Refreshing a 30-Year old tower: First Canadian Place - Page 13

Traynor · #**241** Posted **Sep 19, 2010, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

But it is more of an architectural asset than the jungle of masts on FCP. And its guy wires only go up a short distance, they're not along the entire mast like on the towers at FCP. You can barely even see them.

FCP would look much better if it had a similar set up.

I totally agree about FCP looking better if they cleaned up all the antennae. All I'm saying is: In my opinion, WTC should not be able to count its spire. It's not a structural element as say the spires on Petronas or the Chrysler Building are.

vid · #**242** Posted **Sep 19, 2010, 6:45 PM**

That depends on how it is attached to the building. The bases of the towers on Sears Tower, for example, are an actual part of that buildings structure and if there was no broadcasting tower on them, would very likely count as a valid spire.

©Whoever it says in the photo (too blurry to read), posted at SOM

For the first few years they barely had any antennas. The taller masts weren't added until several years after it was completed.

©Sears Tower Skydeck brochure from the 1970s

If there were no antennas or masts attached to them, those white stubs would still be there, because they're part of the building's structure. What would you call that?

BTW, the diagram system allows you to order buildings by roof height, which will display Sears Tower ahead of Petronas Tower.

Even if we didn't count 1WTC's spire, it would be an antenna and the building would be listed higher that way.

WhipperSnapper · #**243** Posted **Sep 19, 2010, 8:31 PM**

I believe it was mentioned a few years back when one of the antenna was in the process of being replaced that the bases are included in the Willis Tower's roof height.

I don't think a spire that also serves as a telecommunication tower precludes it from also being an architectural element. However, an antenna on FCP is strictly an antenna. It may have a similar pole-like form but it has an entirely different function and reason for being there. The whole cheater arguement is infantile as well. Some buildings are faced in precast concrete while others use granite tiles. One could easily call the cheaper precast concrete tower a cheater.

Dwils01 · #**244** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 12:11 PM**

I don't think antenna's should count if they are not self supporting. But the best to determine the world's tallest is by thhe roof height. That way there is no antenna vs spire arguments.

caltrane74 · #**245** Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 5:29 PM**

from nicetommy at UT

AuxTown · #**246** Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 5:30 PM**

Lookin' slick!

Daveography · #**247** Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 7:15 PM**

I like how it will look like the outer walls are "floating" with the addition of the black spandrels in the corners.

1ajs · #**248** Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 7:54 PM**

wonder if theres lighting set up behind the bmo signs?

Jay in Cowtown · #**249** Posted **Sep 28, 2010, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traynor

All I'm saying is: In my opinion, WTC should not be able to count its spire. It's not a structural element as say the spires on Petronas or the Chrysler Building are.

Spires shouldn't be included either... 1250 Rene Leveque should have never been marked as the tallest in Canada outside of Taranna when it is really only 200m without that cheesy skinny spire. At least the Bow has ended that horseshit.

Dwils01 · #**250** Posted **Sep 29, 2010, 4:38 PM**

The tower is looking better already. That marble has really lost it colour and should have been replaced about five years ago. But better late than never. The black croners really make the walls stand out. Can't wait to see this project completed. I would say about at Christmas 2011, I will be there to get a picture myself.

matt602 · #**251** Posted **Sep 29, 2010, 10:19 PM**

Those black corners definitely make this so much more interesting than I thought it would be. Wonderful way to refresh a 30 year old building.

caltrane74 · #**252** Posted **Sep 30, 2010, 3:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by interchange42

Much more up-to-date, but not-so-dramatic, shot by me, from the top of the Ritz:

Note the difference in the colouration of the two walls at the same time: the angle that you see this building from greatly affects the tonal variations in the new panels.

Cool.

42

from interchange42 at www.urbantoronto.ca

Dwils01 · #**253** Posted **Oct 4, 2010, 10:44 PM**

We should be able to see the windows of the 72 floor very soon, hopefully before thanksgiving.

digitboy · #**254** Posted **Oct 5, 2010, 12:26 AM**

I do agree with you guys that once renovated the FCP will look a lot better

caltrane74 · #**255** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 8:23 PM**

from nicetommy with www.urbantoronto.ca

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicetommy

Today's sun & cloud patterns provided some nice reflective texture to the new panels:

matt602 · #**256** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 10:08 PM**

This building looks even more gorgeous with each new photo. I can't wait until they get down to the first row of windows. I wish a few scrapers in Hamilton could get the same makeover. (unfortunately our idea of a scraper is anything over 20 floors tall)

David1gray · #**257** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 10:45 PM**

i have to agree, this building is going to look so much better once complete.

duper · #**258** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 1:00 PM**

I imagine the window levels should go faster than the top. Per level, they have almost half the panels to replace than they had on the top floor. I imagine the speed of replacement should be increasing.