[Jackhammer]

From The "Sauga at SSC:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f182/JackhammerTO/502092kd1.jpg

[Jared]

is this "college park 3"?

[shappy]

is that the revised version? That streetwall is pathetic. Tower looks like shit too.

[Taller Better]

Grief, I completely disagree. I think it looks amazing and will be perfect for what is currently a parking lot. Yes, Jared, this is ROCP3.

[duper]

I actually like it. They've made some good revisions. The three storey podium is greatly improved. They've ditched the awful faux gothic look and appear to be using more glass.

[WhipperSnapper]

streetwall is better although nothing special but the tower doesn't appeal to me at all

how do you know its 197m?

[Jared]

is that the revised version? That streetwall is pathetic. Tower looks like shit too.


Actually, I think the streetwall is way better than what was there in the old proposal.

[caltrane74]

I love it.

[Coldrsx]

one of the better towers in toronto IMO.....simple, glass, classic design, modern material.

[shappy]

the podium is way better than the previous version for sure. I'm talking about the streetwall. 3 storeys and what looks like a set-back? Come on... this is right beside College Park, make it an even height at least. This should be ultra urban and it's not.

Take a look at the 4 Seasons hotel in Yorkville, now that's a streetwall and a beautiful tower. This proposal is amatuer hour.

[CMD UW]

I think this a great tower. The articulation in the facade is balanced, the shape of the tower is simple, but not boring. The podium is not bulky or intrusive and meets the street in a delicate manner. The transparent glass will open the mainfloor to the street. Well done imo.

[shappy]

The podium is not bulky or intrusive and meets the street in a delicate manner.

exactly. I feel like the podium is apologizing for being there. Fuck, this is downtown Toronto... make it count. I'm not saying it should be hardcore but at least make no apologies for being there.

[psychosomatic]

Toronto needs less generic buildings. its not the worst thing that could be built, but is still fairly boring IMO.

[WhipperSnapper]

A great design wouldn't have a podium in the first place

but maybe it ain't so bad with someone from Florida/Mississauga calling it boring and generic

[Waterlooson]

Looks good to me.

[salvius]

A bit of a mixed bag.

[CMD UW]

exactly. I feel like the podium is apologizing for being there. Fuck, this is downtown Toronto... make it count. I'm not saying it should be hardcore but at least make no apologies for being there.
But that doesn't mean that the building has to be overwhelming at the street level. Does this building add to the urban environment and architectural vernacular of the area, probably. But we all know that this could be debated over and over again.

[Taller Better]

For people worried about the height from street level, is there any difference between looking up at a 40 storey building, and looking up at a 70 storey building? You lose perspective from ground level anyway.

[shappy]

^ but a three storey streetwall compared to a 5 or 6 storey streetwall flush with the adjacent building does make a difference. That's the gist of what I'm getting at. If the vast majority of buildings complied with such a scheme, we'd be laughing.

[WhipperSnapper]

one of the better towers in toronto IMO

average at best

For people worried about the height from street level, is there any difference between looking up at a 40 storey building, and looking up at a 70 storey building?

more a concern of the low to midrise nature of Yonge Street as 40 storeys hovering over the corner would also be too tall ... moot point really as this rendering doesn't give conclusive evidence on whether the tower is setback from the street or not

but a three storey streetwall compared to a 5 or 6 storey streetwall flush with the adjacent building does make a difference. That's the gist of what I'm getting at. If the vast majority of buildings complied with such a scheme, we'd be laughing.

hard to say from the angle of the rendering - to me at least, the 3 storey podium appears double height or the equivilant of 5 or 6 storeys and the public street between RoCP3 and College Park may be the reason for the offset in the rendering

I just find the retail podium not only incredibly boring but doesn't necessarily fit well with the rest of the design - remind me of something you may see in NYCC (well...the architects have designed alot of NYCC)

and no way will the glass window wall of the penthouse levels be that smooth (same tactic used by the architect's renderers for Waterview)

[icescraper]

Thank God the gothic base is gone! I now kind of like it. Lines provide interest without being too busy with possible exception at the base. I heard they were looking for 70 storeys at 217m total height. Do we have a confirmation its 197m? If so we've probably lost a few floors. - ice.

