Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
5,486

Yegger

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
699
Reaction score
1,033
Cue the "it doesn't matter / nobody is going to see this / why don't you pay for it out of pocket yourself?" crowd.... Completely unforgiveable that this faces the City's Main square
 

Riseth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
489
Reaction score
2,869
UGH, what a monstrosity. That base is just next level bad compared to the turd up above.

Who would have thought that this once decent 60's building would one day be turned into this abomination?
 

TonyV

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
98
I don’t comment here very much—other things in life on the go, shall we say, but I do look. And it’s time to say something: this monstrosity just made me throw up in my mouth.

Can these jerks get away with just anything in this city? It would be interesting to listen to the conversation if any politician who cares actually spoke up.

I’m just disgusted.
 

thecharioteer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,481
Reaction score
2,286
Funny how I never realized how few windows there were on the lower floors until they re-clad them in white:

simpson-tower_roberto-portolese6.jpg
simpson-tower_roberto-portolese5.jpg
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,058
Reaction score
25,978
City:
Toronto
At the East Harbour public consultation earlier tonight, I typed up this question for them:

"Cadillac Fairview has been wonderfully ambitious architecturally at 160 Front West, whereas they are also responsible for a beyond dismal recladding of the Simpson Tower across from City Hall. Can we be sure that Cadillac Fairview will step up to the architectural plate here and follow their own example at 160 Front West?"

I did not expect an answer to the question, I pretty much just wanted it recorded as part of the discussion re: East Harbour.

I was very surprised when, however, the question was addressed. The whole of it was not read out, instead it was paraphrased by the moderator who noted there was disappointment regarding the Simpson Tower, and how could we believe that Cad Fair would do the right thing at East Harbour when they failed across from City Hall.

Cad Fair's representative answered that the main tenant at the Simpson Tower had final say over the recladding design, and please don't judge them based on it, it's not what they would have chosen.

Huh. Make of that what you will. Whether that's true or not, Cad Fair are disavowing this mess.

I haven't looked up who the main tenant is here.

42
 

Logan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
679
Reaction score
3,274
City:
Toronto
This documents outlines the decision to reclad: https://cintec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCE-Article-WSP-November-2017.pdf
I didn't realize this is Hudson's Bay HQ.

Excerpt:

The Challenge: Deteriorating Precast Cladding In 2013, the owners engaged WSP to perform a condition assessment of the precast cladding of The Simpson Tower, now referred to as 401 Bay. Following an extensive study, several management strategies for the precast cladding were presented ranging from restoration as a minimum, to the extreme case of overcladding or recladding. The latter options were intended to renew the façade and minimize maintenance and repair of the existing cladding. A significant concern for the client in addition to life-cycle costs was the impact on building operation and occupants.

The Solution
: Overcladding After reviewing the cost/risk implications of each option and considering impact to existing tenants, the owners chose to overclad. By externally securing the precast panels and installing new cladding outboard of the existing cladding, minimal interior work would be necessary providing less impact to the existing tenants. Renewing the façade by overcladding the building with a new curtain wall system also provided the owners with several positive impacts by:  Renewing the overall life of the exterior envelope  Updating the architectural look of the building using more modern materials and technologies;  Greatly improving the thermal performance of the building, which in turn saves on energy costs; and,  Upgrading the building to allow the owners to attract and maintain high quality tenants

By using this innovative approach, the project is moving along successfully without significant tenant disruption that would occur with an alternative re-cladding approach.
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,917
Reaction score
12,319
City:
Toronto
This documents outlines the decision to reclad: https://cintec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCE-Article-WSP-November-2017.pdf
I didn't realize this is Hudson's Bay HQ.

Excerpt:

The Challenge: Deteriorating Precast Cladding In 2013, the owners engaged WSP to perform a condition assessment of the precast cladding of The Simpson Tower, now referred to as 401 Bay. Following an extensive study, several management strategies for the precast cladding were presented ranging from restoration as a minimum, to the extreme case of overcladding or recladding. The latter options were intended to renew the façade and minimize maintenance and repair of the existing cladding. A significant concern for the client in addition to life-cycle costs was the impact on building operation and occupants.

The Solution: Overcladding After reviewing the cost/risk implications of each option and considering impact to existing tenants, the owners chose to overclad. By externally securing the precast panels and installing new cladding outboard of the existing cladding, minimal interior work would be necessary providing less impact to the existing tenants. Renewing the façade by overcladding the building with a new curtain wall system also provided the owners with several positive impacts by:  Renewing the overall life of the exterior envelope  Updating the architectural look of the building using more modern materials and technologies;  Greatly improving the thermal performance of the building, which in turn saves on energy costs; and,  Upgrading the building to allow the owners to attract and maintain high quality tenants

By using this innovative approach, the project is moving along successfully without significant tenant disruption that would occur with an alternative re-cladding approach.
Fair enough (and thanks for posting, it does show they THOUGHT of alternatives) BUT they really could have installed more appropriate cladding and the 'podium' (which was always a weak spot!) is now ghastly and the 'public art' component shown above (thanks @3Dementia ) is, unfortunately, all too appropriate. (I find myself wanting to pee whenever I walk past!)
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,599
Reaction score
21,576
I appreciate @interchange42 raising the question. Their 'answer' is absolute horseshit though. While tenants do have a good say in some aspects of a building, they do not control major renovations like this one. Cad Fairview chose a suburban car dealership architect themselves and while the project was transferred to WZMH upon Pellow's acquisition, it remained as it was originally drawn by that firm. They're trying to escape blame for a truly terrible renovation and they should absolutely be shamed for it.
 

Top