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

MetroMan said:
Steveve, if you look at the staircase and associated catwalk, you'll see that it's old and rusted. If it were to be permanent, you'd think that they would be installing new materials. It is surely going to be dismantled once they finish working on the dome.
Click to expand...

Wow MetroMan, for someone whose usually on the ball, you've certainly missed the mark on this one. There have been 5+ posts from wopchop (who seems to be an engineer on the project) which indicate that it is indeed permanent.
 
gei said:
it looks horrendous... how can they possibly just leave that there...
Click to expand...

It's like the mess on top of FCP and all those unsightly mechanical boxes on top of most condos. Aerial views are usually afterthoughts to the management. If it at least looks good from street level (many in this thread wont even give the trump that much credit) then they let it slide. Also they wouldn't have put it on the outside of the roof unless they absolutely needed to. It may be ugly but it has to serve some purpose if its there.
 
Some of us like the mechanical bits which are left exposed when the architects of the buildings they adorn refuse to hide them. For me, the haphazard high-tech of FCP's antennae array adds more to that structure than any number of new plastic panels ever could. It's also a fact that Murano and X both have elevators and the articulation of that essential component on each of the buildings' roofs is simply an expression of what's going on within.

When people use terms like 'hideous,' 'unsightly' or 'monstrosity' to describe these elements, they fail to make a distinction between a truly terrible mechanical box - eg. one which has been denied the right to exist in and of itself and is masquerading as a garden shed or something equally preposterous - and one which celebrates what it is - eg. a piece of technology or engineering which is essential to that structure's existence.

One of the best examples is the Enwave box atop aA's TCHC building in Regent Park. There, the architects took something which was too large to hide and made into an essential part of the design. The sinuous aluminum skin which surrounds it was intentionally set so that at certain angles, oglers could catch a glimpse of just what's up there.

Contrast this with something like Trump or the Star Tower where these elements were hidden behind domes and other pieces of costume. Several have complained that essential parts of the building (eg. ladders, stairs, crows' nests, buckets, etc.) compromised the original designs by detracting from a certain 'look' which they felt they were owed. To me, the real failure is the architects' inability to foresee that the shapely crowns of their buildings would need to be cleaned and maintained and would therefore be mired by the necessary infrastructure. Hence we get the staircases atop the Beyond the Sea complex and the ladder/bucket atop Trump.

I'll reiterate that I actually like much of the junk which clutters the crowns of many of our towers, but it's hardly reasonable for those who don't to expect that something like Trump's dome wouldn't have to serviced from time to time.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Wow MetroMan, for someone whose usually on the ball, you've certainly missed the mark on this one. There have been 5+ posts from wopchop (who seems to be an engineer on the project) which indicate that it is indeed permanent.
Click to expand...

I confess I've been a little absent for the past month, busy with work but I believe that wopchop has referred to the circle catwalk around the the spire. That indeed looks like a newly built structure that may remain, although I'm not sure why they'd need it there permanently. The rusty catwalk that I'm talking about is the one leading up to the spire. This one looks like it's been used in other construction projects and I highly doubt that it would remain.
 
The catwalk, which is in fact brand new and not rusty at all, is the permanent access to the circular building maintenance unit attached to the spire. That building maintenance unit will be used to clean & maintain the lighting feature at the northwest corner of the building. There was previously a temporary catwalk installed on the onion dome, but it was replaced months ago with the one that you currently see in recent photos.

Because of the geometry of the dome, without the catwalk & BMU attached to the spire, there would be no way to service the northwest corner of the building using the main BMU of the building (which is located between the two mechanical boxes, roughly center of the building).

I know it kind of boggles some of your minds, but you gotta realize that people are going to need to be working on top of this thing in the future. How would they ever rig a swingstage up there? How would they safely bring glass units there to do a replacement? These things need to be accommodated for during the construction stage, because otherwise, it would basically be impossible for them to do it later on.

I agree, it looks stupid, but there are your fancy renders, and then there is reality. It's easy to draw something up, and not to think about these things.
 
