I love the lanterns and the grey stone with black stripes (even if that's very 80s/90s).

I don't like how they used the same colour as the corner light feature on some of the ground floor windows. I think if they had all been darker, the vertical corner element would have had a much more striking, cohesive effect.
 
I totally agree with Hume.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...of-a-deck?bn=1

It's ugly. It's not 'street-friendly'. It doesn't bring anything to the city (that spire is ridiculous and tacky). It looks like some random condo from 1982 with it's green and glass. It doesn't blend with the area at all (sometimes not blending can be nice if it's striking and beautiful; this isn't) and the main entrance looks like a loading-dock. I think the Trump name will get people curious and through the door; but, if it said 'Holiday Inn' or 'Random Name Data Centre' on it, I don't think it would be getting the attention that it is.
 
I just hope they have the good sense of keeping the LED strip in tasteful colours at night - the last thing we need is a rainbow going up it like a cheap casino.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I just hope they have the good sense of keeping the LED strip in tasteful colours at night - the last thing we need is a rainbow going up it like a cheap casino.

AoD
Click to expand...

Hey, if the Trump name stands for anything, it's good sense and tastefulness! We've got nothing to worry about.

....er. Wait.
 
EMP1729 said:
I do agree that at ground level, from the photos, the building does look good, but it really infuriates me when you step back from the building and see how small the site is. It is just the wrong building for this site.

Other small details that are annoying:
- it isn't symmetrical.
- the overhangs are painted i-beams.
- service entrance on a main street!
- where's the entrance for people?

You can hype this building as much as you want, but in the end, Toronto got a second-rate Trump Tower.
Click to expand...

Everyone hates Trump buildings. Chicagoans loathe Trump Chicago, long suffering New Yorkers hate his buildings there. Why would we expect anything more than "second rate" by way of design, from Trump? Whomever buys into the Trump "brand" (equating Donald with taste and class, or whatever he is supposed to represent) got exactly what they deserve IMO.
 
DTowner said:
I totally agree with Hume.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...of-a-deck?bn=1

It's ugly. It's not 'street-friendly'. It doesn't bring anything to the city (that spire is ridiculous and tacky). It looks like some random condo from 1982 with it's green and glass. It doesn't blend with the area at all (sometimes not blending can be nice if it's striking and beautiful; this isn't) and the main entrance looks like a loading-dock. I think the Trump name will get people curious and through the door; but, if it said 'Holiday Inn' or 'Random Name Data Centre' on it, I don't think it would be getting the attention that it is.
Click to expand...


Sorry, not to single out your comment DTowner!

I think that Hume is overreaching. He criticizes TT for being tacky, but 'tacky' is what it's supposed to be, no? I mean I completely understand that this kind of theatrics is not to everybody's taste but complaining about parking garage entrances on a postage stamp sized lot is simply churlish, quite frankly, as is the false comparison to Harbourcastle where the context is completely different.... and comlaining that it doesn't conect with its surroundings is similarly daft given the street-level constraints and the demands of a functioning hotel and condo.

I don't know, picking on TT is like picking on the Eiffel Tower or the Brighton Pavillion... or like complaining that Casa Loma isn't all Klassy enough. It aint serious Architecture and it aint meant to be. Get over it! You may just find something to enjoy in the hubris of it all, and maybe it says that there's room on our skyline - or in our soul for that matter - for something other than tasteful square bank towers (which are simply mahvelous too).
 
As for the Trump Tower, it is by far the classiest tower that has gone up since this boom started.

UrbanFervour said:
Everyone hates Trump buildings. Chicagoans loathe Trump Chicago, long suffering New Yorkers hate his buildings there. Why would we expect anything more than "second rate" by way of design, from Trump? Whomever buys into the Trump "brand" (equating Donald with taste and class, or whatever he is supposed to represent) got exactly what they deserve IMO.
Click to expand...

Please point out the millions of Chicagoans who loathe the Trump Chicago. Every single Chicagoan I've met loves it and considering my business ties to the city I'm willing to bet the bank i know quite a bit more about them and their tastes then you would.
But whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not a big fan but generally agree with Tewder on the street level issues. I walked past yesterday and was pleased to see that the busy bar (hopefully it stays busy) is well displayed to the street and bringing some life to Bay. This is something that blowfish in BAC completely misses out on doing even though it has the street entrance. I've known people who walk past blowfish all the time and didn't even realize it's there. Real effort was made to make the entrance/drop-off interesting at street level, and it is entirely appropriate for the hotel -- patrons will not need to brave the elements to get a cab, a doorman will go out and flag one for you. The service entrance on Bay is unfortunate but I don't see a realistic alternative for the site. That of course leads to the view of Hume and others here that the site is too small for the tower, I disagree but this is a matter of preference. I think it is great that we are seeing large buildings fit into small lots right in the CBD. It starts to get a Lower Manhattan feel. Examples like Backstage and INDX and maybe someday the parking lot across from INDX on Sheppard. Wouldn't want to see that throughout the city but in the CBD I think it works well.
 
It has been a long time since I commented on Trump. I am glad it is done (or almost done) and don't have anything revolutionary to say about the architecture. It is what it is. But with regards to how it meets the street, I think it accomplishes well something that has been overlooked -- it looks like it has always been there. Trump's base doesn't scream out a certain era or data of construction nor does it flaunt anything particularly loud about its existence. To anyone not paying attention for the last eight years it could easily be mistaken for something that should be exactly where it is. It fits with its surroundings and doesn't apologize for its outward style or inward functionality.

Or put another way, Trump's base works in an area of the city that is busy working.
 
The lot for this pile seemed impossibly small when I first saw it. The Tower, cartoonish to some at height, meets the street in a positive way. It works fine here.
 
Nonsense. There are many people who are "successful with money" who aren't vulgar, ostentatious, blowhard braggarts, like DT. Don't project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top