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

junctionist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Preservation of Old City Hall from the wrecking ball was an achievement worthy of my admiration. Placing it AND its environs in a time capsule or museum-like state is an effort worthy of my mockery.

As I have noted before. Preserving a view from a particular time period is arbitrary. What of all the late Victorians horrified that their view passed Bay Street up Terauley was forever ruined by the terrible placement of E.J. Lennox's City Hall? Wasn't their ideology as important as someone else's? ."Pish Posh!" I say. Build away!

Now blocking the view of City Hall by building a 20 floor bridge across Bay street from one building to another would be heinous. Building skyscrapers behind it? Go ahead. This is a growing metropolis.
 
Traynor said:
Preservation of Old City Hall from the wrecking ball was an achievement worthy of my admiration. Placing it AND its environs in a time capsule or museum-like state is an effort worthy of my mockery.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman that anyone concerned with preservation often hears. Many a European old city easily disproves it. Krakow's Main Market Square, for instance, reflects an advanced state of preservation while being vibrant with modern uses and activity. One goes to be entertained, shop, eat, and not to see some display cases of artifacts or how candles were made. (Of course, there are some museums among the diverse modern uses, too.)

As I have noted before. Preserving a view from a particular time period is arbitrary. What of all the late Victorians horrified that their view passed Bay Street up Terauley was forever ruined by the terrible placement of E.J. Lennox's City Hall? Wasn't their ideology as important as someone else's? ."Pish Posh!" I say. Build away!
Click to expand...
Your presumption that some Victorians were disappointed that the view up Bay Street to the slums of the area around Terauley is ludicrous. Even if there were no slums, there was no vista that could compare with Old City Hall. In fact, your presumption is backwards: the Old City Hall vista was a majestic and proud achievement of the late Victorians not something thrust upon them by development. They knew what it was; the city's master architect designed it and it went well over budget. Nevertheless, it was something they achieved and were proud of as New City Hall would prove to be in 1965.

It's not a matter of preserving a view from an arbitrary time, but a certain narrow view that has survived many generations. After all, there's nothing inherently wrong about certain buildings along the sides being replaced. The part of the vista that needs to be preserved is the shape of the landmark against open sky for accentuation, to maximize visibility. It's conceivable that the accentuation can be maintained with a building behind it that's perfectly aligned with it and whose architecture explicitly draws all attention to it. But arbitrary buildings here and there behind the focal point of the vista simply detract from the view and cheapen it.

Now blocking the view of City Hall by building a 20 floor bridge across Bay street from one building to another would be heinous. Building skyscrapers behind it? Go ahead. This is a growing metropolis.
Click to expand...
It's up to the growing metropolis to take control of how it develops rather than lacking influence like a stagnant city desperate for any new investment. There are many places for skyscrapers in the growing metropolis; a narrow corridor behind a vista of lower buildings is not unreasonable. The growing metropolis must use development to build on its achievements and not allow them to be overwhelmed and cheapened.
 
Traynor said:
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????!!!!????
Click to expand...

Wow! You have just won my admiration for that comment, good sir! Thank you :)

junctionist said:
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.
Click to expand...

It sounds ridiculous to me that a huge stretch of extremely valuable land should be inhibited from any form of major development because a person standing at just the right spot may get the grande opportunity of seeing the building unobstructed (if they care to glance upward). Also, I find it ironic that the same people who argue for vistas often point out that the majority of the public couldn't care less about a building's cladding or architectural appeal, referring to other members as "skyscraper geeks" (yet they justify banning development for something as trivial and idiotic as a "vista").

Oh dear! I don't think that the paragraphs in my comment lined up if you hold a ruler in the middle of the second word in the last sentence. I should probably go back and delete everything and stop any form of addition to my thoughts, right? Unbelievable :rolleyes:
 
I think a building in the back adds to the view. I guess your not a lover of tall buildings, large cities, and in my mind think to highly of the old city hall building, it's nice but not that nice. If anything trump tower does more damage to the vista of the old city hall because it shrinks the height of the old city hall tower, but since I love tall towers I really don't care if trump tower does this.
 
