rpeters said:
once again, i'll define completed for you and shake my head in disbelief

tr.v. com·plet·ed, com·plet·ing, com·pletes
1. To bring to a finish or an end: She has completed her studies.
2. To make whole, with all necessary elements or parts

how can you try to argue with a definition
Click to expand...

necessary [ˈnɛsɪsərɪ]
adj
1. needed to achieve a certain desired effect or result; required
2. resulting from necessity

How can you argue with that definition? Unless you think that a "P" is necessary, in which case you are delusional as the building is already operational.
 
Sorry for being annoying I just don't think it's complete until we get the micheal snow public art feature that was promised. In terms of necessary I don't think council would have approved the building if they knew the developers were going to duck out on obligations such as making finishing touches on the roof, removing scaffolding and providing the promised art feature, so I think those parts are necessary. I personally don't want an unfinished skyscraper that is already intrinsically ugly to blight the skyline for 5 years, and micheal snow is pretty old who knows if he'll even live to see the day his art feature is functional. But since you guys are so angry I will start pretending it is completed and continue to hope they will fulfill their obligations.
 
Actually at a personal level TT is an architectural non-starter, and as such "anger" is pretty inapplicable to me - I simply couldn't care less. I do recall that emotionally-laden semi-expletives were used in someone's reaction vis-a-vis the state of completeness however, so perhaps one's use of the term "anger" is more passive-aggressively directed instead?
 
Regarding the debate about whether the building is finished or not, it is an all-too-typical situation in Toronto: the building is complete - but not completely. Label is appropriately, and one could argue that it as a new class or paradox.
 
I'm totally with you rpeters. In New York or London this apathy would be at the mercy of relentless critics, in Dubai at the hands of a pragmatic leader.. in Toronto, we argue over what the definition of "complete" is.. ridiculous. A building of this magnitude serves more than just residents and hotel guests, it serves our city's image aesthetically and symbolically. I would think a collection of skyscraper enthusiasts would understand that and be the first to push the standard of what complete means in Toronto.
 
sikandar said:
I'm totally with you rpeters. In New York or London this apathy would be at the mercy of relentless critics, in Dubai at the hands of a pragmatic leader.. in Toronto, we argue over what the definition of "complete" is.. ridiculous. A building of this magnitude serves more than just residents and hotel guests, it serves our city's image aesthetically and symbolically. I would think a collection of skyscraper enthusiasts would understand that and be the first to push the standard of what complete means in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the building is "100% complete" is a totally different argument than whether the building should be 100% complete.
 
sikandar said:
I'm totally with you rpeters. In New York or London this apathy would be at the mercy of relentless critics, in Dubai at the hands of a pragmatic leader.. in Toronto, we argue over what the definition of "complete" is.. ridiculous. A building of this magnitude serves more than just residents and hotel guests, it serves our city's image aesthetically and symbolically. I would think a collection of skyscraper enthusiasts would understand that and be the first to push the standard of what complete means in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Actually, if one is going to bring up New York and London as comparator, we shouldn't be debating whether the P is up - we should be talking about the quality of the architecture (i.e. a building of "this magnitude" - really?) in question instead. That would have been a far more productive and meaningful discussion than one over "completeness", which is frankly a molehill issue in the grand scheme of things.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually, if one is going to bring up New York and London as comparator, we shouldn't be debating whether the P is up - we should be talking about the quality of the architecture (i.e. a building of "this magnitude" - really?) in question instead. That would have been a far more productive and meaningful discussion than one over "completeness", which is frankly a molehill issue in the grand scheme of things.

AoD
Click to expand...

This is based on the assumption that everyone agrees with your *subjective* definition of what "good" architecture is. Personally, I love the way this building looks, and I would easily put it on par with FCP, ahead of Broofield Place, and only slightly lower than the TD Centre, and Scotia Tower. As for completion (as per Ramako), nobody is arguing whether or not the "finishing touches" should be added, but to label this building "incomplete" is misleading.
 
DtTO:

Sure, it is subjective to a certain degree to a lay person - but in that case, should one expect to be taken seriously when arguing that Leonardo's Mona Lisa of the same worth (or less!) than I don't know, a disposable piece of street tag? It is "subjective" afterall. Or what about elevating a run of the mill 60s commie block apartment tower and saying that it is more aesthetically and architecturally more desirable than TT (if not TD Centre or other piece of superlative architecture)? How would that be any less "valid" using the subjectivity argument - and yet we all know that's a rather far out conclusions for all but those with the most vested of interests?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Putting aside the definition of completeness - I think that we can all agree that there is something not right about the fact that the finishing work on the roof of this building has been on hold for about a year with scaffolding and construction materials left precariously on the roof 57 floors above one of the busiest intersections in Toronto. This is the real issue. Aesthetics are one thing but the fact remains as long as the building is left in its present condition pedestrians are being put at risk from falling material. How many times have police had to shut down Bay St. because of glass showering onto the street from construction accidents at Trump Tower?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
DtTO:

Sure, it is subjective to a certain degree to a lay person - but in that case, should one expect to be taken seriously when arguing that Leonardo's Mona Lisa of the same worth (or less!) than I don't know, a disposable piece of street tag? It is "subjective" afterall. Or what about elevating a run of the mill 60s commie block apartment tower and saying that it is more aesthetically and architecturally more desirable than TT (if not TD Centre or other piece of superlative architecture)? How would that be any less "valid" using the subjectivity argument - and yet we all know that's a rather far out conclusions for all but those with the most vested of interests?

AoD
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I will maintain that this building, in my opinion, is one of the best looking (easily in the top 10) in the city right now.
 
DtTO said:
Fair enough. I will maintain that this building, in my opinion, is one of the best looking (easily in the top 10) in the city right now.
Click to expand...

Top 10 of *what*? Does that include University College? Osgoode Hall? St. Lawrence Hall?
 
Peepers said:
Putting aside the definition of completeness - I think that we can all agree that there is something not right about the fact that the finishing work on the roof of this building has been on hold for about a year with scaffolding and construction materials left precariously on the roof 57 floors above one of the busiest intersections in Toronto. This is the real issue. Aesthetics are one thing but the fact remains as long as the building is left in its present condition pedestrians are being put at risk from falling material. How many times have police had to shut down Bay St. because of glass showering onto the street from construction accidents at Trump Tower?
Click to expand...

The police have never had to close down Bay Street because of anything falling off the roof here. Are you serious?

42
 
interchange42 said:
The police have never had to close down Bay Street because of anything falling off the roof here. Are you serious?

42
Click to expand...

I didn't say police closed Bay street because of anything falling off of the roof. I said as a result of a construction accident. As recently as last November glass fell off the building a a result of a construction accident:

http://www.680news.com/2012/11/14/glass-falls-from-trump-tower-on-bay-street/

Dorenda McNeil, a spokesperson for Trump International Hotel & Tower Toronto, said the falling glass is not related to the structure of the building. She said that a glass panel appears to have fallen during construction work.

“The panel appears to have been dropped by a worker during installation,” she said in a statement.
Click to expand...

Imagine if instead of tempered glass - which shatters into a million tiny fragments - sections of scaffolding were to fall off the roof during the height of a busy work day? We could have a mass-casualty situation on our hands.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top