In a case like this, when the initial operating principle is that of the tower being "never that remarkable", that's when the alarm bells go off.Sure, they wanted to freshen a tower that was never that remarkable. That wasn't difficult on its own.
Yes, the illuminated crown was a good addition to our skyline. It was a pity they did not repair it as it might have distracted one's eyes from the new base.I can remember this tower going up from my vantage point on Bloor Street near Varsity Stadium, and thinking what a nice addition to the skyline with its illuminated top. How the times change.
In a case like this, when the initial operating principle is that of the tower being "never that remarkable", that's when the alarm bells go off.
By comparison, from that same period, 1 St Clair W might be argued as even *more* "never that remarkable"; yet look at what they're planning for it now...
Particularly in its illuminated-crown heyday, it was always more than just a "concrete background building"--and again, as per what's happening at 1 St Clair W, background-buildingdom doesn't preclude respect, even if 1 St Clair's neighbours aren't anywhere near as illustrious. But in this case, the illustrious neighbours are *all the more reason* they should have respected the preexisting--or, the only thing that could have forced the issue is if they commissioned a starchitect..It honestly always felt like a concrete background building next to the much more illustrious buildings immediately surrounding it, despite its prominent corner. It was the kind of building that if reclad in an architecturally meritorious manner, perhaps with some sort of adventurous neo high-tech design, it would have easily been an improvement over the original.
A blank slate/open invitation for graffiti. Doesn't help that the workmanship looks shoddy and one the the tiles (above the doors) is already cracked and another looks like it fell off.