I'm pretty sure the LED lights are not the art component--and I don't think they are in other projects except when it's been done by artist such as the Maple Leaf Square or across the street at Bay/Adelaide Tower. Micheal Snow is apparently creating a neon/light installation for the base(?) of Trump and I remember there is also a smaller work (by a second artist, I think) that will be near/just inside the garage entrance.
Unless Snow (or another committee selected artist) has created the LED strip (in which case it wouldn't just be strait forward lighting) it would not count towards the art component requirement.
 
junctionist:
Your presumption that some Victorians were disappointed that the view up Bay Street to the slums of the area around Terauley is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It was meant to be ludicrous. It is a form of debating known as Reductio ad Absurdum. As a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

junctionist:
It's not a matter of preserving a view from an arbitrary time, but a certain narrow view that has survived many generations...The part of the vista that needs to be preserved is the shape of the landmark against open sky for accentuation, to maximize visibility .It's conceivable that the accentuation can be maintained with a building behind it that's perfectly aligned with it and whose architecture explicitly draws all attention to it. ...
Click to expand...

Preservationists have such incredible hubris to assume that they know for a fact that never in the future there will ever be a design of some structure behind this building that would actually improve the Vista. They have such little faith in the future that they want to lock out the possibility (for all time) that some person could come along with a great design of such beauty and vista-worthiness that they would, by act of law, bar that person from creating said masterpiece.

Now that is confidence in your opinion bordering on megalomania. To force your will upon all future generations because you know you are right.

What happened to Old City Hall when 20 Queen was built? It actually improved the view. Suddenly, in the 80's, Old City Hall and the Cenotaph were being photographed like never before: Appearing on post cards, magazines and even T-Shirts. 20 Queen is not remarkable architecture and it is neither centered perfectly to accentuate the Clock Tower, but it works. The juxtaposition of the Romanesque Revival Sandstone carvings and the mirror-like reflectivity of 20 Queen works.

Was anyone forcing the developer to design 20 Queen with this in mind? No. Was it in his mind? Who can say? But the fact that he did a good job says that there is hope for others in the future to do the same. To be a preservationist is to be a pessimist: Assuming the worst all the time.

Is there no possibility that something could be built behind Old City Hall that one day would make it the most photographed vista in North America? I like to leave my options open and hope for the best.
 
wopchop said:
I believe that the lighting at the northwestern corner was designed by Jonathan Speirs and Michael Snow. The actual shop drawings and manufacturing of the panels was done by Far East Aluminum. It is referred to as public art in every single construction drawing, document, and specification that I have seen on site. The developer refers to it as public art, the general contractor refers to it as public art, and we refer to it as public art. Even early site plans submitted to the city indicate that the developers were looking at a lighting element to fulfill their public art requirement. So my guess is that it is part of the public art component.

I'm honestly not sure about how exactly the lighting strip will function. It looks to me like one continuous strip, but I'm not an electrician, so that's a bit of a guess.
Click to expand...

Looks like I'm wrong then. I'm a bit surprised since I've never seen any light work from Snow but he is a pretty versatile artist. We can definately expect something more than just a strip of light here.
 
TT is now clearly taller than BAC:

009urbandreamer.jpg
 
awesome pics everyone! i didn't realize that another floor had just been poured, so now we have 2 floors past the setback on the west side.! (does that mean they're working on level 56?!?!), so 2 more to go after 56, and then another 1.5ish for mechanical.

Just looking at the Trump page on Urban Toronto:

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/trump-international-hotel-tower-toronto

urbantoronto-680-3880.jpg


and some of these photos get me excited, i can't post them here for some reason, but on that page, they have the floorplans (the insane floorplans) for the current levels 56 etc... and level 58 is INSANE! the owner basically has the master bedroom at the base of the onion dome, and a HUGE washroom and walk in closet.... freakin intense.
judging by it, the next setback is at level 58. (or is it 57?)


and what's the height of this thing? looks just about as tall as the TD tower.
 
Last edited:
That render doesn't make any sense. It makes the distance between the level 54 terrace and the level 56 terrace look like ten stories.

Edit: The next setback is the wrap-around terrace at level 56.

On Friday, it looked like the columns on 55 West were complete, but 55 East were not. Some of the forming for the slab of 56 West looked like it was in place, as well.

The current height should be approximately 223.5m
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top