The ones complaining about these towers would be praising them if they were proposed in NYC, Chicago, Tokyo etc... as well they be would asking "why can't Toronto get world-class iconic designs like this??" These towers are prefect. I hope they don't get chopped or re-designed, just leave them the way they are.
However, there's a point you're overlooking, which isn't about the towers themselves, but about what they're replacing. And I'm sorry to dredge that issue up again; but it's worth considering because a good number of those doing the complaining
wouldn't, actually, have an objection to the towers themselves if it weren't for what's presently on-site. It's not about height or urban form, it's about heritage.
And that point you're overlooking is compounded by your invocation of NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, etc. Because you're offering an
if they were proposed scenario, without considering a
where they were proposed scenario. And I'll betcha that in any of those centres, if such a proposal threatened anything that could be construed as "heritage"--you'll find objection. And those concerned about the "heritage issue" in Toronto would be no less concerned if a similar issue arose in those cities. And vice versa--heritage-cognizant New Yorkers wouldn't blame their Torontonian counterparts for their concern. You talk about "world-class, iconic"; yet there's a reason why the label "world-class" is too often associated with airheaded rubes.
Sure, in raw terms, if such a scheme came to pass in Tokyo, a lot of us would be saying "oh, wow". But if the subtext was of such a scheme replacing this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower
a lot of us would be saying "oh, dear"...
