Toronto Residences at The Ritz-Carlton, Toronto | 207.86m | 53s | Graywood | Kohn Pedersen Fox
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Actually, they get three balconies or terraces if you will
4grand
Active Member
I was under the impression that the Ritz hotel portion was going to be ready for the G20 summit. Was I wrong?
gristle
Senior Member
Yes.
Traynor
Senior Member
Nice shot of Ritz progress by Caltrane74 at SSP. It's nice to see the west side roof getting clad. Notice as well that the back of the lantern is now covered, so thankfully the sky no longer shows through.
(Courtesy Caltrane74 at SSP http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=179351&page=56 )
(Courtesy Caltrane74 at SSP http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=179351&page=56 )
Thankfully? I preferred seeing the sky through there. This building is now missing a unique feature that would have made it more exciting and special in my books.
Still, I expect the lantern will be interestingly lit.
42
Still, I expect the lantern will be interestingly lit.
42
cassius
Active Member
I was just going to say the same thing. What's the point of having it go all the way up there and look just like a few more floors? Having the sky visible right through it was something unique.
khris
Senior Member
I agree as well. I was hoping this was going to remain clear, and was disappointed to see the grey panels go behind it. I really hope something cool is done with it. I can't wait to see the sign go up.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
It looked messy and made no sense. Why would the facade it be solid the entire way up and then suddenly become a "transparent" (read: messy framework of metal beams) section at the top?
It now looks coherent, true to the plans, and downright handsome.
It now looks coherent, true to the plans, and downright handsome.
Traynor
Senior Member
Thank you Spire, I agree entirely. That was what I meant by "thankfully". All you others are crazy. It was about as appealing as the East/West sides of Telus before. Not very refined for such a high-end hotel and condominium building.
That exposed structure thing would be fine on a building where the rest of the structure had that sensibility. Such as exposed structural girders and cross-bracing all the way up the tower. But on such a sleek and smooth facade it was jarring to suddenly see the top.
I say again... "THANKFULLY, the back of the lantern has been filled in"
That exposed structure thing would be fine on a building where the rest of the structure had that sensibility. Such as exposed structural girders and cross-bracing all the way up the tower. But on such a sleek and smooth facade it was jarring to suddenly see the top.
I say again... "THANKFULLY, the back of the lantern has been filled in"
current
Active Member
It looks like they lowered the construction elevator by 3 floors and installed glass there. Here is an older photo:
Click for full size:
You can see in the last photo framing been install for the other haft of the roof with glass in place on the other section.
khris
Senior Member
Thank you Spire, I agree entirely. That was what I meant by "thankfully". All you others are crazy. It was about as appealing as the East/West sides of Telus before. Not very refined for such a high-end hotel and condominium building.
That exposed structure thing would be fine on a building where the rest of the structure had that sensibility. Such as exposed structural girders and cross-bracing all the way up the tower. But on such a sleek and smooth facade it was jarring to suddenly see the top.
I say again... "THANKFULLY, the back of the lantern has been filled in"
It only looked like that because they had tons of scaffolding in the lantern. It is much cleaner looking without it. I do get what you're saying though.
caltrane74
Senior Member
wow current, yer'right.!!
Didn't even notice that. - keen eye, eh!
Didn't even notice that. - keen eye, eh!
The see-through section made perfect sense: there's nothing behind it. What makes no sense is that by losing that dramatic gesture they have lost a chance to draw eyes upward during the daytime. Again, I am sure that it will be lit interestingly at night, but that still could have been achieved while leaving the top see-through for daytime spectacle. We'll have some visual interest by night at least.
When you have such a unique top on the building, it seems like an immense waste to leave the north side looking like just everything other building. Stupid. Boo.
42
SP!RE
°°°°°°
I don't believe in tacking "see-through" sections or crowns to buildings that are otherwise tied together fairly eloquently-- just for the sake of having something see-through. It's not an immense waste-- it's a plan.
But to each his own.
But to each his own.