[Tony]

the podium is way better than the previous version for sure. I'm talking about the streetwall. 3 storeys and what looks like a set-back? Come on... this is right beside College Park, make it an even height at least. This should be ultra urban and it's not.

I'm a little confused by this, the building is located beside College PARK, which has no structure at all, and a little bit before College Park (the old Eaton's building) which as we know at this half is only about 2 / 3 storeys in height at streetlevel, so what are you saying?

[caltrane74]

The sidewalk at college park ( the old Eatons) is quite generous. And one of the few places on yonge street where you can walk comfortably. This new building seems to be set even further back from the street. Which is good in this area when considering the amount of pedestrian traffic.

We dont need to create street life on Yonge street, its already there, places to relax from the hustle and bustle are probably whats needed now.

[Jackhammer]

streetwall is better although nothing special but the tower doesn't appeal to me at all

how do you know its 197m?

I don't. I just got that figure from The 'Sauga at SSC. Everyone's finger counts of the floors seems to indicate something over 200m so we'll have to wait and see.

[shappy]

I think that the streetwall created by College Park (obviously the building, not the park) is a great asset to Yonge. This new building had the opportunity to add to it by extending the streetwall. I'm sure we all understand how important streetwalls are to an urban street.

That's all ... make it a similar height and make it flush with the street. Let Gerrard have the setback if one is so important, not Yonge.

[caltrane74]

I agree shappy. The sidewalk along Yonge is so nice at College Park.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Anybody been by to see what floor phase two is on?

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/December10/PictureorVideo134.jpg?t=1169134456

[caltrane74]

nice!

But no clue as to what floor its on.

[franklinbluth]

Phase 2 (i see it outside my window everyday) is on at the 26th floor and counting.

2 floors - podium
floors 3-16 - covered in glass
floors 17-26 - skeleton

[architect1]

I think its amazing building I seen it under construction not to long ago I think 2 weeks ago. I would like to see more construction pics.

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

Here is a newly posted image of the original design that consisted of two towers, 65 and 40 floors I think. It was rejected but this model's good none the less.

Cassius is a talented Bastard. < I can say that here because he never comes to this site.


http://toast.sevenl.net/~cassius/renderings/RoCP3-52.Cassius.Adams.jpg

[samne]

I like the podium, but the tower looks confused. They better get this right because its going to stick out like a sore thumb along lower Yonge St.

[samne]

I agree shappy. The sidewalk along Yonge is so nice at College Park.


I know, I spent a few days on a workshop in that intersection. That stretch and intersection is the kind of place where many people just stop and stand around for no apparent reason.

[salvius]

Here is a newly posted image of the original design that consisted of two towers, 65 and 40 floors I think. It was rejected but this model's good none the less.

Cassius is a talented Bastard. < I can say that here because he never comes to this site.


http://toast.sevenl.net/~cassius/renderings/RoCP3-52.Cassius.Adams.jpg

I can't say I think much of that one. And yeah, Cassius is goood.

[Mister F]

I'm a little confused by this, the building is located beside College PARK, which has no structure at all, and a little bit before College Park (the old Eaton's building) which as we know at this half is only about 2 / 3 storeys in height at streetlevel, so what are you saying?
Well it was meant to be a lot taller than 2-3 storeys and the main part of the building around 7 storeys. That whole area has tall buildings and podiums, along both Yonge and College/Carlton. The Maclean Hunter Bldg podium is 8 storeys, a couple buildings across Yonge are close to 20 storeys right from the sidewalk, and the Met matches that height with a slight setback and another at 6 storeys.

