Toronto Richmond Adelaide Centre: EY Tower | 188.05m | 40s | Oxford Properties | Kohn Pedersen Fox

More signage coming?
DSC_0280.jpg

DSC_0282.jpg

DSC_0296.jpg

DSC_0298.jpg

DSC_0297.jpg

DSC_0266.jpg
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0297.jpg
    DSC_0297.jpg
    943.7 KB · Views: 505
  • DSC_0280.jpg
    DSC_0280.jpg
    866 KB · Views: 730
  • DSC_0282.jpg
    DSC_0282.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,577
  • DSC_0298.jpg
    DSC_0298.jpg
    976.4 KB · Views: 536
  • DSC_0296.jpg
    DSC_0296.jpg
    743.3 KB · Views: 536
  • DSC_0266.jpg
    DSC_0266.jpg
    959 KB · Views: 540
Last edited:
A bunch from today. Looking mighty fine.

image.jpeg
image.jpeg


Also tried to snag a few of the lobby through the glass - the pictures are crappy but the lobby looks amazing.

image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 665
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    2.4 MB · Views: 741
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 473
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 467
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 523
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 500
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 522
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 477
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 543
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 481
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 526
Alex B—as much as I admire his writing—in no way proves his contention that Oxford's claim that it was unable to retain the Concourse Building's guts, was "bunk". He doesn't even try to prove it, he just states he thinks that Oxford could have saved it, not detailing the years it sat emptying of tenants, nor the options that were considered and which made no economic sense to anyone.

Maybe every cramped and outdated office could have made a perfect writer's garret (except for writers confined to mobility devices which can't ascend stairs, and therefore wouldn't be able to use the restrooms), but it appears there weren't 16 storeys worth of writers clamouring for their Concourse square footage.

42
 
Update:
This morning, having entered through the restored doors of the Concourse Building, executives and employees of Oxford Properties and EY Canada gathered in the lobby of their new Richmond Adelaide Centre office tower, along with some of the architects and planners who made the day's opening celebrations possible.
Click to expand...
 
interchange42 said:
Alex B—as much as I admire his writing—in no way proves his contention that Oxford's claim that it was unable to retain the Concourse Building's guts, was "bunk". He doesn't even try to prove it, he just states he thinks that Oxford could have saved it, not detailing the years it sat emptying of tenants, nor the options that were considered and which made no economic sense to anyone.

Maybe every cramped and outdated office could have made a perfect writer's garret (except for writers confined to mobility devices which can't ascend stairs, and therefore wouldn't be able to use the restrooms), but it appears there weren't 16 storeys worth of writers clamouring for their Concourse square footage.

42
Click to expand...

I think both the Globe and Star are failing us on their opinion/editorial pieces. They almost let anyone write b.s. as long as it says Opinion or Editorial at the top of the page. This does not allow them to publish half truth's or outright omission of facts.

At least there should be some fact checking before it is published. If not these stories become the "fake news" that can be re-tweeted as fact even though they are 100% fiction.
 
muller877 said:
I think both the Globe and Star are failing us on their opinion/editorial pieces. They almost let anyone write b.s. as long as it says Opinion or Editorial at the top of the page. This does not allow them to publish half truth's or outright omission of facts.

At least there should be some fact checking before it is published. If not these stories become the "fake news" that can be re-tweeted as fact even though they are 100% fiction.
Click to expand...

Actually, Alex Bozikovic is the G&M's architectural critic. A bit different from what you term "opinion/editorial pieces".

And somehow, the fact that nobody sought to notice or post the piece in this thread until I did; and my perfectly non-editorializing FYI posting met with, at most, passing dismissal/indifference--even a couple of years ago, it wouldn't have fallen this flat--maybe that's a sign to, well, give up a certain ghost. Essentially, the UT Buildings Forum has become a development-groupie ghetto--when we come to the point where a poster starts dismissing professional newspaper architectural criticism as "fake news", we've crossed a threshold into write-off territory...
 
adma said:
Actually, Alex Bozikovic is the G&M's architectural critic. A bit different from what you term "opinion/editorial pieces".

And somehow, the fact that nobody sought to notice or post the piece in this thread until I did; and my perfectly non-editorializing FYI posting met with, at most, passing dismissal/indifference--even a couple of years ago, it wouldn't have fallen this flat--maybe that's a sign to, well, give up a certain ghost. Essentially, the UT Buildings Forum has become a development-groupie ghetto--when we come to the point where a poster starts dismissing professional newspaper architectural criticism as "fake news", we've crossed a threshold into write-off territory...
Click to expand...

I read it in the paper...and did not post it for the junk it is.

If this is not an opinion piece then there are bigger issues. The editors are obliged to review and it provide a balanced approach. Him not mentioning the unworkable washrooms and the effort to find a workable solution is not doing Oxford justice and should move it to the opinion page of the paper. If Oxford could have found a solution a 15 story building would not have been torn down (and they would have built elsewhere).
 
I don't think it was "junk" - he was fairly empathetic about the reality that it's about money. Everything can be done - setting aside the not so minor issue of economics, do you really believe that absolutely no solution is possible regarding the washrooms ever (as suboptimal to other concerns as it maybe)? I happen to disagree with the conclusion that it is a huge loss or that the outcome is all that undesirable, but he is not wrong in citing it as a case of architectural taxidermy (just like BA1 was). You may not agree with that particular point, but in all it's fairly even-handed and giving credit where it was due (e.g. the quality of the restoration; the KPF design) even if it contradicted the central point of the critique.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Alex Bozikovic is a thoughtful writer. You not agreeing with his opinion, on what factors he considered relevant, and you having different predictions about what you think could have happened, does not render his piece "fake news", "junk", "half truths" or "b.s.". It simply means you disagree. The Globe publishes opinion columns off the opinion page almost every day. This morning Marcus Gee is opining on development issues, off the opinion page. This is pretty standard.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top