Torontovibe said:
Let's hope its top is better than its bottom. I'm pretty sure it will be. It's like no other roof top in the city.
Click to expand...

ya, it will be. If you want to forget about the bottom half, stand south of the Delta Chelsea hotel and just focus on the curved portion (when it's topped off). I've also always found it awkward how the curved portion sits on the setback when viewed directly on the east/west. The vertical strip on the north/south sides helps, but I think it should have been more pronounced and pushed outwards. So it looks more like the curved portion slices and guts out of the building.
 
defence5 said:
Agreed.

However, something being "attractive" is highly subjective.
Click to expand...

you're dead wrong. there are all sorts of ways to measure value, quality, beauty, aesthetics, design, artistic merit, etc etc--many of them are centuries old. and Aura fails every last one of them.
 
I find Aura, so far, attractive. But evidently I'm wrong.

thedeepend said:
you're dead wrong. there are all sorts of ways to measure value, quality, beauty, aesthetics, design, artistic merit, etc etc--many of them are centuries old. and Aura fails every last one of them.
Click to expand...
 
Those who have a sense of interest in this project are always bashed. Best not to take offense. And not read to many posts here, and just look at the lovely pictures some members are so gracious to share with us.
 
thedeepend said:
you're dead wrong. there are all sorts of ways to measure value, quality, beauty, aesthetics, design, artistic merit, etc etc--many of them are centuries old. and Aura fails every last one of them.
Click to expand...

The simple action of someone finding Aura attractive blows this entire notion to pieces. I'm sure that what you have in mind is that elements and principles of design exist, but ultimately 'actractiveness' is something that is internal, personal, and subject to one's individual tastes. What's wrong here is just your dramatic and absolutist reasoning.
 
Canadian Chocho said:
The simple action of someone finding Aura attractive blows this entire notion to pieces. I'm sure that what you have in mind is that elements and principles of design exist, but ultimately 'actractiveness' is something that is internal, personal, and subject to one's individual tastes.
Click to expand...

and some people think Nickelback are better than the Beatles.
 
thedeepend said:
there are all sorts of ways to measure value, quality, beauty, aesthetics, design, artistic merit, etc etc--many of them are centuries old. and Aura fails every last one of them.
Click to expand...

Please Mr End, share with me your wisdom of how one "measures" beauty. I really need to hear this, even if it is off topic.
 
Stop trying to belittle and put down eachother please its very childish. Lets grow up! These forums are for adults after all! Thanks in advance!
 
wmedia said:
Please Mr End, share with me your wisdom of how one "measures" beauty. I really need to hear this, even if it is off topic.
Click to expand...

“To say that "different people have different aesthetic standards" implies that there are no principles of aesthetics and so yes, it would be hard to define principles when you do not believe or cannot believe that it is even possible to have principles.â€

“In effect, what you are saying is the existential statement: "Because I do not know (or know of) the principles of aesthetics, therefore they do not exist."
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
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.
Click to expand...

So how do we work towards better retail design at the base of future condo towers? The condos are always going to be the focus. How do we encourage developers to devote more effort at street level if retailers' wishes fall on deaf ears?
 
thedeepend said:
“To say that "different people have different aesthetic standards" implies that there are no principles of aesthetics and so yes, it would be hard to define principles when you do not believe or cannot believe that it is even possible to have principles.”

“In effect, what you are saying is the existential statement: "Because I do not know (or know of) the principles of aesthetics, therefore they do not exist."
Click to expand...


Nahhh. What he is actually saying is that you uncritically equate your preferences with the principles of aesthetics. And if he isn't saying that, I am.
 
isaidso said:
So how do we work towards better retail design at the base of future condo towers? The condos are always going to be the focus. How do we encourage developers to devote more effort at street level if retailers' wishes fall on deaf ears?
Click to expand...

Aura was clearly pre-planned for two big retailers for the large spaces and who-knows-what for those crappy cubby-holes in that claustrophobic mini mall downstairs - presumably with a future PATH connection in mind. Most condos with retail on the street have decent, flexible retail spaces, I think the problem is that the monthly leases for the newer buildings downtown are so expensive that they bump out any business except established corporations that expect high turnover so they can afford the space and comfortably turn a profit. There's also the setup costs for a new business, combine that with exorbitant monthly rents and it leaves few independent retailers that can afford to go into these new places, or get financing. Even if an established business on Yonge St. gets pushed out because of redevelopment and they think they could afford the rent there's no way many developers are going to lease to a martial arts specialty store, leather fashion, a tattoo parlor, army surplus, a head shop/rock & roll shop, anything "adult entertainment" related etc. eliminating at least half of what's on Yonge St. between College & Bloor Sts.
 
thedeepend said:
“To say that "different people have different aesthetic standards" implies that there are no principles of aesthetics and so yes, it would be hard to define principles when you do not believe or cannot believe that it is even possible to have principles.”

“In effect, what you are saying is the existential statement: "Because I do not know (or know of) the principles of aesthetics, therefore they do not exist."
Click to expand...

The principles of aesthetics make no claim of measurement. In the absence of quantifiable units of beauty, and a common baseline from which to determine magnitude, you cannot possibly "measure" beauty in the scientific sense.

If you were using the word "measure" in a vague sense, then fair enough, but you placed it in the same sentence as value, which can be measured objectively.

Anyway, I think I've been pedantic enough for one day! :) Sorry to pull the thread off topic again!
 
wmedia said:
The principles of aesthetics make no claim of measurement. In the absence of quantifiable units of beauty, and a common baseline from which to determine magnitude, you cannot possibly "measure" beauty in the scientific sense.
Click to expand...

"the principles of aesthetics make no claim of measurement"

This is a demonstrably false statement.
As i said: there are all sorts of ways to measure value, quality, beauty, aesthetics, design, artistic merit, etc etc--many of them are centuries old. and Aura fails every last one of them.

Fibonacci Numbers and The Golden Section in Art, Architecture and Music
http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html

Mathematics in Art and Architecture
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/math-art-arch.html

Mathematics and Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_art

The Mathematics of Beauty
http://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2012-fall/teicher-mathematics-beauty

The Golden Ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

SACRED GEOMETRY and THE MATHEMATICS OF BEAUTY
https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/d76cc765b2dec9a285256b890050ada0?OpenDocument

Mathematical beauty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

On Beauty
http://www.thersa.org/large-text/fellowship/journal/archive/autumn-2010/features/on-beauty

Chapter XIII - Beauty in the Industrial Arts: Architecture
http://www.authorama.com/principles-of-aesthetics-14.html





FINAL POST on this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top