[Jackhammer]

From Tuscani01 at SSC:

Tallest Condo In Canada Coming To Downtown T.O.
Friday November 16, 2007
CityNews.ca Staff

Think the chaos over the condo at 1 Bloor St. East was frenzied this week? Just wait till the real estate agents, developers and would-be flippers hear about this. What promises to be the largest condo tower in all of Canada was announced on Friday - a building that once finished, will stand 75 storeys and 343 meters tall.
The "Aura" will change the face of the downtown core yet again when it's built at the corner of Yonge and Gerrard, opposite College Park. The builders say it will encompass 1.3 million square feet - with at least 1.1 million devoted solely to residential space. And what would a Yonge St. development be without business? Some 190,000 square feet will be reserved for retail space.

"I look at Yonge Street as being a street that is going to be in a major state of change over the next five to ten years, and it's only going to make this environment better," believes Michael La Brier, the president of Canderel Stoneridge, which is behind the building.

The Bloor condo is 79 storeys and this one is only 75. How can they claim bragging rights to being the tallest? A spokesman tells CityNews.ca that the Aura beats its competitor on metre and square footage size, and that each residence will actually be bigger in height than the Bloor spot - so even though it has fewer storeys, it will actually wind up being slightly taller than the other address.

Those behind the plan have yet to reveal how much it will cost you to buy a place in the complex. That may not be decided until next month. But the spokesman explains that while there will be high end and pricey luxury models on the upper floors, some of the lower tiers should be affordable - although he wouldn't say how much "affordable" is.

It's the latest in what's rapidly becoming a newly energized market. A survey released earlier this week by Remax shows condos are on fire again in this city, with a 14 per cent rise in sales over last year - and growing.

And the residences are getting taller. The number of buildings over 200 metres - about half the height of the CN Tower - will more than double, going from seven to seventeen. It doesn't surprise realtors like Paul Raszewski. He's been selling condos here for 25 years and has seen the market bloom. "Because of the fact that the house prices in Toronto have skyrocketed, a lot of the young people, young professionals cannot afford a home. Automatically their choice is to go into a condo."

The fact a riot almost broke out last week at the Bloor St. location is testimony to just how much in demand the condominiums are. "They are very well marketed properties, and some of them are in very hot locations where there may not be many more opportunities to actually build any more because there's no more land in Toronto to really build new things," Raszewski concludes.

The Aura has been in the planning stages for more than a year, undergoing seemingly endless scrutiny and changes, before the city finally approved the project. After the frenzy that accompanied the earlier unbuilt condo, this one promises to create equal fireworks. Early registrations are being accepted online but actual sales won't start until February 2008, and the new condo may not be ready for tenants until 2012.

[koops65]

Amazing news... I hope new renders are released soon...

[borgo100]

Before and After

http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/296214_3.JPG

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7629/1auradc8.jpg

New Base

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1484/aurabaseol7.jpg

[borgo100]

TheStar.com - living - A new Aura ... a new era


TheStar.com - living - A new Aura ... a new era


November 17, 2007
Sarah Barmak
Special to the Star

Torontonians can be excused these days if their eyes glaze over with each successive announcement of skyline-altering condo towers.

But yesterday's was worthy of special attention, and not because the developer – Canderel Stoneridge – is claiming its 75-storey Aura condo on the northwest corner of Yonge and Gerrard Sts. will be "the tallest mixed-use residential tower in Canada."

What makes this 243-metre tower such a landmark for Toronto is that it truly brings the city into the era of the design review panel.

When this building is finished, locals won't have to ask the old question: "Who approved this?" The real question will be, who didn't?

Aura, the third phase of College Park Residences, will be tall, though not quite up there with One Bloor East and the Trump Tower. It will also have a high-performance fitness centre that includes NBA star Steve Nash and cyclist Lance Armstrong among its investors. With 17,000 square metres of commercial/retail space on the lower floors, it even aims to transform a less-than-lively part of Yonge St.

But it's different from the rest because of the way it was designed – by committee. After an application to up-zone the lot's 40-storey limits failed at the city and went to the Ontario Municipal Board, a panel of big-name architects was used to help reach a settlement and make alterations to the building.

A similar approach to ensuring excellence in design has achieved acclaim for cities such as Vancouver, Seattle and Denver, but it's the first time such a panel has been used to adjudicate a single structure in this city, much less to help a developer and the planning office reach a compromise.

