I wish they had gone with something other than that greenish (teal?) paneling, I seem to be waffling on whether it looks good or not. But I think the stone of the lower levels looks good from the street. My concern is that the quarter onion dome will appear too fanciful for the austerity of surrounding buildings. All yet to be determined I guess as this is still very much a work in progress.
 
^ I like this building and I welcome it! There is no problem introducing a building that is a tad "plaid rabbit" in the vicinity. And further, I don't find any of the elevations cheap, as others have written. From up close, it looks like quality to these eyes. I especially like the use of colour, teal in this case. It's refreshing.
 
TonyV said:
^ I like this building and I welcome it! There is no problem introducing a building that is a tad "plaid rabbit" in the vicinity. And further, I don't find any of the elevations cheap, as others have written. From up close, it looks like quality to these eyes. I especially like the use of colour, teal in this case. It's refreshing.
Click to expand...

I think we have to agree that whether you like the choice of colour or not is purely a subjective matter. Any colour chosen would have its fans and its bashers.
 
Bogtrotter said:
I wish they had gone with something other than that greenish (teal?) paneling, I seem to be waffling on whether it looks good or not. But I think the stone of the lower levels looks good from the street. My concern is that the quarter onion dome will appear too fanciful for the austerity of surrounding buildings. All yet to be determined I guess as this is still very much a work in progress.
Click to expand...

Because of the way Trump is situated on that tiny piece of land, I don't think the quarter onion dome will even be easily visible from street level. You will certainly see it from a distance, and from the upper floors of neighbouring buildings, but street level impact isn't as likely to be as high as it would on a set back building.
 
I notice a lot of people who don't mind the design, except for the quarter onion spire. Personally, I don't think the design makes any sense without the spire. The thing is supposed to be a post-modern take on Manhatten-style deco skyscrapers, which almost all feature spires. Not only does it emphasize the setbacks, but it brings a natural cumination to the glass strip running along the entire length of the northwest corner of the tower. The spire is fundamental to the design.
 
Ramako said:
I notice a lot of people who don't mind the design, except for the quarter onion spire. Personally, I don't think the design makes any sense without the spire. The thing is supposed to be a post-modern take on Manhatten-style deco skyscrapers, which almost all feature spires. Not only does it emphasize the setbacks, but it brings a natural cumination to the glass strip running along the entire length of the northwest corner of the tower. The spire is fundamental to the design.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
Can anyone explain to me why the height of the spandrel seems to be a different on each floor in the all glass portion of the tower? I understand that there is largely varying floor heights, but why wouldn't that result in a height change for just the glass. The actual thickness of the concrete floor doesn't change, does it? Is it part of the aesthetics (i.e. intentional)?

Personally I find it one of the most off-putting parts of the tower. Was the architect striving for absolutely zero continuity in any part of this skyscraper? lol
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
Can anyone explain to me why the height of the spandrel seems to be a different on each floor in the all glass portion of the tower? I understand that there is largely varying floor heights, but why wouldn't that result in a height change for just the glass. The actual thickness of the concrete floor doesn't change, does it? Is it part of the aesthetics (i.e. intentional)?

Personally I find it one of the most off-putting parts of the tower. Was the architect striving for absolutely zero continuity in any part of this skyscraper? lol
Click to expand...

The mismatched floor heights, the randomly placed vents, the mishmash of stone and glass on the eastern facade, the windows of varying sizes... the whole design just comes off as being lazy, especially given the price point. I'm actually surprised that a professional architect drew it up. That being said, I still enjoy the overall concept and massing of the tower.
 
I happen to like the varied floor heights. Most every building we see going up has equally spaced floors, and this adds a nice touch of randomness. Also, I don't think it has any effect on continuity as it is a part OF the continuity that makes this building unique. In fact, I think there is continuity in every part of this tower except for those out-of-place windows on the western facade.
 
very nice angle(s) current!
trump's definitely gonna stand out in those pics once completed, with it's solid green colour (love it or hate it), onion dome, and spire.

makes you realize how skinny trump is compared to the rest of the CBD towers as well.
the height of this building is the stand out feature here.
 
Awesome stuff from Trump's facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/buildingtrumptoronto?v=wall

Lobby
189769_195898467110275_110447845655338_549189_8158897_n.jpg


"Penthouse floor"???? I assume it's the top floor of the hotel:
198198_196166350416820_110447845655338_551058_4073082_n.jpg


10th floor stairway:
190225_196449013721887_110447845655338_552524_1651137_n.jpg



AND:
check this video out, midway through the guy says the building "sways a lot". Would the building sway A LOT at this height and in typical toronto weather? i mean, it isn't THAT windy in toronto. i understand buildings sway, but i'm confused why he said a lot.... (i can't stand building sway :()

[video=facebook;148812195180848]http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=148812195180848[/video]
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top