steveve
Senior Member
she doesn't have a private jet?
I think one of the best views of Trump is at street level from Bay street looking up... the whole tower just looks balanced. (and tall)
Toronto St Regis Toronto Hotel and Residences | 281.93m | 58s | JFC Capital | Zeidler
she doesn't have a private jet?
I think one of the best views of Trump is at street level from Bay street looking up... the whole tower just looks balanced. (and tall)
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Yeah, its hard to believe its actually granite. In that color they may as well have used precast, the difference would have been negligible.
The cladding on the upper portion of the tower looks quite decent but once you get to the stone and all those mismatched floor heights, its just a mess.
Asmegin
Active Member
I'm not one to complain like most people on these boards ( 
), and I love this building overall...but wow. That picture above....horrible. It doesn't even look real. Nothing matches. Random floor heights, random window placements, a wall of grey etc. I can't imagine a bunch of architects and planners sitting in a room, looking at models/renders of this and actually thinking it works.
), and I love this building overall...but wow. That picture above....horrible. It doesn't even look real. Nothing matches. Random floor heights, random window placements, a wall of grey etc. I can't imagine a bunch of architects and planners sitting in a room, looking at models/renders of this and actually thinking it works.
Granny
Active Member
Where you guys been the least couple years.
This vertical clusterf*** didn't exactly pop up like a mushroom after a spring shower.
It was bad news virtually from its conception.
If they would just lop off that idiotic lump and antenna thing, perhaps we could pull this thing back from really garish to good old boring.
..and then we could all try to forget about it.
This vertical clusterf*** didn't exactly pop up like a mushroom after a spring shower.
It was bad news virtually from its conception.
If they would just lop off that idiotic lump and antenna thing, perhaps we could pull this thing back from really garish to good old boring.
..and then we could all try to forget about it.
67Cup
Active Member
So, please humour me as a newbie who hasn't been in on the debates. That wall does look a bit peculiar to me. I presume that whatever is behind it would look worse if there were windows. So, is that a reasonable guess? What is located behind that wall? Does anybody know? Thanks in advance.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I suspect some were holding off until it neared completion/completion, including myself, hoping that something good could still happen here but the exterior just became more and more depressing as the thing climbed skyward. The fact that they are still proudly displaying the 70-storey version on their website that was chopped down, what, five years ago? and sans the Bay-Adelaide tower, speaks volumes. At this point the only thing I'm looking forward to are bragging rights that TO has another 5-star hotel, seeing the lighting feature and by late winter not seeing this thread highlighted whenever I click on "Projects & Construction".
wopchop
Building Toronto
What do you mean 'what will be done'? The facade on the east (barring broken granite / glass) is complete in the areas in question. On the criminal wall - Those lower louvers that you see are for the parking garage. I doubt there was an easy way of ever getting around having those penetrations. Up higher, where you see blank granite (and a few louvers), there are a few mechanical rooms / kitchen /service areas for the hotel. I'm still sort of puzzled by the blank granite coves, but that's the way it is. The area at the ground (between Scotia / Trump) does still needs to be completed, though.
I'm not sure what you mean by the south side. It's complete except for where the hoist was.
Last edited:
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
First of all, thank you for responding! That's appreciated! Now I'm just being candid, so don't mind me, but are you actually asking me what I mean by 'what will be done'? Obviously, I and others in the latest posts are referring to those 7-10 odd bottom floors where everything looks messy (with the blank granite covers, louvres, and the uneven size/spacking of them and the fake windows).
Yes, we all know this has been a tight and difficult project given its scope relative to the land parcel - no one doubts that, however, you cannot say that's a reason for the lower levels looking so bad from the south and east side. Could they not have at least made the spacing & sizing consistent so it would not look so odd? Do you realize that many people who are even casually observing this building from Adelaide Street (east of Bay) will notice these bottom floors' unevenness, not to mention how bad it looks in general, regardless of whether most people care or not. For a luxury tower, this is really bad - it makes Toronto's infamous grey condo towers look good in comparison.
I'm also surprised that you're asking me what I mean by the south side - it's the same as this east side - and if you, of all people, need a reference for that, please check Geekaroo's pic of the south side on page 536.
I'm afraid, like others, that based on what you're saying, things will not improve for the lower floors on these two sides - east and south - which really is too bad! Sigh, big time.