For years, the city's architecture experts have been calling for the adoption of design review and the process is getting started on other fronts. Waterfront Toronto and the city, also without much fanfare, have both been busily convening voluntary assemblies of qualified experts for more than two years to advise on building and landscape developments.

They've had a tangible impact on the city's design aspirations and an official city panel was announced in April in an attempt to teach Toronto to "despise mediocrity."

"We have a chance to influence excellence in architecture," Mayor David Miller says about the city panel, which was assembled as a pilot project. "It's not fighting about height. It's about a city that works at the ground level."

The pilot panel was formed in the wake of recent changes to the Ontario Planning Act that removed language forbidding planners from critiquing designs. Headed by Toronto's department of urban design and its director, Robert Freedman, focus groups and a symposium were held to sketch out the panel's role. Members of Vancouver's panel acted as advisers for both the city and waterfront panels.

The panel now operates in six areas of the city, all of which have up-to-date secondary plans.

Freedman, a former lawyer who left the bar to study architecture, was not a fan of the direction many developments were taking at the OMB. "The OMB is a quasi-judicial body, it's like going to court, with each side putting forward its best case," he says. "It's an adversarial process; that process does not typically work well in fostering good creative design."

As a board settlement, the panel session was more productive, says Freedman, who attended the Canderel Stoneridge panel meetings and sits on the waterfront panel as a non-voting member.

"You get groups of people coming together to make something better, as opposed to arguing on opposite sides that it's either this or nothing," he says.

Barry Graziani, partner at Graziani and Corazza, Canderel's architects for the Aura, says at first he was a bit skeptical about the panel and potential for criticism. "But it turned out to be a great process to go through both for the project itself and our firm, which is relatively young," Graziani says. "The level of professionalism of the architects involved had a lot to do with it."

Graziani has now been involved in three panels, including two Etobicoke developments reviewed by the city's design review panel, and he says the pilot project could learn a lot from the Aura process.

"For the Aura project, there was a discourse that happened," he says. "With the city process, there isn't that chance for a discourse. You present it and they give you criticism and you leave."

The Aura design review was initiated by Canderel after its first proposal was rejected by the city in August 2006. Renowned architects Eberhard Zeidler and René Menkès were brought in to begin the process. Three more respected names – Bruce Kuwabara, Josh Chaiken and Jon Pickard – were added later when the panel became a joint process with the city.

Though originally recruited to scrutinize Canderel's point tower proposal, the panel soon wanted changes to the podium at Yonge and Gerrard, too. A fourth floor and a new, higher structural element were added to create a subtle visual link with the old College Park building to the north. The tower, with more than 900 unites, had to retreat slightly west on the podium, in order to avoid wind tunnel effects on Yonge St.

There were other minor recommended touches that Canderel's architects, Graziani and Corazza, worked in. The result is meant to allude to the old and unrealized Eaton's vision from the early 20th century of College St. and Yonge as the central node of the city.

Canderel president Michael La Brier says he's enthusiastic about the finished design, which led to a settlement at the OMB last week.

"I would never have used low-iron glass if the panel hadn't suggested it," he says. "It's a more expensive, high-quality glass. It will mean that when you look up from the street, the windows will look very clear and transparent."

For Kuwabara, the review process only begins with buildings; the real potential is in re-envisioning the urban environment, extending to sustainability issues.

"Design review is everything," says Kuwabara, who has spent more than two years chairing the waterfront panel.

"It's the public realm, it's streetcars. One of the burning issues is the longevity and health of urban trees. The design of individual buildings, once you take that point of view, is relevant only in the way that they support that vision."

Yet the crucial question of how much power panels actually have to implement their findings is a concept that remains nebulous. Of the two major Toronto panels, it would seem that the city panel has a greater position of influence. It makes its recommendations directly to the planning department, which then advises city council on whether to approve, reject or approve proposals with alterations. The Waterfront panel can only advise – it cannot force builders to change.

But developers who are not satisfied with the council's decision can still appeal it to the OMB.

