RBC Centre (LEED Gold, CadFair, 41s, KPF/B+H/&Co.) COMPLETE

[interchange42]

not appealing in the least, looks like a las vegas hotel to my eyes.

I agree, the tower in the model looked tacky, although it was never more than conceptual, in any case: no condo was designed for the site prior to the Ritz plan. That thing was likely only put together as an example of the amount of space that may be taken up once the condo component was constructed.

42

 

[Edward Skira]

So the white building was going to be a condo?

 

[AndreaPalladio]

The photo of the model in Gooderham's book shows the unbuilt tower as being the same as the first - certainly not this model.

 

[interchange42]

So the white building was going to be a condo?

They always had a residential component in the plans for Simcoe Place.

42

 

[SP!RE]

I knew there was going to be a Simcoe Place II, but had no idea a condo was part of the plans. Interesting model btw!

 

[Hydrogen]

Considering the breadth of this present building boom, what's interesting is how long it took to revive this site for development.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I'm glad Simcoe Place never received its perpendicular twin.

 

[interchange42]

You don't like the original tower?

42

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I love the original, that's why I'd hate to see the same thing copied and pasted at a 90° angle, marring its uniqueness and its silhouette.

 

[BobBob]

Having three slabby towers of the same height right there would have probably produced an ugly effect from most vantage points, kinda like the hulk-o-concrete at the foot of Yonge.

 

[interchange42]

I love the original, that's why I'd hate to see the same thing copied and pasted at a 90° angle, marring its uniqueness and its silhouette.

I thought that with a similar second tower perpendicular to the first, one viewing the complex from one of the cardinal points of the compass (at least in Toronto's 17° off kind of way) would get to see two sides of the 'same' building, which would be a unique and interesting look in this town. The best of both worlds, so to speak.

42

 

[caltrane74]

arn't there a few buildings in LA that have that type of set up?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I thought that with a similar second tower perpendicular to the first, one viewing the complex from one of the cardinal points of the compass (at least in Toronto's 17° off kind of way) would get to see two sides of the 'same' building, which would be a unique and interesting look in this town. The best of both worlds, so to speak.

42

Simcoe Place is a perfect corporate monolith...a superfluous twin would make it a dilith.

 

[interchange42]

Twins aren't necessarily so superfluous. I like seeing both Leaside Towers on the skyline; Petronas just wouldn't be the same without the skybridge connecting them; despite being shorter than the Sears Tower, the late WTC twins were always more impressive (for a few reasons).

42

 

[scarberiankhatru]

And I sure did say *all* twins are superfluous...you got me there!

Completed twins aren't the same thing as potential twins...if both had been built together, I'd feel differently, but there weren't, so I don't. Seeing one WTC tower (for an hour or so) was eerie, seeing photos of the Army & Navy Store on King East during the brief period when only one half of the double arch was built was also weird in the same way.