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

The National Club had absolutely nothing to do with the shortened tower. It was never part of any deal once Trump got on board. Poor sales of the larger units requiring a reconfigure to the more successful smaller units ended this PofS from reaching over 300 metres.

Even if it were true, why would anyone desire the Georgian style National Building to be demo'd for more of this crap.
 
caltrane74 said:
Yes, you are correct. The National Club didn't sell to Talon, therefore the tower was shortened....
Click to expand...

Every 10 pages or so you say this and every single time you get corrected. Are you hoping repetition will change the facts and you can go down in history blaming the National Club for a short Trump?
 
Traynor said:
Every 10 pages or so you say this and every single time you get corrected. Are you hoping repetition will change the facts and you can go down in history blaming the National Club for a short Trump?
Click to expand...

According to trumptoronto, the switch to smaller units in the upper floors led to increased projected population per floor, and with the tiny floor plates, no more elevators to accommodate the extra people were possible, so the tower had to be shortened to avoid overloading the elevators. I gather that the reason that Trump has such a small floor plate in the first place was because they were unable to acquire the National Club, so the building design was slimmed down to fit in what space they did have. So it would seem that the failure to acquire the National Club land, in addition to the poor sales of the larger units and consequent change to smaller units, together led to a necessary shortening of the tower.
 
Last edited:
EPIC aerial shots from Trump Toronto's facebook page :D


67165_172097102823745_110447845655338_405628_388312_n.jpg


163150_172097116157077_110447845655338_405629_1562264_n.jpg


162801_172097129490409_110447845655338_405630_227163_n.jpg


163246_172097146157074_110447845655338_405631_6275117_n.jpg


63905_172097166157072_110447845655338_405632_7703503_n.jpg


162674_172097179490404_110447845655338_405633_66735_n.jpg


http://www.facebook.com/buildingtrumptoronto
 
There's been a lot of wild speculation on the various skyscraper threads concerning why cladding seems to have stopped...Here's my two cents:

I think it simply has to do with completion of certain elements of work/interior installation they are doing on the next three or four floors (incl. the mech. levels.)
Based on the platform jutting out from the north side on one of the first "un-clad" levels (and of course the larger openings on these floors) it looks like they are using it as a staging area for the interior work, including delivery of specific interior elements. They won't "seal things up" until they get everything that is oversized, inside.

They may also be held up on delivery of certain interior items.
 
Last edited:
Those shots show some incredible density!
But they also show that Toronto still really needs to come out of the 'box'.
Which is why L, Ice & Aura, which will give the skyline some big/tall curves, interest me more than Trump.
 
I could possibly believe loading facilities but elevators is just ridiculous. Even the sales for the smaller units were hardly spectacular. Maintaining the 300 plus metre height and subdividing the larger units would of led to a significant increase in the number of units needed to be sold. Why bother on a poorly selling project when a reduced 60 storey version is supposedly profitable as well. Have we forgotten that the 70 storey, 315 metres version didn't include the National Club either? As I said, it's ancient history back when the Ritz Carlton was involved and why anyone would want it destroyed is beyond me. This had everything to do with poor sales.
 
maestro said:
I could possibly believe loading facilities but elevators is just ridiculous. Even the sales for the smaller units were hardly spectacular. Maintaining the 300 plus metre height and subdividing the larger units would of led to a significant increase in the number of units needed to be sold. Why bother on a poorly selling project when a reduced 60 storey version is supposedly profitable as well. Have we forgotten that the 70 storey, 315 metres version didn't include the National Club either? As I said, it's ancient history back when the Ritz Carlton was involved and why anyone would want it destroyed is beyond me. This had everything to do with poor sales.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why people are having a hard time believing this ... it's 100% for poor sales - as quotet above the taller version was proposed on the current site without the building beside it!

This doesn't surprise me much at all, the trump name doesn't mean as much as the other high end hotels we've seen - frankly I'd chose each and every single one of them over this - now note I'm not talking about building design / quality / location - but just name. I think location is important as well too - and I'd also say location wise this isn't the best. These high end hotels aren't likely for corporate high flyers.

Let's also be honest for a second - just based on what we've seen so far, I'm happy it's not any taller. I'm not saying it terrible but ..
 
Having looked at the Trump page, I can't believe it will be anything but a top class hotel resort in the city. And might truely become the desination of choice for high flying corporate exectutives that can't deal with the aggro of having to go to Yorkville or the Entertainment District to get up to date on their personal work. It's just too perfect a location for highflyers. Whether they have a unit in the building or just require accomodation for business

76941_425489647823_90955842823_4593433_2696232_n.jpg


154375_429474252823_90955842823_4651442_3731324_n.jpg


Trump Toronto facebook page.
 
I agree that Trump has a good reputation. Yes he is over the top and I personally can't stand the self promotion, but let's face it. One hears Trump and one associates it with luxury. I can assure you I have wlaked into some of Trump projects and they are very beautiful.

As for a hotelier, sure 4S is clearly the leader. Whether Trump is any better or worse than SL or Ritz, I really don't know though I must say that I have heard that since Marriott took over Ritz, it has descended somewhat.

I do believe it is unfair to say that high fliers and business exec's won't go to Trump. I think they will. Now, if one looks at 1 King where Stinson tried to promote himself without brand recognition as 5 star (unsuccessfully I would suggest)or the new Bisha (which may or may not make it as a 5 star hotel), I think that is more of a stretch.

Finally, I think the Trump location will appeal more for the business man/business lady travelling and the 4S for the business man/lady on vacation or travelling with his wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend as the Yorkville location and the type of travel will dictate where the individual chooses to stay. That said, I think that Ritz and SL are close enough to the downtown that it won't matter and be a final factor in the choice of these 3 hotels.
 
sodapop said:
incredible density in those shots! love it. the shangri-la should make a huge impact from that north west angle
Click to expand...

Hard to imagine that there are still plenty of sites in the core that can accommodate some pretty large buildings. Even with the eventual addition of BAC 2&3, BCE 3, RAC (Concourse) and the old Stinson site on Temperance St, there is still room for at least another 15 towers in the area bound by Church, Front, Simcoe and Queen. I don't see the demand for that kind of growth for at least another 20 years, if not longer.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top