"The panel doesn't change any of that," Freedman says. "All it does is provide another level of very valuable advice. There are some (cities) where the panels are actually given decision-making powers, but they're not the majority."

This doesn't mean that the panels' advisory nature makes them entirely toothless, however.

"In Vancouver, the panel's advice is pretty powerful," says Freedman.

Years of operation have given the panel the prestige that encourages builders to adhere to its decisions. "I think people take it as a point of pride if they bring their project in front of the panel and it gets a glowing review."

After more than two years in operation, there are signs the Waterfront panel has already begun to command this kind of respect. In fact, there is talk the panel's stringent standards might be scaring developers away from the area.

"With the waterfront, we're waiting for buildings to come forward," says landscape architect Janet Rosenberg, who sits on the panel. "The only building that's come forward is the Corus building."

That proposed Jack Diamond media complex – presented to the panel earlier this year – drew sharp criticism from the panel, sparking a public critique that most developers would prefer to avoid.

Rosenberg says she has heard that developers are now trying harder to get it right the first time, holding waterfront-related proposals until they've hired consultants. Meanwhile, the panel has cut its teeth on large-scale landscape projects that have allowed members to consider the look of entire precincts.

While peer-review might be an adjustment for developers, Freedman points out that it shouldn't be a new world for architects. "A critique of your work is how architecture schools work."

The lack of waterfront proposals to critique must be somewhat irksome even for Kuwabara, for whom the panel is "Toronto's last chance to do anything on the waterfront."

"We're at a very different place in the city of Toronto and how design is appreciated by the public," he says. "To me it's a discussion, it's using design review as a platform, to create deeper awareness of the issues as I see them. Never before in the history of Toronto have there been this many large-scale precinct plans going on. Regent Park, the West Donlands, East Bayfront, Ryerson. The cultural renaissance has changed the way people look at the city. Now people come to Toronto and actually look at the architecture."

The nature of design review is hard to pin down, tied as it is to issues as varied as the environment to ensuring the quality of materials. For Paolo Palamara, co-president of condo developer Diamante, reviews shouldn't lose sight of the details. He says they must put the needs of buildings' future inhabitants before "prettiness."

"Can design review – and I think this is still an open question – actually foster excellence in design?" Freedman asks. "It's often very good at avoiding really bad design. But the question of excellence gets tougher."

For Rosenberg, however, it's a prime opportunity.

"Let's get outside of the bounds what we would normally do," she says. "Let's think big, let's challenge ourselves. If we could have whatever we wanted, what would we get as a result of it?"

[koops65]

Why does the diagram of Aura say 240 metres and not 243? which number is more accurate?

[Canadian74]

243m I think.

[Jackhammer]

243m is accurate for now, but they intend to seek an additional 10 floors bringing the height over 280m.

[icescraper]

Mmmmm ..... this one's getting better and better as time goes on. What's really important here is a general condo builder sees value in putting up a superior (but not ultra luxury) building 70+ storey's in the downtown core.

Personally don't care if its 75 or 85 storys. This building is really going to set the bar for the upper middle (or lower upper?) condo market in Toronto. Hopefully buildings like infinity will just disapear from view. - ice

[caltrane74]

Sales to be moving forward on this project in a couple of weeks.


Images from the PDF sales brochure:

Tower Day
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/auralead.jpg

Tower Night
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/auranite.jpg

The Lobby Area
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/auralobby.jpg

5th Floor Terrace, or something called: "The Haute Spot". ...urp. Judging from the skyline in the background, it seems to be located at Lakeshore and Bathurst.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x11/CanadianNational/aurahaute.jpg

Canadian National posted these pics from the sales brochure for Aura..

[Aylmer]

I prefer this to 1Bloor...

:)

[shappy]

I'm not crazy about the design but I'm looking forward to how it will impact the skyline!

[Surrealplaces]

Nice looking tower.

[Brandon716]

I prefer this to 1Bloor...

:)

Nah, its a great design, but gotta throw my support behind 1 Bloor over this. Maybe its the top that impresses more?