News   Jul 24, 2024
Nature and Artifice
 127     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars — All Aboard: How New Transit Will Change the GTA
 644     0 
News   Jul 23, 2024
10 Prince Arthur Tops Off in Yorkville
 662     1 

CBC Headquarters Telco Hotel Conversion (Allied REIT)

maestro said:
One of the largest commercial buildings in the city. No one is tearing it down.

CN Tower is by far the most identiable landmark. Seems shortsighted not to give it's greatest attribute special considerations.
Click to expand...
So given that stance. would you oppose the Oxford twins (should they ever get built)?

I just don't get this ultra-protective stance. No one's proposing to blow up the tower or completely obscure it with new, taller structures. It's just that I wonder how long we're going to pay homage to it, as if it's the city's greatest gift to the world.
 
If they want to sell a few minor properties and lease out space to create revenue fine. But my guess is most of this is not going to happen and is not intended to. Look at the timing - election campaign in full swing, Liberals announce a funding increase, Harper looking unlikely to win. Let's throw this into an election and stir.
 
Lenser said:
So given that stance. would you oppose the Oxford twins (should they ever get built)?

I just don't get this ultra-protective stance. No one's proposing to blow up the tower or completely obscure it with new, taller structures. It's just that I wonder how long we're going to pay homage to it, as if it's the city's greatest gift to the world.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call this an ultra protective stance. CN Tower is a really tall tower. 200 to 250 metres would barely register and there's only about 1500 towers worldwide that reach that height. I don't have an opinion on Oxford Place as it's no more than some renderings. I can get urbandreamer to draw me a 400 metre tower. Doesn't suddenly make it a proposal.

I see value in city building ventures whether it's preserving history, limiting shadowing or, preserving sitelines. I also see the significance of the CN Tower for which these apply.
 
CapitalSeven said:
If they want to sell a few minor properties and lease out space to create revenue fine. But my guess is most of this is not going to happen and is not intended to. Look at the timing - election campaign in full swing, Liberals announce a funding increase, Harper looking unlikely to win. Let's throw this into an election and stir.
Click to expand...

No matter what, it doesn't make sense to have, I guess, $700 million tied up in the Front Street building.
 
maestro said:
I'd hardly call this an ultra protective stance. CN Tower is a really tall tower. 200 to 250 metres would barely register and there's only about 1500 towers worldwide that reach that height. I don't have an opinion on Oxford Place as it's no more than some renderings. I can get urbandreamer to draw me a 400 metre tower. Doesn't suddenly make it a proposal.

I see value in city building ventures whether it's preserving history, limiting shadowing or, preserving sitelines. I also see the significance of the CN Tower for which these apply.
Click to expand...
Not meaning to suggest the Oxford twins are a done deal... I've been on this board long enough to see how chimerical certain projects can be. Limiting shadows is fine - I don't see it applying in this case - but protecting sightlines for the tallest structure in the city? From what vantage point - all of them? Some of them? Who chooses?

At some point there has to be some compromise in terms of protecting/respecting the CN Tower.
 
As far as the head office building on Front street is concerned, and perhaps many of the others, this will likely take form as a "sale, lease back" where the CBC simply becomes a tenant instead of the owner. The only issue is you will have to convince an investor that the CBC has some longevity going forward or, as in the case of the head office on Front St., its sitting on otherwise valuable property. The front street property is a no brainer. Even if the CBC disappears in a few years, you still have a massive property in the core on Front street.
 
Lenser said:
At some point there has to be some compromise in terms of protecting/respecting the CN Tower.
Click to expand...

I agree: the CN tower is not the only thing that should define our skyline and our city. Obviously we should preserve it as an icon as much as we can, but not halt every project that might contest it.
 
Lenser said:
Not meaning to suggest the Oxford twins are a done deal... I've been on this board long enough to see how chimerical certain projects can be. Limiting shadows is fine - I don't see it applying in this case - but protecting sightlines for the tallest structure in the city? From what vantage point - all of them? Some of them? Who chooses?

At some point there has to be some compromise in terms of protecting/respecting the CN Tower.
Click to expand...

Well, I would hope at such a time educated staff/outside consultants with practical experience would determine how much and how far. I don't see any need anytime soon. There's little practical need to build that tall. The Oxford twins didn't even amount to being a project. It was some fluff art to sway council's decision on casinos.
 
corys said:
I agree: the CN tower is not the only thing that should define our skyline and our city. Obviously we should preserve it as an icon as much as we can, but not halt every project that might contest it.
Click to expand...
Preserving view corridors is essential in preserving it as an icon. I have no problem with other massive structures being built in Toronto; just not in locations where the CN Tower is still largely unobstructed.
 
Well only the city can create or enforce such a corridor and there isn't one at present. Besides we're getting ahead of ourselves, they just started the sale process and in all likelihood CBC isn't going anywhere - it just makes more sense for them to be tenants.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top