drum118
Superstar
This view will look different in a few years
ushahid
Senior Member
I guess this is an old render without the height increment. they might have changed it after they added more floors to the building.
LowPolygon
Senior Member
This is exactly the problem with Aura. It was the problem at the beginning; it remains the problem now; and it will remain the problem until it is torn down.
The fact that the city allowed a building of this size to go up without a REAL ARCHITECT is a huge black mark against the city. In fact, its an unconscionable screw-up.
Why? Because serious cities don't allow hack developers to drop 78 stories of design-build crap on the heart of downtown. I am actually amazed that Canderel got away with it.
hawc
Senior Member
Wait, Aura was built without an architect? Turned out pretty nice IMO if that's the case. Can't wait for the lights to be back on all the time. Awesome view of them from Cabbagetown.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
He's saying that Graziani + Corazza aren't a "REAL ARCHITECT"
Mongo
Senior Member
What can I possibly say in reply to this ridiculous statement?
Last edited:
hawc
Senior Member
Huh, sure seem to have a lot of buildings to their credit on their website for fake architects.
http://www.gc-architects.com/highrise.html#sthash.bHtf4iEK.dpbs
LowPolygon
Senior Member
Yes, and they are all bad. Every last one of them.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
The statement, unfortunately, is true. Even mid-sized, provincial cities like Calgary and Charlotte get proper architectural firms to design their tallest buildings. Hell, back when Toronto was a midsized, provincial city it got real architects for it's tallest skyscrapers. Somehow, between the era of Crombie/Mies/I M Pei and Ford/PoS/G&C, the city's aspirations went in the toilet. Most developers these days are content to count beans while their enabler-city officials look the other way.
DtTO
Active Member
It's actually very simple; the city cares more about shadowing concerns, density, etc. than real architecture. Just look at the fight they put up against the Mirvish towers; A world class architect comes to the city, and they shut him down, while giving a free pass to Aura. I'm not saying there weren't issues with that first Mirvish proposal, but it proves that architectural merit has little weight at city council. It was barely even a consideration, and it makes it even more obvious when you consider the structures they were trying to save by preventing Mirvish from getting approval. Similarly, Massey Tower may be used as an example; yes, there were issues with the proposal, but it shows that architectural merit has very little weight at city hall, and absolutely no weight at all at the planning department.
Edit: To be clear, I don't think Aura is as terrible as many here make it out to be. In fact, I think the top portion is actually well done, but it still should've been designed by a more established firm.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
I see it differently...
On the one hand, in the 60s and 70s there was vision, ambition and leadership in the city of Toronto. We looked to the future, invested in it. We rebuilt our institutions and built icons and infrastructure to symbolize this optimism. We demanded quality of architecture, that it be world class at a time when there was no shame or irony in such an expectation.
On the other hand, there was little to no concern for heritage, notable landmarks of architecture were lopped down and not always for noble reasons (many were replaced with parking lots). Toronto understood monuments and grand projects (oh how different from today) but didn't really understand more basic street-level urbanism yet... and in some cases we still don't.
In this sense I don't see the revised Mirvish plan as a failure. I see it as a success that marries the ambition and vision of the past with an acquired urban nuance and sensitivity. The prospect of this makes Aura and the proliferation of other shoddy mediocre projects already seem dated, that they belong to a millennial 'frontier town' era that is coming to an end. Perhaps the Mirvish plan going through will signpost a future era of real progress for this city under (hopefully) less polarized leadership?
P23
Active Member
christ, not this argument again. here's a little perspective.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html
this is shinjuku, one of tokyo's most prominent wards. with the exception of the mode gakuen cocoon, any one of these buildings would have a 100pg thread full of people whining about how ugly they are. the majority of buildings in any city are uninspiring or even unattractive, get over it.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3011.html
this is shinjuku, one of tokyo's most prominent wards. with the exception of the mode gakuen cocoon, any one of these buildings would have a 100pg thread full of people whining about how ugly they are. the majority of buildings in any city are uninspiring or even unattractive, get over it.
Ramako
Moderator
The outrage rings a little hollow in terms of speaking to some greater failure in civic pride. It really does take a nuanced eye to see the problems with Aura. I know many people who are, though educated and appreciative of the finer things, not architecture aficionados and they seem perplexed when I criticize the tower. The general refrain is that they wouldn't have noticed its failings until they were pointed out to them, and that even so, it's still a decent looking tower overall. The fears of this thing being some great civic embarrassment or blight on our city are simply overblown.
Miscreant
Senior Member
Ramako, points well taken, and I'm not disputing that the people you've actually spoken to have mentioned that they wouldn't have seen Aura's flaws without them being pointed out. But I'm a hobbyist, and know very little about architecture, and one quick look at Aura and I see points of criticism.
To my eye, it's obvious stuff: the podium is bulky and not clearly continuous with the upper parts of the tower; the cladding on on the lower 2/3 of the tower is extremely busy and cluttered, and in 10 years will look--I suspect--dirty and cheap (much like that three-tower (I think...) condo development at the foot of Queens Quay and York, on the n/w corner; the uneven floor heights at seemingly random places, etc.
I don't think the tower is awful, so I agree cries of travesty are overblown. But I think most laypeople like myself can see this thing as the unruly beast it is.
To my eye, it's obvious stuff: the podium is bulky and not clearly continuous with the upper parts of the tower; the cladding on on the lower 2/3 of the tower is extremely busy and cluttered, and in 10 years will look--I suspect--dirty and cheap (much like that three-tower (I think...) condo development at the foot of Queens Quay and York, on the n/w corner; the uneven floor heights at seemingly random places, etc.
I don't think the tower is awful, so I agree cries of travesty are overblown. But I think most laypeople like myself can see this thing as the unruly beast it is.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
Yes, it's a lot of responsibility to pin on one single project. The issue however is when you stand back and look at the forces behind it and how they're common with the vast bulk of average buildings. It's the idea that developers and designers are justified conceiving projects that pander to low expectations, dishing out mediocrity because it's 'good enough' for the untrained eye. This is not positive for design and architecture in Toronto. You can point to all the (other) boom-burgs out there you want, it doesn't change how a critical eye is going to view Aura specifically or millennial development in this city in general.
A few more rounds of editing and polishing would have made Aura a much better tower in many respects but clearly this wasn't considered necessary... and that is sad commentary!