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

boogersugar said:
In a way, I hope the Foster Twins don't go ahead as planned. It's absurd to be boxing in the CN Tower from every vantage point. It wouldn't be so bad if the towers were significantly shorter, but as proposed, they'd forever take away one of the last, largely uninterrupted views of the CN Tower and one of it's greatest viewing angles (from the North East). We need to preserve what views we have left of the tower. I hate to make such comparisons, but New York City wouldn't be negligent enough to kill every last view of the Empire State Building--in most of its entirety--ditto Paris and the Eiffel Tower, etc...The limit in this area should go no higher than the Ritz.
Click to expand...

I can't believe some people actually think this way in our city. Why should every potential development in Toronto be approved or planned based on the CN Tower?
We are hopping to get a couple of Landmark Twin Towers that would make significant impact on our city's skyline, and this is what people think? Ridiculous !!!

Apart from the "Scotia Plaza", can you think of any skyscraper in Toronto that is worthy of a World Class?
I personally don't care about any views from the CN Tower, Toronto need World Class Skyscrapers even if they can outclass and block the CN Tower....
 
Last edited:
kweku said:
I can't believe some people actually think this way in our city. Why should every potential development in Toronto be approved or planned based on the CN Tower?
We are hopping to get a couple of Landmark Twin Towers that would make significant impact on our city's skyline, and this is what people think? Ridiculous !!!

Apart from the "Scotia Plaza", can you think of any skyscraper in Toronto that is worthy of a World Class?
I personally don't care about any views from the CN Tower, Toronto need World Class Skyscrapers even if they can outclass and block the CN Tower....
Click to expand...

Because it's our national symbol. It's the most recognizable structure in Canada. Why would we want to have it largely concealed from nearly every angle? The CN Tower already is a landmark--The Landmark. We don't need another molesting it. I'm not against the Oxford buildings--the design is quite nice--though I'm tired of twin towers in this city--my problem is the location. If these get built, all you'll see from the North East is the antenna of the CN Tower, poking above the twins. Then there's the Gehry proposal which would forever kill the views of the CN Tower from the North. Protecting view corridors is important when dealing with the greatest engineering achievement in this country. Why even have such a structure if we're not going to respect it? Don't lose sight of this--pardon the pun--just because some fancy buildings are being proposed. Location is what is key. Again, how could one appreciate the Empire State Building if it was surrounded by 1000 foot buildings? It would diminish its presence and power. It's not just a beautiful building, but it anchors the skyline of New York. It is the main focus. Though it has been surpassed in height by the Freedom Tower and the World Trade Center before it, it has been the zenith of Manhattan's image since 1931. If we don't protect the views of the CN Tower that we have left, soon enough it will only be fully appreciated south of Front St and east of Lower Simcoe.

Yes. TD Centre, Commerce Court North, Canada Permanent Building, Canada Life Building, Royal York Hotel, Royal Bank Plaza, Victory Building, Northern Ontario Building, Sterling Tower--just to name a few.

Considering the day, it couldn't be more poignant--adma is going to give you the 'Sunday Painter Urbanist' lecture.
 
Last edited:
boogersugar said:
Because it's our national symbol. It's the most recognizable structure in Canada. Why would we want to have it largely concealed from nearly every angle? The CN Tower already is a landmark--The Landmark. We don't need another molesting it. I'm not against the Oxford buildings--the design is quite nice--though I'm tired of twin towers in this city--my problem is the location. If these get built, all you'll see from the North East is the antenna of the CN Tower, poking above the twins. Then there's the Gehry proposal which would forever kill the views of the CN Tower from the North. Protecting view corridors is important when dealing with the greatest engineering achievement in this country. Why even have such a structure if we're not going to respect it? Don't lose sight of this--pardon the pun--just because some fancy buildings are being proposed. Location is what is key. Again, how could one appreciate the Empire State Building if it was surrounded by 1000 foot buildings? It would diminish its presence and power. It's not just a beautiful building, but it anchors the skyline of New York. It is the main focus. Though it has been surpassed in height by the Freedom Tower and the World Trade Center before it, it has been the zenith of Manhattan's image since 1931. If we don't protect the views of the CN Tower that we have left, soon enough it will only be fully appreciated south of Front St and east of Lower Simcoe.

Yes. TD Centre, Commerce Court North, Canada Permanent Building, Canada Life Building, Royal York Hotel, Royal Bank Plaza, Victory Building, Northern Ontario Building, Sterling Tower--just to name a few.

Considering the day, it couldn't be more poignant--adma is going to give you the 'Sunday Painter Urbanist' lecture.
Click to expand...

