Pinski said:
I’m not as well versed as some of the other guys here on the topics but Im wondering why this building gets the hate it does. Is it the materials, architectural design, colour?
Thanks for your replies
Click to expand...

To elaborate on @Ottawan 's entirely accurate critique...............

Understanding we all have different tastes...........I'll put out some thoughts for you with which many here (but not all) would agree:

1) The Podium:

1616711866383.png


Before discussing general attractiveness, or lack thereof, we have to talk bulk......this thing is just big and 'heavy' and it feels like it. There is no 'granularity' a good explanation of that term can be found here:

The Need For Granularity In Urban Design

A comparison of fine-grained and coarse-grained styles of development.
marketurbanismreport.com marketurbanismreport.com

But for short-hand, it means, in this case, visually breaking up the hugeness (ie. use different colours or materials to make the appearance of distinct storefronts/smaller buildings; so that the restaurant feels like its own thing and the bank like its own thing.)

A good example of this (still under construction) is Mirvish Village.

Let me then add, if you must create a monolithic podium (one big blob) you surely could do far better than this......... The storefronts at grade feel dwarfed by the retailers above; yet those retailers themselves have a poor relationship to the street through what feels like a generic office building entrance; on top of which, the retailers, which have spaces that provide views of College Park, the Skyline, Yonge, etc......almost entirely turn their back to that having stacked fully opaque shelving/walls and even back-end storage against the windows, instead of inviting customers inside to enjoy the view, and customers outside to be tempted by an animated retail space.

2) The Basement: Essentially a dead, or very near dead space, where the unfortunate few who purchased retail condominiums have struggled to put any business together.
The entry to the space through the generic lobby noted above is so subtle as to disappear; and so uninviting as to dissuade all but the most stubborn from venturing forth into it.
The space is laid out w/next to no natural light, narrow passages, and was just poorly designed from almost every conceivable perspective, including a total paucity of colour or warmth.

3) The Tower (functional); Before one rips the tower's aesthetics, you need to know condo owners here have had way too many problems for a relatively new building, from failures of water pumps (no water in your unit) to failures of elevators to some of the highest floors requiring people to use the stairs. This build is not hell.........but it has had inordinate problems.

4) The Tower (aesthetics)


1616712652223.png



This view of the eastern elevations shows a mish-mash of at least 3 different design styles, none of which are done brilliantly, and none of which work with one another particularly well.
It is entirely possible to have 2 different design styles going on and make them work; either by having them be complimentary, or contrasting...............

Here, not so much.

The rounded component of the tower (upper) is probably the best, the developer would likely have been well served to take that look top to bottom, albeit it with some tweaks and maybe a bit of colour........
Then found a way to play off the tower with a granular and less bulky podium.

But that's not the way it went.

*****

At the end of the day, Aura is by no means the worst looking building in town; by a long shot; but it isn't great.
It's also huge, and likely with us in its current form for decades to come.
That makes it sting a bit worse.

Most of all, I think a lot of people were excited to see a long-time parking lot replaced with lots of retail and a very tall condo.
They were looking forward to the potential of that building.
The way it turned out, relative to that potential leads to the harsh critiques you see today.

But that's just my 2 cents, others will vary.
 
Last edited:
Excellent write up Northern Light.

I think the height aspect is what really drew me and others to this when it was being built, not design. From a skyline perspective, Aura is fine and creates a nice peak here. The lower half of of the tower and its proportions I never really cared for but the upper portion and crown look fine and are easily the best part of this tower. The night lighting on the crown is also neat when lit up.

I really hope they gut that basement someday and get some real retail in that section along with better street access.
 
Riseth said:
Excellent write up Northern Light.

I think the height aspect is what really drew me and others to this when it was being built, not design. From a skyline perspective, Aura is fine and creates a nice peak here. The lower half of of the tower and its proportions I never really cared for but the upper portion and crown look fine and are easily the best part of this tower. The night lighting on the crown is also neat when lit up.

I really hope they gut that basement someday and get some real retail in that section along with better street access.
Click to expand...

Street access perhaps but what they really need is a better PATH connection.
 
Northern Light said:
To elaborate on @Ottawan 's entirely accurate critique...............

Understanding we all have different tastes...........I'll put out some thoughts for you with which many here (but not all) would agree:

1) The Podium:

View attachment 308109

Before discussing general attractiveness, or lack thereof, we have to talk bulk......this thing is just big and 'heavy' and it feels like it. There is no 'granularity' a good explanation of that term can be found here:

The Need For Granularity In Urban Design

A comparison of fine-grained and coarse-grained styles of development.
marketurbanismreport.com marketurbanismreport.com

But for short-hand, it means, in this case, visually breaking up the hugeness (ie. use different colours or materials to make the appearance of distinct storefronts/smaller buildings; so that the restaurant feels like its own thing and the bank like its own thing.)

A good example of this (still under construction) is Mirvish Village.

Let me then add, if you must create a monolithic podium (one big blob) you surely could do far better than this......... The storefronts at grade feel dwarfed by the retailers above; yet those retailers themselves have a poor relationship to the street through what feels like a generic office building entrance; on top of which, the retailers, which have spaces that provide views of College Park, the Skyline, Yonge, etc......almost entirely turn their back to that having stacked fully opaque shelving/walls and even back-end storage against the windows, instead of inviting customers inside to enjoy the view, and customers outside to be tempted by an animated retail space.

