Just by observing the photos some of it is nice, some of it doesn't work at all, a terrible mish-mash of design for the Four Seasons. In photo #12 on the Toronto Life link above I noted that they have the exact same table mats under the dishes that I have on my dining room table. I got them at Canuk Tire for $2 or $3 each.

mat.jpg
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Just by observing the photos some of it is nice, some of it doesn't work at all, a terrible mish-mash of design for the Four Seasons. In photo #12 on the Toronto Life link above I noted that they have the exact same table mats under the dishes that I have on my dining room table. I got them at Canuk Tire for $2 or $3 each.

mat.jpg
Click to expand...

haha very nice. very bottega veneta-esque.
 
I really love how FS acts as a northern bookend to the skyline when viewed from the southwest. I wonder whether 1 Bloor would appear to be to the left or to the right of FS from this angle...

uOrtK.jpg
 
My take is that from this vantage point at Dundas and Lisgar, it will rise behind the Manulife Centre tower.

42
 
khristopher said:
Still no roof sign?
Click to expand...

In response to a question about the roof sign - the Four Season's replied on their official twitter feed "There are no plans for a sign"

https://twitter.com/FSToronto/status/264171780053291009

I am not sure what made them change their minds since they provided mounting brackets which are clearly visible. I wonder if the city turned down a request for the sign?

It is a shame really because the sign would have added pizzazz to the building.
 
I'd like to see more of our landmark skyscrapers be distinctive enough not to need signs. You don't need a sign to identify the Chrysler Building or the Willis Tower. People should know buildings like this one by their architecture. Maybe the city should ban all new signs on skyscrapers so that corporations might realize what they need to invest in to have a recognizable presence in a cityscape--architecture, not signs that shatter in the cold winds of a February evening. It really worked out for Chrysler: they don't even have any offices in the Chrysler Building anymore yet they still get that publicity.
 
Then again, for every Chrysler, there's a McGraw-Hill (or RCA, for that matter, even if it's morphed into GE over the years). But yeah, I know what you mean: signs as crutches...
 
junctionist said:
I'd like to see more of our landmark skyscrapers be distinctive enough not to need signs. You don't need a sign to identify the Chrysler Building or the Willis Tower. People should know buildings like this one by their architecture. Maybe the city should ban all new signs on skyscrapers so that corporations might realize what they need to invest in to have a recognizable presence in a cityscape--architecture, not signs that shatter in the cold winds of a February evening. It really worked out for Chrysler: they don't even have any offices in the Chrysler Building anymore yet they still get that publicity.
Click to expand...

Well put, I've never thought about it from this angle.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top