Toronto St Regis Toronto Hotel and Residences | 281.93m | 58s | JFC Capital | Zeidler

I don't see how they could be, they get grouted in place. If you're talking about the third picture that's just one of the halfen tracks for the curtainwall anchors.
 
looks like Trump is going to block the view of the CN Tower from this angle

4034013527_b7727e1345.jpg
 
Is there an art component to this one? Maybe an LED-lit bronze casting of Donald's hair-do??
 
Right now they pouring the floor for the western half of what appears to be the 13th (if it will bear that number) floor (being the "12th level, hotel suites", as described in the stacking plan).
 
Tewder said:
Is there an art component to this one? Maybe an LED-lit bronze casting of Donald's hair-do??
Click to expand...

According to the report posted below $2,000,000 has been set aside for a public art contribution. At the time of the report, the art plan was still in the planning stages but it sounds like they'll be some sort of lighting component for the first five floors at the corner of bay and adelaide. The report also mentioned a second public art component that would come from an art competition.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-6110.pdf
 
ACE said:
It was originally being touted as having a granite, exterior finish (colour unknown) with a lighting feature running the full height of the tower to an illuminated dome but we shall have to see how that pans out.
Click to expand...

And from the report in the above post:

"The hotel portions of the building, listed as 311 Bay Street, will be clad in a light grey
limestone in order to complement the surrounding buildings. The residences, listed as
333 Bay Street, and the quarter onion dome will be clad in glass.​
"​
 
I really think that "lighting installations" that are integral to the building should not be allowed to count as public art. I'm borderline, leaning towards being against what was created for BAC across the street. It seems to be that the developers have found a loop hole to be able to pay for elements of their building design and call it public art.
 
Redroom Studios said:
I really think that "lighting installations" that are integral to the building should not be allowed to count as public art. I'm borderline, leaning towards being against what was created for BAC across the street. It seems to be that the developers have found a loop hole to be able to pay for elements of their building design and call it public art.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. They're improving the aesthetics of their building, thereby improving its desirability. Would we consider architectural elements like a lovely arch over the entranceway to be a public art contribution?
 
a family member of mine who is an architect says that alot of the time, developers will lie about the cost of public art and just keep the money for themselves. sad, really.
 
The BAC example is disanalogous because the lighting in the lobby wasn't part of the public art program, it was just something that Brookfield decided to do. The public art contribution was Cloud Garden across the street.

I think as long as the "art" can be enjoyed by any member of the public it should count. So if they want to do an interesting installation in their lobby that's ok, provided that people are allowed to have reasonable access to it
 
I like the creative lighting schemes more than the cheesy sculptures that do nothing and get passed off as art. Not all are bad, but for the most part, after you look at them once you'll never pay them mind again.

Also, as far as lighting that's integral to the building goes, I'd say that refers to interior lighting and the red airplane warning lights; I've yet to see any building pass those off as public art.
 
I think we should be demanding street improvements, plantings and the burying of poles etc. of developers rather than questionable corporate 'art' projects. This would have a far longer lasting effect on the appearance of Toronto. The city should establish guidelines (consistency of pavings, Plain trees along Bay Street, for example) and condo developments should be made to contribute towards the installation of them.
 
I in many ways agree.

We already have the lighting installation in the lobby of Bay Adelaide so I don't know if we really need an "art feature" lighting up the facade of Trump. Art is nice when it is tasteful-- but "Las Vegas at Bay and Adelaide" isn't necessary. Bay-Adelaide Centre West already provided us with a neat lighting feature at this intersection.

Trump should pay, instead, for streetscape improvements.

You can have too much of a good thing (even at an intersection)-- and that includes public art.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top