at a quick glance Eureka is quite a similar design to Aura... wouldnt be surprised if the inspiration for the Toronto project came from this one. The middle elevation especially with the recessed balconies and the staggered roof from left to right sides is almost exactly the same.
 
canarob said:
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.
Click to expand...

This site is ripe for something large-scale but probably not as tall as Aura. I'd expect something the same height as ROCP1 & 2, Murano and Burano and the 1 City Hall (if that ever gets built). The whole Bay corridor will be lined with 30, 40 and 50 storey condos... oh yeah, and a whole lot of wind.

Personally, I'd like to see that corner transformed into something of a public space that pays homage to the corner's long-forgotten artsy heritage. Or the new home for an outdoor market or something. Would be nice to add something less traditional than another condo with retail podium.
 
Eureka looks like a ruler with those lines, as if its only purpose is to please skyscraper geeks. "Look how tall I am! Measure me!"

But the mirrored glass is great.
 
I'm sorry. While Eureka is not a great tower, it still puts Aura to shame. Theres nothing to attach yourself to at the Yonge, Gerrard tower. The podium is marvelous and will really liven up retail at this section - it seems to have degraded to a series of stores selling the same 'ghetto' accessories (i.e. scrolling LED belt buckles) to visiting White suburbanites. Still, something like Eureka would really impact the skyline and distract the eye from the tabletop roofs of Aura's sister buildings. Insted, there is a nice, slender volume and a safe, conservative crown.

Some say Eureka doesn't have what it takes, then turn around and praise Aura for being 'interesting but restrianed.' We have so much 'interesting but restrained' high-rise architecture in Toronto, lets have something we can attach ourselves to.
 
ProjectEnd said:
250px-Eureka_Tower_0944a.jpg
Click to expand...

I think that that the Hullmark proposal looks a lot more like the Eureka tower then Aura does. Eureka makes a horrible signature tower, and all it has going for it is it's height IMO. I really hope Aura turns out better then that and gets credit for style and not just how many metres tall it is.

hc1ca6.jpg
 
Project End - one of your best posts I would say.

Andrew 3D... how can you fail to see the similarities between Eureka and Aura? built on a 4 -6 story podium, staggered midrise roof lines centered around a slim highrise extension... except for the detialing they are remarkably similar.
 
How can you say that RS? Look at the top of Eureka, its totally gross, and the podium is a total disaster too, as for the mid section they may have a similarity but it ends there. Aura will be a beautiful building top to bottom.
 
Thanks Redroom! Glad to see there are other people here who can see the obvious shape and size similarities between the superior Eureka and its lesser sister (Aura).

Cal: Please tell me why "Aura will be a beautiful building top to bottom." I ask this simply because I really want to like Aura but cant get past its overly-conservative form. Even if you don't like Eureka (I can't see why theres so much opposition to such a clearly superior structure), you can't deny that Aura, while imposing and impressive, is still boring.
 
I don't know why I even bothered to do this. Yes they have similarities, and yes the Toronto design is more conservative, but if you ask me reserved and refined is better the Frankensteinish garishness. I just can't find an image of Eureka that can sway my dislike of that building. The base on it looks like a low rise medical building.

2081865701_b14601e008_o.jpg
 
Thanks for the image Andrew!

They are not, so to speak, sister buildings as you well know. I was merely buttressing my commentary that they look so similar - but I guess not all families are alike!

Its interesting how people are condemning Eureka to the proverbial scrap heap while praising a building which offers even less than their target. Granted the base leaves much to be desired but from there on up, Eureka is far superior. And since when do 2-3 intersecting planes constitute "Frankensteinish garishness," as you so eloquently put it?

I don't want anyone to get me wrong - I do like Aura, I just think Eureka is a superior piece of architecture as it offers something for the discerning eye. My favorite description of Aura still is "imaginative but restrained."

Boy am I glad we're living in a city where architects' imagination needs to be 'restrained' for the resulting edifice to gain critical acceptance. Grand.
 
I'd rather see restraint and playing it safe than get stuck with something like the Eureka monstrocity in our city.
 
What the hell are those figures the base of Eureka? Looks like someone's about to get a beating.
 
The building on the right is clumsy and misses its mark. Aura is better, clearly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top