Last edited:
Urban Shocker said:
There's nothing inherently wrong, I suppose, with "ghost" windows as a design statement. In another age, in another context, they were quite common, and accepted in their time, and are now interesting historical elements - between 1696 and 1851 in England there was a tax on the number of windows on buildings and such spaces were left so that real windows could be added later when the tax was removed.
Click to expand...

... and, in fact, the dead-eyed window was a feature of 19th century Dead Houses, or winter vaults, such as the one in St. Michael's Cemetery at Yonge and St. Clair - built in 1855 and designed by Joseph Sheard ... so perhaps there is a local precedent to Trump after all:

http://torontocemeteries.blogspot.com/2009/08/st-michaels-cemetery-winter-vault-in.html
 
wopchop:

The catwalk isn't too horrendous - it's pretty much hidden from view on the ground but the BMU is atrocious and throughly wrecked the silhouette where it is most sensitive - the transition to the spire. Something that folds away would have been infinitely more preferable.

PE:

Sure, if it is designed to be exposed and celebrates it for being what it is - per Functionalist/High-Tech - as part of the architect's vision. I hate to say it, but there is nothing particularly honest about hiding the mechanical behind "sinuous aluminium skin" - it still isn't showing the mechanism for what it is most of the time - it just looks better, that's all.

AoD
 
Another shot from the weekend

photo-1882.jpg
 
For those complaining about the east side:

Wasn't there an application for a small tower in front of Scotia bank plaza i.e. something that would the first part of the east side entirely.


I really hope that doesn't happen though, we'd lose the gem that is the Scotia bank atrium.
 
savevp said:
Tomms, how do you do it???
Wonderful, as always.
Click to expand...

cdr108 said:
i've come to the conclusion that he's BATMAN !
Click to expand...

You flatter me, Citizen, but while Tomms and I may both frequent such lofty perches, Tomms is a far greater photographer than myself. The Boy Wonder and I will leave the picture-taking to him; our modest night's concern will be continue to be your safety, and that of your loved ones.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Some of us like the mechanical bits which are left exposed when the architects of the buildings they adorn refuse to hide them. For me, the haphazard high-tech of FCP's antennae array adds more to that structure than any number of new plastic panels ever could. It's also a fact that Murano and X both have elevators and the articulation of that essential component on each of the buildings' roofs is simply an expression of what's going on within.

When people use terms like 'hideous,' 'unsightly' or 'monstrosity' to describe these elements, they fail to make a distinction between a truly terrible mechanical box - eg. one which has been denied the right to exist in and of itself and is masquerading as a garden shed or something equally preposterous - and one which celebrates what it is - eg. a piece of technology or engineering which is essential to that structure's existence.

One of the best examples is the Enwave box atop aA's TCHC building in Regent Park. There, the architects took something which was too large to hide and made into an essential part of the design. The sinuous aluminum skin which surrounds it was intentionally set so that at certain angles, oglers could catch a glimpse of just what's up there.

Contrast this with something like Trump or the Star Tower where these elements were hidden behind domes and other pieces of costume. Several have complained that essential parts of the building (eg. ladders, stairs, crows' nests, buckets, etc.) compromised the original designs by detracting from a certain 'look' which they felt they were owed. To me, the real failure is the architects' inability to foresee that the shapely crowns of their buildings would need to be cleaned and maintained and would therefore be mired by the necessary infrastructure. Hence we get the staircases atop the Beyond the Sea complex and the ladder/bucket atop Trump.

I'll reiterate that I actually like much of the junk which clutters the crowns of many of our towers, but it's hardly reasonable for those who don't to expect that something like Trump's dome wouldn't have to serviced from time to time.
Click to expand...

The arguments in this post don't strike me as all that coherent or logical.

The mechanics on the TCHC are just as dressed up as the elements that are "behind domes" And domes and "other pieces of costume" can be as essential a part of a design of a building, as your supposed exposed elevator shafts.

Lets be honest: Most ugly and "unsightly" mechanical elements are perceived to be such because the architecture is either lazy or unsuccessful. Further, hiding these mechanical features behind something (whether a "sinuous aluminum skin" or a dome) is neither dishonest or a failure, if aesthetically successful and a coherent design element of the building. Hiding certain mechanical elements is no more dishonest than hiding a stairwell, plumbing or a firewall (or any other "essential" element of the building).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top