How far would you have gone in modifying the original design, SNF?

"Back to the drawing board!" far? Johnny Boy seems to imply that approach.

There seems to have been quite a bit of to-and-fro between the architect and the various Zeidler/Kuwabara/Menkes/Chaiken/Pickard review panels. They clearly all bought into the idea that peer review could work, with the original design, and improve it. None of them has claimed it was a failed process or that the result wasn't what they worked towards.
 
Johnny Boy lost me years ago when he referred to Alex Colville as a mediocre artist. That was around the same time that he gushed that the former Toronto Telegram Building (now the Globe & Mail) was one of the most beautiful buildings in the city.
 
Anyone think that Aura will go through the same 'boxification' that 1 Bloor East went through? I hope it gets built as is.
 
Urban Shocker said:
How far would you have gone in modifying the original design, SNF?

"Back to the drawing board!" far? Johnny Boy seems to imply that approach.

There seems to have been quite a bit of to-and-fro between the architect and the various Zeidler/Kuwabara/Menkes/Chaiken/Pickard review panels. They clearly all bought into the idea that peer review could work, with the original design, and improve it. None of them has claimed it was a failed process or that the result wasn't what they worked towards.
Click to expand...

Well, if wishes were horses, I would have loved to have seen something grander in concept, something that, in some way, shape or form would have earned its place in the skyline. But are such sentiments the purvue of a design review panel, especially one with a muddy mandate?

Probably not; their task is to review existing designs, not start from scratch. Thus, the podium gets fiddled with and the show goes on. My point is that just like you can't legislate vision or creativity, you can't expect a review panel to instill some where there's not much to begin with.

Either they need to be empowered and encouraged to send a developer back to the drawing board (didn't this happen with an Erikson tower in Vancouver not long ago?), or they'll wind up rearranging the planters out front - which is exactly what Jack Diamond suggested public input was good for, at one of those misbegotten Project Symphony meetings.
 
Part of the problem is that as the other biggies in N. America (NYC, Chicago, etc) continue building their twisting spires and so on, they continue to generate exciting, cutting-edge reputations. Toronto, on the other hand, in consistently playing it safe and in turning its back on the spirit of innovation that characterized the city in the 60s and 70s, starts to look and feel bland and vanilla in comparison. In other words, will people come to Toronto to marvel at the boxy buildings, when they can travel to other urban centres to view architecture that is new and exciting. Although architecture doesn't necessarily 'define' a city, what it does represent remains important nonetheless.
 
If we built a "drill bit" in Toronto, everyone at this whine-fest would be pissed because it's not as tall as Chicago's or sanctioned by Black 'n Decker.

But let's keep an eye on those "arch-tourist" numbers and see if we can track a drop associated with too many new boxes in town.
 
I wonder if this project will have an impact on what could be built on the SE corner of Bay/Gerrard (next to the Delta). Presumably something almost as tall could be built there. It's a parking lot with a great deal of potential that is rarely mentioned in "parking lots that must be filled" discussions. I suppose the imminent disappearance of the more egregious lots will probably change this.
 
To me Aura is ok. But just that, ok. I love the height, I love how the design review panel has brought out some of this tower's strengths and I'm really liking that the curve is more pronounced. But I'm still left with a feeling that there's more potential in that shape and massing. I essentially agree with Bentley Mays. Its nice, but also safe and benign.

Something which uses similar massing and design (even though Aura is still just a concept) is the Eureka Tower in Melbourne. I like how the volumes are tall and imposing, but somehow restrained until the top where intersecting forms delight the eye and provoke the viewer into a closer inspection of this 'integrated decoration.'

Theres been some negative commentary regarding this tower on the forum and I honestly can't see whats not to like about it.

250px-Eureka_Tower_0944a.jpg
 
Mirrored glass is 80s? I say we could use more mirrored glass to replace the cheap-looking windows on many of our buildings (1KW, I'm looking in your direction). I'm not a huge fan of Eureka either... the little intersecty thingy at the top is cute, but its shape and those silly horizontal lines are inferior to Aura's interesting but restrained design.
 
Yeah those horizontal lines really take away from the design. Too busy. Reminds me of all those awful pomo buildings where it looks like the architect couldn't think of a way to make the building more interesting so they added a bunch of stripes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top