The article states that a submission was made to the city for the re-clad. Presumably a decision has yet to be made. I'm in total agreement with preserving architectural diversity. I've always thought these towers were a bit dated(but never unattractive) and that's also a part of diversity, where a buildings "skin" can help tell it's own story and age, and provide context in the telling of a city's growth. Truthfully, I'm beginning to gain a whole new appreciation for at least some of these "older" towers(lets face it, some are just plain "dog ugly"). Sadly, a quick re-clad seems to be the most cost effective way of making these older structures economically competitive with their upscale neighbors, and it seems unfair to tie an owners hands by declining a re-clad on an unlisted building. At the same time, one hopes city hall will realize what will be lost if downtown is allowed to become a sea of nearly identically clad glass boxes. It makes one wonder what building is next on the re-clad list? Perhaps the beautifully dated Royal York?(ok, ok...I know it's protected!)