I really don't get the whole paying respect thing with this tower. I mean, you're putting up a huge building, decked in giant slabs of ugly material, and that's context? The only thing I see in this building is a wall, a barrier to the city. It's silly, it's stupid, and compared to what could be here it's downright awful.
Well, if you want the ultimate "huge building, decked in giant slabs of ugly material" in the name of "context" (i.e. the decreed Times Squareisms of Y-D Square), look opposite HNR. And compared to *that*, D+S's neutrality is actually half decent. And besides...
...who, other than Jack Astor's customers and Google employees, is going to have anything like that kind of elevated vista? What you see in this picture isn't designed for this as a primary viewpoint--a street-level perspective can do wonders for foreshortening; and built reality can mitigate a lot of what may appear as "ugly material" in renderings.
And what matters is that the HNR-Hard Rock blockfront (or, if you want to be old school, the Hermant-Childs blockfront) continues to shine. Why'd you all prefer an overwrought G+C curvefest, or even arbitrary Alsopification? HNR-Hard Rock doesn't need it--it's already, in its subtle preexistence, the true star of the square; whereas the ex-Olympic Spirit, the ex-Metropolis, and even the H&Mification of the Eaton Centre N end are all severe disappointments which may, indeed, vindicate D+S's design decision. (Indeed, I'd argue that the best built "designed for Y-D" element remains the first, i.e. the sign tower at the NW corner, which succeeds through its own sheer giga-constructivist absurdity.)
I suppose the problem here is that HNR-Hard Rock is taken for granted because it's a "pre-existing condition", in a way that can easily be lost to the development-dorkitude amongst many UTers--especially when, like Tewder, they're under the imbecilic miscomprehension that even heritage-community diehards would approve of moving the Toronto Harbour Commission building to the present-day waterfront...