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

First time poster, long time lurker, but i had to get in on this debate:

I have to side with UD on this one. Just because a building isn't as fugly as say 10 Dundas does not make it a respectable piece of architecture. Trump Toronto may be aesthetically passable, but it is more concerned with fulfilling someone's idea of luxury than contributing to the city's architectural fabric. The same goes for Trump Chicago or almost any project Trump has seen fit to put his name on. At least when it comes to his Chicago tower no one mistakes it for "looking like its always been there". Sheesh.
 
I cant believe all the bad mouthing that goes on regarding this not even half finished 1/2 billion dollar skyscraper, but then again its the same whiners that are always complaing at the start and then praising the same new developments at the end....Regarding the Trump Tower, lets wait and see what the finished product brings.
 
You can put me in the minority group of people who aren't impressed so far. The cladding does indeed have a concrete look to it. The window colour doesn't work for me either.

That said, I expect the effect to improve as the tower nears completion.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Regarding the Trump Tower, lets wait and see what the finished product brings.
Click to expand...

In general I completely agree.

Festival tower is a great example of a project that was judged too early by many on the forum. Unlike that project however, the renders of Trump Tower never held too much promise, at least since the redesign which removed both the height and north-face set back that were its most distinctive features.

I genuinely hope, however, to be proven wrong on this one - this is far too prominent a location in the core to be a dud.
 
visualpixel said:
First time poster, long time lurker, but i had to get in on this debate:

I have to side with UD on this one. Just because a building isn't as fugly as say 10 Dundas does not make it a respectable piece of architecture. Trump Toronto may be aesthetically passable, but it is more concerned with fulfilling someone's idea of luxury than contributing to the city's architectural fabric. The same goes for Trump Chicago or almost any project Trump has seen fit to put his name on. At least when it comes to his Chicago tower no one mistakes it for "looking like its always been there". Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Please go back to lurking.
Having your development fit in with its context, or as I put it earlier, looking like it's always been there is an art form in itself. Having a developments get denied (re: Giraffe) for not fitting in with their surroundings is commonplace in many mature urban landscapes.
You are mistaken in saying that nobody will mistake Trump Chicago for always being there. During my first trip to Chicago last summer I had no idea that Trump was brand new from a distance, and if it weren't for the guide on the river architecture tour pointing out that Trump was a recent addition to the skyline, I may never have known. (This was before I went inside and realized it is brand new)
And that is my point. Chicago's architectural landscape/fabric is much different from ours. Buildings that stand out in Chicago also fit in with their surroundings because that is the Chicago style... to stand out. I, along with many others I'm sure, realize that many buildings stand out in Chicago. It's a mish-mash of many different styles, which become a style in itself. So a building there can be brand new or decades old and one may not be able to tell at first if it is brand new or old because it fits in with the Chicago style either way.
Like someone said earlier, we aren't the same as Chicago. Here you either fit in or stand out. If you stand out too much in the wrong area you get refused by the city or the OMB. And if you fit in too much you get insulted by members of this website. So you really have to choose.
Like I said before, I don't love it, but I don't hate it yet either (maybe I will when it's done, who knows).
 
Last edited:
You get criticized by some members on this website no matter what you are a proponent of, while others will back you up.

There is no fitting in architecturally = everyone dumping on it, or standing out = everyone jumping for joy,

because there is no one single UT viewpoint on development here. This forum is for discussion, so you will always find both agreement and disagreement. You might as well get used to that.

42
 
Here here! That's something I think we can all forget sometimes. We can all be hypocritical at times as well. It's part of being human.
 
I have no problem with a skyscraper that fades into the background and looks dated as soon as it's finished - it'll look dated in a few years no matter what they build. It may not be turning out as well as hoped, but anyone who thinks Trump is aggressively ugly, that it will anger or disgust passersby, is wrong. But will the inside also meet the expectations of datedness and contain on orgy of waterfalls, marble, brass, fake flowers housed in giant clam-shaped vases, pink and green wallpaper, etc.? The renderings of the interior suggest probably not, which is a shame.
 
adma said:
Except that the design predates Trump's involvement. And if you think it's bad, keep in mind the predecessor design by Kirkor...
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and yes whatever that thing in the post below yours is, it's awful. Trump (or whoever) could've gone for a complete redesign, though, so I'm still going to blame his enterprise.
 
urbandreamer said:
First off--I'm loving the attention.:D Rather, it is the reflection of a wealthy unsophisticated Russian newbie to the construction business. I get the feeling he (thought he) chose the cheapest design to build, and probably knows zippo about real Canadian architecture. He probably chose it to garner attention and to stand out--in a nouveau riche attempt at legitimacy (very typical Eastern European actually....)
Click to expand...

urbandreamer, where you get your knowledge abouth east Europe? Most likely from James Bond movies, where all russians are depicted to be dumb idiots, stupid uneducated peasants and ugly fat women. The real truth is far different from what you think about them. When russians were building marvels of architecture and art, in North America the talles structure was the tipi.
Or maybe you have sophisticated taste as a result of noble origin, maybe you grew up in an ancient palace? Don't know why you think that you have the right to insult people.
 
Zeiss said:
urbandreamer, where you get your knowledge abouth east Europe? Most likely from James Bond movies, where all russians are depicted to be dumb idiots, stupid uneducated peasants and ugly fat women. The real truth is far different from what you think about them. When russians were building marvels of architecture and art, in North America the talles structure was the tipi..
Click to expand...

Not to further veer this discussion off topic, but North America boasted a lot more than tipis. Mesoamerican civilizations like the Aztecs, Maya, etc. had built cities to rival even those of Europe. In what is now the US, large pyramids made of earth were built throughout the Mississippi valley. That's not to say Russians weren't building marvels, just that North America was far from an architectural backwater.

To return to Trump, I'm indifferent to it really. It's not exceptionally interesting, but it's not exceptionally offensive either. I'll echo many here in saying that I will withhold final judgment until it's complete, but I doubt it'll change very much. If anything, I'm just glad there's something on that lot now that makes this stretch of Bay feel a bit more complete. In that capacity, it's very similar to the Bay Adelaide Centre: neither outstanding, but both filling in a huge gap.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I cant believe all the bad mouthing that goes on regarding this not even half finished 1/2 billion dollar skyscraper, but then again its the same whiners that are always complaing at the start and then praising the same new developments at the end....Regarding the Trump Tower, lets wait and see what the finished product brings.
Click to expand...

we know the height, we've seen the renders and now we're seeing the quality finishes & colours... oh, and with brand name appeal Trump may supplant Success Tower as skyline cynosure! Yes, we'll 'wait and see'.
 
urbandreamer said:
Rather, it is the reflection of a wealthy unsophisticated Russian newbie to the construction business. I get the feeling he (thought he) chose the cheapest design to build, and probably knows zippo about real Canadian architecture. He probably chose it to garner attention and to stand out--in a nouveau riche attempt at legitimacy (very typical Eastern European actually....) For all I know, TT may be just a Russian money-laundering exercise.
Click to expand...

Funny, you complain about towers that you suggests are boring, then criticize this one because it stands out.

The Russian you refer to is not in construction but in the steel business - and he is a financial backer of this development. Nothing like falling for the cliche that every wealthy Russian must be a mobster.
 
Photo's from April 28 visit. Click for full size.
You can see the start of the glass current wall taking shape now.
IMG_april-28-10-0074.jpg


IMG_april-28-10-0081.jpg


 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top