Note to all who may come and defend this tower given its unique conditions (small plot, etc.). Please think deeply and see that regardless of the circumstances for this project, the execution of the bottom floors on south and east sides are really bad - no matter what! These two areas are just as bad as 10 Dundas Square's exterior....
bmiller
Active Member
I,m thinking fishing. Don't bite.
wopchop
Building Toronto
I wonder why you ask 'what will be done' because I wonder why you think that it makes sense to install panels, and then come back later to change them for a different look. Not only is it basically impossible (because of the way curtain wall interlocks), but from a contractor's perspective, that makes absolutely zero sense. Why would we do that?
I completely realize that it looks weird. Believe me, I do. But I wonder why you think that it'll change, because logically, it doesn't make sense at all that it would.
PS -
A lot of people on this forum really lack perspective on how engineering & construction works. You say that the size of the site shouldn't be a reason for things affecting the look of the tower. That's ridiculous. Of course it does. It makes a huge difference, and if you don't see that, you're being pretty naive. I'm not an architect, and would never claim to be one, but things like that do affect the design of the build, and will always impact, and perhaps even compromise, the vision of the architect.
Sorry.
Signed, a bubble bursting engineer.
Last edited:
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
Hi there, I don't necessarily think it makes sense to install something and then come back later to change it. I, along with others, were wondering if things may change in this particular project (at time of final completion) just because it looks so weird. Put another way, from a typical person's perspective, regardless of whether they know anything about construction & engineering or not, the lower east and south sides look so uneven, that only because of that, people wonder if this is the final product, especially for a luxury tower. If it wasn't so bad looking, people would not have brought it up. It's kind of like this: "hmmm, the lower sides look really unevenly patterned, I wonder if they'll finish/clean that up later as surely this can't be the final look for the five-star project."
Yes, I admit outright that I lack the knowledge and perspective on Eng & Cons works and I agree that it would make a difference to the look of any tower...I'm saying it should not have affected the look so much that it would end up being the way it's here - for Trump Toronto - I honestly can't think of any other major building off the top of my head that has such a messy looking base (especially for a high-end tower). Do you have any such examples, Wopchop?
I can understand the positioning of the louvres but why are they not the same size and not covering the entire spectrum, then? As well, why are there blank granite blocks in the first place and not fake windows that would likely be a better match to the rest of the building? Even with the Eng & Cons issues, one can't deny more could have been done to make it look better.
Blaming it entirely on Eng & Cons difficulties is a semi-cop-out by the builder. Perhaps, everyone involved (and not involved as well) just wants this project to be completed and move on....?
Thanks again for responding, Wopchop.
wopchop
Building Toronto
Look, I get that it look weird. But no, it's not changing.
I don't know where you see 'black granite slabs' on that east elevation? None exist.
I'm not too familiar with the specifics of the mechanicals, but it is entirely possible that the louvers couldn't be matched for size due to spandrel / column interference of some kind.
I agree that the granite punch-outs would look better with faux-vision glass, but that's what was specified by the architect. The builder has nothing to do with it. There is no 'coping out' by the builder in a contract like this. The architect specifies a design, the consultants and manufacturers make shop drawings to match. That's how it works. We just build what the architect wants. So please blame them, not the contractors.
I don't know where you see 'black granite slabs' on that east elevation? None exist.
I'm not too familiar with the specifics of the mechanicals, but it is entirely possible that the louvers couldn't be matched for size due to spandrel / column interference of some kind.
I agree that the granite punch-outs would look better with faux-vision glass, but that's what was specified by the architect. The builder has nothing to do with it. There is no 'coping out' by the builder in a contract like this. The architect specifies a design, the consultants and manufacturers make shop drawings to match. That's how it works. We just build what the architect wants. So please blame them, not the contractors.
Last edited:
CITY_LOVER
Active Member
OK, well whoever is to blame, then! As for your question on 'black granite slabs', I never said that in my prior post. I said blank (not black) granite blocks (which is what you refer to as granite punch-outs). I'm just clarifying this because I don't want you to think that I see black slabs anywhere - I do not (and rightly so, as they do not exist).
wopchop
Building Toronto
Ah, sorry. My mistake. Read that wrong!
Honestly, I do think they're unfortunate.
Honestly, I do think they're unfortunate.