and retail presence is a conflation of the issues, given that they each features that are pretty easy to distinguish from one another. They're also both fundamental features of this project. Why can we not praise the positive aspects that Aura brings on the retail side, and cite that feature as reason for liking this project?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that it's possible to both like the retail component and height (as I do), and dislike the architectural execution/design details (as I do). To respond to criticisms about architectural execution/design details with comments on how much retail it has or how tall it is is to conflate two distinct issues.
 
The cladding still hasn't grown on me yet. IMO, it would have looked a lot better if the grid mullion system featured less spandrel. For example, check out the window wall on Liberty Market Lofts.
 
caltrane74 said:
Adding historical design elements is stupid. - Of course, that's just my opinion. Just one of many of this board.
Click to expand...

Well, you're one of the most useful people on this board, so I'm going let your opinion be that my opinion is stupid if you want. :)

But I thought you liked INDX?
 
Well Massey Tower and INDX are a bit different because the historic elements incorporated in these projects were always there. I don't have a problem with historic elements per say. Maybe more of the issue I have is with faux historic elements.
 
Generally, a mixed bag. As with 88 Scott, we've got a design-reviewed improvement on a not particularly stellar design, and the sort of generational change in building height that's taking place all over the downtown core, and oodles of retail. None of these elements are mutually contradictory, per se.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top