ProjectEnd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
 
I see the similarities between Aura and Eureka but do not share the opinion that Aura will be a scar on the skyline the likes of Eurake. Actually, I believe the opposite. Aura, while not as amazing as it could be (what building ever is?) will do more to enhance the skyline and improve it than it will to cause harm. At least that is how I see it. No, it is never good enough to opt for restrained excellence but Aura works. Eureka on the other hand... yikes.
 
Eureka is a disaster of an epic proportion. I don't even know how it got built in it's current form..

They only logic I can find for its construction is that there were 500 families in Melbourne that desperately needed homes.
 
I quite like Aura. It's height obviosuly isn't as dramatic as Eureka but I think the design is superior- particularly the podium and the setbacks. Better yet, it will hide the cheesy looking ROCP I&II towers from Yonge street.
 
Eureka is far too busy, especially at the top. It makes PoMo look refined and restrained by comparison. I am almost certain that in 20 years, Eureka will be widely regarded as a big mistake.

Bill
 
I am not a big fan of Aura (too much of an awkward mix of forms) but I must admit that Eureka (which is a bigger mess) makes it look good in comparison.
 
Aklay, I used to share your view. I think however it's just the odd angles the renders are showing. When it's complete I don't think it will look busy at all for it's scale.
 
Eureka ain't half so bad compared to what it'd look like had it been built in Moscow...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top