A few things about this proposal concern me. Though I'm delighted to see the central and southern segments of the podium potentially finally realised (it's only been about a century after all), the incongruity of architectural elements between the old and new is a bit disappointing. In most cases, new additions to existing heritage structures are done in a style that, while complementary to the original, are also wholly modern. It's that distinction between old and new that tells a building's 'story' through the ages. A good example of this is Berlin's 'Neues Museum'', where the UK architect David Chipperfield rebuilt the WWII-damaged southern wing of the 1841 building in an overall modernist style(albeit with some hints to the original), while at the same time restoring the symmetry of the original structure. The issue here, as I see it, is that this 'addition' is not intended to be a modern take that complements the original(which, with the right architect, might be fantastic), but rather a continuation of what was planned but never built. That being said, why change or omit those architectural elements that make the original part of College Park so wonderful? Why go to all this expense and effort to create something that is essentially a pastiche of its northern counterpart? Interestingly, the original southern end of the Yonge St. elevation could never have been entirely symmetrical with its northern counterpart because, while it has six vertical banks of windows separated by seven engaged columns, the northern segment has seven banks of windows with eight columns. This might be explained if the original 'front' facade of the building was intended to be on College St., as its name suggests. If that is the case, then presumably, the unfinished westernmost segment of the College St. podium base that was demolished in the 1970s would have been identical to its eastern counterpart. My other criticism, albeit minor, is how this development presents onto the park itself, which, IMO, has always been a chaotic, visually busy mishmash of blank walls and multiple buildings with conflicting building styles. Aesthetically, it is a 'hot mess', a disappointing backside to a building that is one of this city's jewels and makes the park look like an afterthought(which, essentially, it is). This latest iteration, while definitely something of an improvement, could still do with further refinement.
