[FMCS]

Wonderful shots of the skyline....but this thing only looks good at night, that's a real shame!

 

[skycandy]

Nature's aura.

 

[smably]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-lesson-for-toronto-planners/article33621784/

Apparently city staff were unaware of the nature of the lights on the crown. The article is mostly about the lights (which I find much less offensive than Mr. Bozikovic does), but there are also some great lines about how Aura turned out so ugly:

In architecture and urban design, details matter profoundly. Tall buildings have a lot of details to keep track of, and Toronto is getting a lot of new tall buildings.

And some of them, such as Aura, have been terrible. The bright lighting is only the topper. The building begins in an underground mall that is utterly dead; owners of units there are suing the developers, alleging misrepresentation. Then the tower meets the street in a mess of opaque storefronts in front of a crowded concrete sidewalk; rises through a cluttery hunk of big-box store, and then keeps going up as an indecisive, inelegant collage of slab and ovoid.

The illustrations they use to promote their proposed buildings are very handsome, but bear the small print: “artist’s concept” or “artist’s rendering.” Then there is the real thing, as at Aura, where the bottom levels are clumsily articulated in cheap windows and precast concrete. When I raised this with Mr. Graziani, he actually laughed. “That’s the rendering,” he said. “… And in Toronto you build to a budget.”

 

[TransitBart]

I look at the tower each night and until tonight it never occurred to me to think of the lighting as ugly. Strong words.

 

[Avenue]

I've thought the lights looked really ugly since day one. Rest of the building (except for the retail) I don't mind. The lights look quite cheap and gimmicky.

 

[LNahid2000]

I thought the lighting was the only redeeming quality of this building.

 

[DSC]

I thought the lighting was the only redeeming quality of this building.

I agree, the design of the building at street level is ghastly, the 'basement' is unspeakable and the upper part rather boring. As I normally only see the lights from a fair way off they actually look OK and add a fairly interesting 'night feature'. However, I might not see even them as 'redeeming' if I lived closer!

 

[Tulse]

I thought the lighting was the only redeeming quality of this building.

I agree completely -- this building only looks good at night from a distance.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I like the top half, and the lighting - I'd like it more if it could change colours and dim a bit. To my eyes Aura looks best when viewed from the south.

 

[DSC]

Aura looks best when viewed from the south.

and from a distance and at night!

 

[jozl]

And in the fog during a power black out.

 

[Light]

I agree, the design of the building at street level is ghastly, the 'basement' is unspeakable and the upper part rather boring. As I normally only see the lights from a fair way off they actually look OK and add a fairly interesting 'night feature'. However, I might not see even them as 'redeeming' if I lived closer!

The way BBB and Marshalls are using some of their (very) prominent windows that look onto Yonge/Gerrard is pitiable. Instead of inviting customers in, they look like after thoughts for storing merchandise. This is one thing I don't quite understand about some Toronto merchandisers (though BBB and Marshall are both American), whereas in most cities windows are coveted spaces for creative displays to entice customers to come into the store, some prominent windows just waste such opportunities. The former Future Shop at Dundas Square was another (awful) example of this, instead of smartly dressed windows, passersby saw columns of cluttered cardboard boxes of stacked merchandise.

 

[Irishmonk]

I think this monstrosity and the 3 uglies are the most hateable and widely detested buildings in the city. I'd like to see a very well trained Godzilla take this one down (once the occupants and their pets have been safely cleared out and suitable replacement housing found)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think this monstrosity and the 3 uglies are the most hateable and widely detested buildings in the city. I'd like to see a very well trained Godzilla take this one down

Godzilla doesn't want indigestion.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

The way BBB and Marshalls are using some of their (very) prominent windows that look onto Yonge/Gerrard is pitiable. Instead of inviting customers in, they look like after thoughts for storing merchandise. This is one thing I don't quite understand about some Toronto merchandisers (though BBB and Marshall are both American), whereas in most cities windows are coveted spaces for creative displays to entice customers to come into the store, some prominent windows just waste such opportunities. The former Future Shop at Dundas Square was another (awful) example of this, instead of smartly dressed windows, passersby saw columns of cluttered cardboard boxes of stacked merchandise.

Window displays don't drive as much sales as actual merchandise on the shelf. When dealing with awkward/limited spaces, the retailer needs to use as much of the floor space as possible to ensure the entire assortment is available for shoppers. Sometimes it means sacrificing window displays for storage or more shelving.

It's something I've been coming to terms with in my job where I'm planning stores. Sometimes, I just need that space to make sure I can fit every product into the store. I've already shrank non-productive categories as much as possible, and my only option is to sacrifice display space.