2) The Basement: Essentially a dead, or very near dead space, where the unfortunate few who purchased retail condominiums have struggled to put any business together.
The entry to the space through the generic lobby noted above is so subtle as to disappear; and so uninviting as to dissuade all but the most stubborn from venturing forth into it.
The space is laid out w/next to no natural light, narrow passages, and was just poorly designed from almost every conceivable perspective, including a total paucity of colour or warmth.

3) The Tower (functional); Before one rips the tower's aesthetics, you need to know condo owners here have had way too many problems for a relatively new building, from failures of water pumps (no water in your unit) to failures of elevators to some of the highest floors requiring people to use the stairs. This build is not hell.........but it has had inordinate problems.

4) The Tower (aesthetics)


View attachment 308112


This view of the eastern elevations shows a mish-mash of at least 3 different design styles, none of which are done brilliantly, and none of which work with one another particularly well.
It is entirely possible to have 2 different design styles going on and make them work; either by having them be complimentary, or contrasting...............

Here, not so much.

The rounded component of the tower (upper) is probably the best, the developer would likely have been well served to take that look top to bottom, albeit it with some tweaks and maybe a bit of colour........
Then found a way to play off the tower with a granular and less bulky podium.

But that's not the way it went.

*****

At the end of the day, Aura is by no means the worst looking building in town; by a long shot; but it isn't great.
It's also huge, and likely with us in its current form for decades to come.
That makes it sting a bit worse.

Most of all, I think a lot of people were excited to see a long-time parking lot replaced with lots of retail and a very tall condo.
They were looking forward to the potential of that building.
The way it turned out, relative to that potential leads to the harsh critiques you see today.

But that's just my 2 cents, others will vary.
Click to expand...
Lack of granularity is a huge problem with modern development, especially in new neighbourhoods where there's no existing fine-grained built form for new buildings to emulate. Architects prioritize clean lines over giving prominence to storefronts or visually breaking up the massing of a podium. These monolithic podiums stand in stark contrast to the fine grained urbanism of traditional main streets, and newly developed areas lack the character of older neighbourhoods. And they frequently get simple fundamentals of retail storefronts completely wrong. I think that this is the biggest reason why so many people complain about condos or call areas like Liberty Village "condo hell". It's not condo ownership or even high density that gives people this negative gut feeling, it's the oppressive, cold presence that contemporary architecture produces. It's amazing how many people in the design and planning worlds don't even understand the problem, let alone know how to fix it.

It's not all doom and gloom of course, like you I'm optimistic about the Honest Ed's redevelopment. It shows that you can do fine grained development (even if it is "faux") with large plots of land. Too bad more architects don't use the same design principles on display there.
 
MisterF said:
Lack of granularity is a huge problem with modern development, especially in new neighbourhoods where there's no existing fine-grained built form for new buildings to emulate. Architects prioritize clean lines over giving prominence to storefronts or visually breaking up the massing of a podium. These monolithic podiums stand in stark contrast to the fine grained urbanism of traditional main streets, and newly developed areas lack the character of older neighbourhoods. And they frequently get simple fundamentals of retail storefronts completely wrong. I think that this is the biggest reason why so many people complain about condos or call areas like Liberty Village "condo hell". It's not condo ownership or even high density that gives people this negative gut feeling, it's the oppressive, cold presence that contemporary architecture produces. It's amazing how many people in the design and planning worlds don't even understand the problem, let alone know how to fix it.

It's not all doom and gloom of course, like you I'm optimistic about the Honest Ed's redevelopment. It shows that you can do fine grained development (even if it is "faux") with large plots of land. Too bad more architects don't use the same design principles on display there.
Click to expand...

A prime example of this is Bremner. It's now built out but the end product is terribly deflating. One is resigned to the realization that it won't ever look much better than it does now. There's not much one can do to significantly improve its appearance. Perhaps an investment in landscaping would help but it's never going to measure up to those fine-grained urban streets we used to build.

One can't help but feel gutted and pessimistic about the future when looking at it. Is this what's in store for our city from one end to the other? Honest Ed's is the first significant attempt to fix this. It represents a glimmer of hope but that's all one has to grab on to thus far. Like you, I'm continually puzzled that people in the design/planning community seem oblivious. Design and planning is what they do for a living. Surely that's what they're supposed to be good at?
 
Last edited:
Richard White said:
Street access perhaps but what they really need is a better PATH connection.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. The PATH connection from Aura to College Park was botched with a confusing set of fire doors (that at one point had no windows you could see through and warned you not to enter unless it was an emergency - BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD!) which lead to a tiny vestibule and set of stairs underneath the old Down Under store. Any PATH connection from Atrium on Bay northwards to Aura will apparently not happen for over a decade due to issues connecting with all the buildings and existing infrastructure between Edward St. and Gerrard.
 
soundmuseum said:
I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. The PATH connection from Aura to College Park was botched with a confusing set of fire doors (that at one point had no windows you could see through and warned you not to enter unless it was an emergency - BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD!) which lead to a tiny vestibule and set of stairs underneath the old Down Under store. Any PATH connection from Atrium on Bay northwards to Aura will apparently not happen for over a decade due to issues connecting with all the buildings and existing infrastructure between Edward St. and Gerrard.
Click to expand...
...and it should connect to a potential Gould Street exit for Dundas station.

Such an exit to Gould Street would be excellent for Ryerson students.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top