ganjavih
Senior Member
I thought the new elevations also show the new building cantilevering over the Concourse Building. No?
Toronto Richmond Adelaide Centre: EY Tower | 188.05m | 40s | Oxford Properties | Kohn Pedersen Fox
Filip
Senior Member
It's just the angle of the elevation... The new tower is directly behind the Concourse building.
alklay
Senior Member
No, its not cantilevering over the Concourse Building.
ganjavih
Senior Member
Well, that's excellent news. The Concourse Building deserves the dignity of being left alone.
The confusion created by adding that dead rendering into the thread at this point makes me wonder if it's worth deleting that post and all subsequent posts relating to it. Emporis lists that project as "NEVER BUILT". I assume that when they catch up with the latest scheme they will add a new entry for it as it is now planned for the northeast corner of the site, and not the southeast, and doesn't include exterior changes to the Concourse Building.
42
42
I'd like to see the Richmond Adelaide Centre's first two towers (120 & 130 Adelaide West) re-clad to match this proposal for the northeast corner. The re-cladding of what became the ING Tower (at the time) at Adelaide and University taught me that the right exterior can work wonders on buildings that look like giant mistakes. In that case it was that horrible green mirror glass facade that went bye-bye. In this case, 120 & 130 Adelaide are terribly anemic and somewhat mismatched. If the developer wants to reposition this complex as one of the premier office addresses in the city (as the planned atrium, improved PATH connections, and expanded public plaza indicates they do), they will need to give the complex an easily identifiable and cohesive look though all its major components. They should be taking their cue from the planned revitalization of the Dickinson designed 111 Richmond (assuming they do a good job with restoring it).
I know I'm advocating some Faux Dickinson here, but what a step up for Faux that would be.
42
jaborandi
Active Member
42 - You're making me salivate at just the thought. 111 Richmond is one of my very favourite buildings in the city. I'm definitely up for some dodgy Dickenson!
Leave it. It's good to contrast to what was previously proposed.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
How would they improve the PATH connection. It already connects to their properties West of York, to the Sheraton and to First Canadian Place. There's nothing else to connect it to.
They plan to straighten the PATH's north-south path through their complex, eliminate two elevation changes (sets of stairs and ramps), widen it, and expand it to underneath the new tower.
42
42
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Were there sidestreets that once went through the superblock that were removed for RAC?
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Interesting. I didn't know they were going to gut that area. People who go to the two Starbucks in there will be displeased.
grey
Senior Member
I work at 130. The building desperately needs recladding.
I worked across the street in Adelaide Place (also an Oxford Properties building) when it was being recladded. I was young, and I don't even remember what it looked like before, but I do remember the leaky windows.
I also used to work in the white tower on the south west corner (yes, I've worked on 3 out of 4 corners of York & Adelaide), where the front enterance area is currently being torn up and re-lanscaped, or something. I'm told there's a model or rendering of what they're doing, and it's quite unimpressive.
I worked across the street in Adelaide Place (also an Oxford Properties building) when it was being recladded. I was young, and I don't even remember what it looked like before, but I do remember the leaky windows.
I also used to work in the white tower on the south west corner (yes, I've worked on 3 out of 4 corners of York & Adelaide), where the front enterance area is currently being torn up and re-lanscaped, or something. I'm told there's a model or rendering of what they're doing, and it's quite unimpressive.
adma
Superstar
120 Adelaide *anemic*? It may be a bit unsung, but it's a more-than-decent 1960s office tower, in more-than-decent exterior shape--and being early WZMH, it's already too close to being *real* Dickinson to merit being turned into Faux Dickinson. Moreover, it's historically important for predating TD in introducing the 60s corporate-modern tower/podium/concourse parti to the financial core (and thus helping germinate the PATH system as well). As such, it might more properly merit being bunched with 111 Richmond as "modern heritage".
Now, 130 Adelaide may be an anemic derivative of 120 Adelaide; but, hey, some 15 years separate the two (and besides, there's less of a facade mismatch between those two--look carefully at the facade pattern; the lineage is clear--than there would have been between those two and the original "facadist" Concourse-replacement proposal).
Paradoxically, if I myself find anything to be "terribly anemic", it's the recladding of ING and its neighbour--however much of an "improvement" it may be over That (former) 70s Mirrored Glass, it's still a humdrum post-Y2K corporate-modern yawn. It's Nickelback Modern. Give me a rigorous 60s work like 120 Adelaide *any* day over that.
With this present recommendation of yours, on top of your "thing" about the Sick Kids/Lucliff smokestack, well: just proves we must beware of well-meaning naifs who post on Internet message boards...
Yeah, beware.
42
42