[unimaginative2]

Well that settles it, then. I hope this doesn't get built if it means destroying the lobby and a severely compromised modern design. There are plenty of other sites for office development.

Are Be certainly was right about the Are Be Centre future. They're popping up everywhere.

 

[steveve]

wtf.... kinda underwhelmed with the height.... this site deserves something taller, at least so this thing doesn't look as chunky....
But aside from that, this could be our Bank of America/One Bryant Park tower.
this thing doesn't belong in the CBD.

 

[Red October]

1. It needs to be taller
2. It needs to be in another location, because I don't want the Concourse Building to be ravaged like that, it should stay as its own standalone building.
3. I really like the design though

 

[jje1000]

1. It needs to be taller
2. It needs to be in another location, because I don't want the Concourse Building to be ravaged like that, it should stay as its own standalone building.
3. I really like the design though

It doesn't necessarily need to be taller, but I agree with the rest of your points. The Concourse Building definitely needs to be respected.

 

[tkip]

It doesn't necessarily need to be taller, but I agree with the rest of your points. The Concourse Building definitely needs to be respected.

The only reason people are suggesting this to be taller is entirely due to height fetish. Not all buildings need to be towering 800 storeys above the street.

 

[adma]

How ghastly - not only a poorly-integrated facade ... but a Dr. Stubbs-ized version!

And again, just as was proposed originally. In the interim, they actually *carried out* that gimmick at Bay-Adelaide. Nobody of consequence griped other than the usual suspects; so, then...(notwithstanding that the Concourse is more architecturally/culturally significant)

One thing about the Concourse as it now stands: they removed the lower-floor spandrel "mountains" a few years ago and they haven't returned yet...

 

[MapleLeafs]

The city should, and better draw a line on this project. There is no reason to do a terrible facade job on a pre-war high rise when there is so much other garbage throughout the downtown core. How about building it on that parking garage on the north end of the site? Or tearing one of our many crappy office midrises built in the 1960s and 70s?

 

[Mongo]

The city should, and better draw a line on this project. There is no reason to do a terrible facade job on a pre-war high rise when there is so much other garbage throughout the downtown core. How about building it on that parking garage on the north end of the site? Or tearing one of our many crappy office midrises built in the 1960s and 70s?

Does Oxford actually OWN any of those other sites? A developer can only build on land that they own. This sounds obvious, but we keep getting posts from people who seem to have forgotten that fact.

 

[Jonny5]

Does Oxford actually OWN any of those other sites? A developer can only build on land that they own. This sounds obvious, but we keep getting posts from people who seem to have forgotten that fact.

Point taken, but, Oxford can afford do buy, demolish and rebuild. They are a large firm and have plenty of access to lenders.

Here is a nice spot to build this on, or that tiny office tower in the background that Mavrix is in (or used to be in as I recall they moved to King West).

 

[tkip]

Does Oxford actually OWN any of those other sites? A developer can only build on land that they own. This sounds obvious, but we keep getting posts from people who seem to have forgotten that fact.

Exactly, though it could be argued that they could buy land and build elsewhere but why do this when they already have prime property?

 

[adma]

Honestly, the more architecturally "dispensible" (at least by way of BayAdelaide-esque chew-up-regurgitate-w/reconfigured-floor-levels) interwar building on that block is the Federal Building at 85 Richmond. Trouble is, it's a less "desirable" address (further from the MINT, and overbearingly shadowed by the Sheraton Centre to boot), and apparently the high-security CDS operations housed there would be a bit of a hassle to relocate...

Thus, the Concourse becomes the architectural fall guy.

 

[taal]

Honestly, the more architecturally "dispensible" (at least by way of BayAdelaide-esque chew-up-regurgitate-w/reconfigured-floor-levels) interwar building on that block is the Federal Building at 85 Richmond. Trouble is, it's a less "desirable" address (further from the MINT, and overbearingly shadowed by the Sheraton Centre to boot), and apparently the high-security CDS operations housed there would be a bit of a hassle to relocate...

Thus, the Concourse becomes the architectural fall guy.

Do you have a picture of said building, I think that's the one that looks like a condo almost right ?

I kind of like it ... if it's what I'm thinking about.

 

[adma]

Do you have a picture of said building, I think that's the one that looks like a condo almost right ?

I kind of like it ... if it's what I'm thinking about.

The Federal Building?

 

[taal]

The Federal Building?

That's not the one I was thinking about. That one isn't bad though.

 

[adma]

If it's Graphic Arts, it's neither part of the site nor endangered. And if you're thinking of Dickinson's 111 Richmond: well, that layer-cake's been undergoing a thorough rehab-restoration and seems just about ready to be re-released for prime time. (Terrific that they didn't seek to replace the 111 Richmond windows. Those modern-fans at E.R.A. must've nudged a few elbows on that one.)