khris
Senior Member
Do you know anything about the LED lighting feature on the northwest corner?
Toronto St Regis Toronto Hotel and Residences | 281.93m | 58s | JFC Capital | Zeidler
Do you know anything about the LED lighting feature on the northwest corner?
steveve
Senior Member
holy cow! my mind exploded after seeing this shot:
this is gonna be such a sick spot to have a "power breakfast/lunch/dinner". though Canoe is higher up, the views don't face King/Bay as well as it's very indoors, being outside atop the financial district is gonna be killer!
Traynor
Senior Member
Also, looking at the renders of the interiors supplied on the Data Base page for Trump, I must say they more clearly state "5 Star" than the Ritz's interiors. And the colour palette and materials also scream "high-end business executive ". Very handsome interiors indeed.
steveve
Senior Member
i think Trump goes for the more classic look and the Ritz more contemporary finishes, but that's just me. I'm not saying anything bad about either, they both look good for what type of finishes they're going for; they're both very nice.
wopchop
Building Toronto
Yes. The public art feature is ready to move forward (logistically). It's just caught up by some paperwork
klb86
Active Member
Taken earlier today.
Traynor
Senior Member
Oh No! In the last picture I can just make out a piece of RoCP behind Old City Hall... The whole vista is ruined!!! Gouge out your eyes and never again look upon the horror that has befallen a once pristine view.
Won`t someone please think of the children????!!!!????
Won`t someone please think of the children????!!!!????
Traynor
Senior Member
Yes. The public art feature is ready to move forward (logistically). It's just caught up by some paperwork
Um... how is a strip of LED up the side of a building being construed as Art exactly? Forgive my lack of appreciation for some forms of modern art, but seriously... Art? It's a light feature, to be sure, but I find it a stretch to call these lighting features art.
Last edited:
wopchop
Building Toronto
I never made up definition. It is what it is. The City of Toronto mandates that buildings must provide a certain amount of public art. This feature is part of Trump's contribution.
There are many other examples of public art light features - Canada Life Insurance Building, the CN Tower, and that tower at CityPlace that I can't remember the name of. This feature is highly visible from street level, and is planned to be lit nightly, so if those other features qualify, then this one certainly does.
To be honest, I could care less whether it is actually art or not. On my drawings and in all the specs, it is referred to as the public art lighting. So for all intents and purposes, that is what it is. If I called it something else, no one at work would know what I was talking about.
And really, I think it's pretty fantastic that the city has created a framework that makes developers willing to even think about constructing public art lighting. These features are extremely expensive to operate and maintain. They also provide practically zero value for the building itself (from a building manager's perspective), so are not normally something that they would consider adding to a building. We should be grateful.
Last edited:
Traynor
Senior Member
Meh...
New York, Shanghai, Hon Kong, Dubai, heck most Chinese cities these days light up their buildings with LEDs and don't call it art. They call it "lighting up their buildings".
The fact that the city is willing to barter height for art (Increased density in lieu of monies spent on neighbourhood improvements ie: parks, high-end sidewalk surfacing, planting of trees and artwork.) is fine I suppose (though I personally hate the dishonesty of sham density limitations, designed to extort monies from private business for civic improvments, council is unwilling to raise taxes to pay for itself.) but I am not willing to be thankful for a bright strip of light and fail to see how it improves my life or those standing around Bay and Adelaide. Just more light pollution and gimicky attention getting.
It may sound contradictory but I do like buildings with architectural details highlighted by good lighting schemes. I just don't consider this one of those. Perhaps if all the setbacks and transitional spaces and roof feature were illuminated I could see it, but a strip of light? God forbid if it traces up an down al-la the CN Tower in multiple colours... I think then you will find most Torontonians willing to turn vandal and disable it somehow. It would be the ultimate in tacky "Eat at Joe's" signs then.
New York, Shanghai, Hon Kong, Dubai, heck most Chinese cities these days light up their buildings with LEDs and don't call it art. They call it "lighting up their buildings".
The fact that the city is willing to barter height for art (Increased density in lieu of monies spent on neighbourhood improvements ie: parks, high-end sidewalk surfacing, planting of trees and artwork.) is fine I suppose (though I personally hate the dishonesty of sham density limitations, designed to extort monies from private business for civic improvments, council is unwilling to raise taxes to pay for itself.) but I am not willing to be thankful for a bright strip of light and fail to see how it improves my life or those standing around Bay and Adelaide. Just more light pollution and gimicky attention getting.
It may sound contradictory but I do like buildings with architectural details highlighted by good lighting schemes. I just don't consider this one of those. Perhaps if all the setbacks and transitional spaces and roof feature were illuminated I could see it, but a strip of light? God forbid if it traces up an down al-la the CN Tower in multiple colours... I think then you will find most Torontonians willing to turn vandal and disable it somehow. It would be the ultimate in tacky "Eat at Joe's" signs then.
wopchop
Building Toronto
I don't know. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
But art or not, it makes no matter. The term public art is just a set of words. It doesn't necessarily mean it is art or not. In the end, it is just a way of forcing developers to provide aesthetically pleasing features, as opposed to letting them build commie block after commie block. This is the framework that the City of Toronto has setup, and without it, you wouldn't see features like this on 95% of projects.
For the record; It's a continuous band of lighting. From the looks of the specs, I don't think that it would even be possible to have it trace up and down. The lightning strips are all definitely the same colour, as well.
But art or not, it makes no matter. The term public art is just a set of words. It doesn't necessarily mean it is art or not. In the end, it is just a way of forcing developers to provide aesthetically pleasing features, as opposed to letting them build commie block after commie block. This is the framework that the City of Toronto has setup, and without it, you wouldn't see features like this on 95% of projects.
For the record; It's a continuous band of lighting. From the looks of the specs, I don't think that it would even be possible to have it trace up and down. The lightning strips are all definitely the same colour, as well.
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
That's not the worst angle of RoCP behind Old City Hall, so your sarcasm is misguided. Also, much greater damage can be done to other notable vistas. Those who care enough about their city to take up the issue of preservation of its urban planning and architectural achievements deserve respect rather than to be mocked with ridiculous sarcasm.
adma
Superstar
And besides, Urban Shocker already negatively noted RoCP behind Old City Hall at least 5 or 6 years ago...
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
That's my main problem with lighting being allowed as an art feature. After a condo board takes over off go the lights at 11pm or midnight to save money so no one can "enjoy" them after that time. Murano 1 & 2 (buildings that I like) have a glass art feature along the Bay Street podium which cannot be seen as night at all and to a great extent, fail by day as it's dark and not very prominent.