It was simply an observation. Generelly speaking though, buildings should be more than "just buildings" look at homes and buildings historically. The were a craft, something with thought and care, they contributed to the landscape. There's a reason we like to stop and look at old buildings. It's not just cuz they're old, it's because they're often somewhere between quaint, pleasant and beautiful. When I drive through historic neighbourhoods, there's hardly a bad looking home. Thats a far cry from what we get these days.Not sure what your expecting out of most buildings, as they're just buildings "but not downright bad" is a far cry from the public lynching this project was getting 12 months ago.
I read in an IG ad yesterday that the maple leaf pattern will be lit up. Was that known previously? I thought it was just going to be balcony treatment similar to Sugar Wharf.
I would say Aura's lighting was well done...although they really need to "change the bulbs" on a lot of it hahaI believe it was always known to be lit up, execution will be key though. And except for the CN Tower, Toronto isn't really known for doing night-time lighting very well.
In my opinion, it's going to end up looking muddy and difficult to discern the leaves at most angles. Please let me be wrong.
I doubt they will, although the broken lines are not too bad and look like rain effects to those who didn't see the original. Toronto condos that advertise their uniqueness through lighting are more often than not too cheap to replace broken parts of the lighting - see the "USB building" in the financial district (visible from Nathan Phillips Square) where one of the rectangles is now dark. I'd hate to see what these maple leaf patterns look like when parts of the lighting malfunction.I would say Aura's lighting was well done...although they really need to "change the bulbs" on a lot of it haha