Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

Well it doesn't necessarily have to look exactly like the one in the video, but I can't be the only one who would love a 400m+ skyscraper that isn't a box! I also like the location.
 
ChristopherC said:
At the 2 minute mark, the supertall at the far left of the CN tower looks like it is 400m+ and it isn't a box!
Click to expand...

It does a wonderful job or counter balancing the CN Tower and helps to integrate it into the skyline. The CN Tower will continue to feel removed from it all till we get something 400m+ plus down there.
 
isaidso said:
It does a wonderful job or counter balancing the CN Tower and helps to integrate it into the skyline. The CN Tower will continue to feel removed from it all till we get something 400m+ plus down there.
Click to expand...

Feel removed?
The CN Tower was the tallest freestanding structure in the world at one point, so there is an intended separation from the skyline. When cities develop a history of architecture, this also includes developing a tradition of building heights. For generations the Canadian National Tower has been the centrepiece of the skyline and a symbol of economic might for the entire country.

Why is it important to end the CN Tower's supremacy and crowd it with supertalls? Observation towers serve best when they are above it all. The separation is an asset as you can see more of the city. If anyone desires a more crowded view, they may visit one of Bay Street's towers.

(... or visit Calgary Tower by next decade.)
 
I agree with isaidso. A 400m+ skyscraper on the left side of the CN tower would do a great job at balancing the skyline. Right now, The CN tower is not the center of the skyline but rather an outcast at the corner of the skyline. It would be great to see the CN Tower become the centre of the skyline but it cannot do that if the skyline ends after it (along with the rogers centre). However, I do agree that crowding the CN tower would not be wise, and that is why I said that 400m+ skyscraper was at the FAR left of the CN tower. In fact, the ONLY thing I don't like about the current oxford place proposal is the fact that it is so close to the CN tower.
 
It also appears that One Yong has been reduced to one main massive tower maybe 130 story's

Is that "Signature Tower" over near the Rogers Centre?

1E93942D-1F45-449D-BF6A-67EE473DEB6F.jpg
 
Last edited:
Did someone decide to move, raise, reclad and reuse the MTCC Intercontinential? Rather unpleasant looking - please consult the Star Trek reboot for skyline inspirations.

AoD
 
Okay, I guess I'd better fess up! It's my production company that made the video. We're based out of London (UK) and Toronto (my new home, of 8 years). The effects were done in London, with the initial brief of making as "accurate as possible future Toronto skyline", based on my unhealthy fascination with skyscrapers, and the research I'd done here on UT over the years. This proved to be a headache to co-ordinate, so the brief was simply changed to "use your imagination".

Anyway, I hope you old-school ravers, and skyscraper fans (such as myself) enjoyed the clip. Sorry to derail the thread! :)
 
RyeJay said:
Feel removed?
The CN Tower was the tallest freestanding structure in the world at one point, so there is an intended separation from the skyline. When cities develop a history of architecture, this also includes developing a tradition of building heights. For generations the Canadian National Tower has been the centrepiece of the skyline and a symbol of economic might for the entire country.

Why is it important to end the CN Tower's supremacy and crowd it with supertalls? Observation towers serve best when they are above it all. The separation is an asset as you can see more of the city. If anyone desires a more crowded view, they may visit one of Bay Street's towers.

(... or visit Calgary Tower by next decade.)
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, the distance and "supremacy" of CN tower's height damages, rather helps the view from the top of it.
It is too far from anything remotely close in height to it, and everything nearby is at most half of its size - you feel you are looking at the skyline from an airplane, which means it is cool but everything is too far and too small (no to mention the fact they see so many empty surface lots and the complete lowrise neighbourhood east of Yonge, which is not impressive)

I was one of Chicago's 400M towers and the view of it is much better, not just because the architecture is better, but because all the skyscrapers are much closer and you can see a lot more details, therefore making everything more vivid and dramatic. It is like every time I take Porter, when the plane is still far in the sky, the view is not that great although you can see the whole thing. It is when I am a lot closer to those towers, when everything is almost at eye level, that the view starts to strike me immensely.

By the way, Toronto tends to build all its tallest building on a small area (near Bay/King), so essentially it largely reduces the visual impact of our skyline as those towers block each other. For example, BAC II is so close to BAC I that the addition hardly makes a difference to our skyline. Trump is so close to the bank towers the visual impact is minimal because you don't even see it from most angles. If we do have the new towers spread out a little bit, such as west of University and east of Yonge, the visual effect will be much stronger.
 
Last edited:
Signature Tower(s) are not cancelled. The plan is to do two towers, likely being launched in about 2 years. Concord has a couple towers they are tidying up and one more to launch before they are ready for the Signature towers. From what we've heard in the last year, the towers are expected to be around 60-65 stories each (both over 200m) and will boast some art feature.
 
travis3000 said:
Signature Tower(s) are not cancelled. The plan is to do two towers, likely being launched in about 2 years. Concord has a couple towers they are tidying up and one more to launch before they are ready for the Signature towers. From what we've heard in the last year, the towers are expected to be around 60-65 stories each (both over 200m) and will boast some art feature.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you go back to the Signature thread, there was some talk of an external mural.

AoD
 
The CN towers current position tends to shrink all of the buildings around it. Since it isn't in a centre of the skyline and none of the other towers in Toronto are even close to its height (in fact most are about half the height), it tends to take the attention away from all of our skyscrapers because compared to the CN Tower they all look tiny. Putting a supertall to the left of the CN tower and approving/building the One Yonge project would do wonders for our skyline (assuming Pinnacle takes out a couple towers and increases the height of the others). As for Oxford Place, its a shame they can't switch the location of the two cylindrical towers with the location of the 326m twin towers.


Also there hasn't been any discussion on the Signature thread since September 2013 so I assumed the project was dead. Its great to know that it isn't.
 
Big Daddy said:
It also appears that One Yong has been reduced to one main massive tower maybe 130 story's
Click to expand...

One Yonge isn't shown (The Toronto Star building would be to the right of the Westin Harbour Castle, which is mostly cut off in the screen capture). That tall building looks like it could be near Yonge and King.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top