Well if you hadn't played that card so heavily he wouldn't have to. I'm not sure how one would write what you've described above into law - what views are protected? At what angle(s)? At what distance(s)? How are those views 'protected' in the first place?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Well if you hadn't played that card so heavily he wouldn't have to. I'm not sure how one would write what you've described above into law - what views are protected? At what angle(s)? At what distance(s)? How are those views 'protected' in the first place?
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the tricky part. I'm not sure how that would be written into law either. How do other cities do this for significant building views they wish to preserve? If we can put so much emphasis on shadow concerns--especially in the case of Nathan Phillips Square--surely we can identify some angles of the tower that should be preserved. An example of the North Easterly views I'm talking about would be this: View attachment 13178

Though this shot is quite old, the tower is still pretty much equally visible from this vantage point--and this spans well outside downtown and into neighbourhoods like Don Mills. Basically all varying degrees that show the CN Tower to the right of the CBD--from that sort of diagonal perspective.

Re the Gehry proposal--basically anywhere North of King St would forever lose, what is possibly the least interrupted view of the tower--unless viewed from the North West of there. The views from anywhere West of John St should remain rather untouched, considering the drop off in allowable building heights West of University Ave.

P.S. Just to clarify. My reference to adma's classic 'Sunday Painter Urbanist' had less to do with the views of the CN Tower, but Kweku's ignorance about Toronto's skyscrapers. We don't have the same caliber or quantity of pre-war skyscrapers that New York or Chicago have--but if he can't recognize the gems that we do have--or isn't even aware of the buildings I listed--then I can see why a concept like preserving views of buildings is uninteresting to him.
 
Last edited:
boogersugar said:
Because it's our national symbol. It's the most recognizable structure in Canada. Why would we want to have it largely concealed from nearly every angle?The CN Tower already is a landmark--The Landmark. We don't need another molesting it. I'm not against the Oxford buildings--the design is quite nice--though I'm tired of twin towers in this city--my problem is the location. If these get built, all you'll see from the North East is the antenna of the CN Tower, poking above the twins. Then there's the Gehry proposal which would forever kill the views of the CN Tower from the North. Protecting view corridors is important when dealing with the greatest engineering achievement in this country. Why even have such a structure if we're not going to respect it? Don't lose sight of this--pardon the pun--just because some fancy buildings are being proposed. Location is what is key. Again, how could one appreciate the Empire State Building if it was surrounded by 1000 foot buildings? It would diminish its presence and power. It's not just a beautiful building, but it anchors the skyline of New York. It is the main focus. Though it has been surpassed in height by the Freedom Tower and the World Trade Center before it, it has been the zenith of Manhattan's image since 1931. If we don't protect the views of the CN Tower that we have left, soon enough it will only be fully appreciated south of Front St and east of Lower Simcoe.

Yes. TD Centre, Commerce Court North, Canada Permanent Building, Canada Life Building, Royal York Hotel, Royal Bank Plaza, Victory Building, Northern Ontario Building, Sterling Tower--just to name a few.

Considering the day, it couldn't be more poignant--adma is going to give you the 'Sunday Painter Urbanist' lecture.
Click to expand...

Because it isn't Canada's Landmark, it is Toronto's landmark. I'm from Regina, SK, and I can surely tell you that not a whole lot of people around here really give a crap about the CN Tower. It's like trying to equate the Empire State Building in New York City as being America's landmark, nobody outside of New York State would really care about the landmark as it's not in their backyard. Every city has their own distinct landmark, trying to plaster a single landmark as representing the whole country makes a lot of people outside of the area alienated.
 
blacktrojan3921 said:
Because it isn't Canada's Landmark, it is Toronto's landmark. I'm from Regina, SK, and I can surely tell you that not a whole lot of people around here really give a crap about the CN Tower. It's like trying to equate the Empire State Building in New York City as being America's landmark, nobody outside of New York State would really care about the landmark as it's not in their backyard. Every city has their own distinct landmark, trying to plaster a single landmark as representing the whole country makes a lot of people outside of the area alienated.
Click to expand...

If Canadians think about the nation's iconic buildings, they'll think about the CN Tower, Parliament Hill, igloos and the railway hotels--in particular the Chateau Frontenac.
 
syn said:
Unfortunate. It seems like this may indeed be dead.

I don't understand why they can't proceed with a modified version of the project; it's not like a MTCC overhaul isn't needed.
Click to expand...

I still think it'll go ahead. There is a lot at stake and this is too much of an important site for them to have relied on the longshot of the casino both being approved and then their location being chosen. It may not be so immediate, but Oxford Place will no doubt happen.
 
There are plenty of views of the CN tower from the enterance area and roundhouse park that are essentially protected. I find it "ridiculous" that someone would want to protect CN Tower views instead of building two truly world class skyscrapers that would probably be the nicest the city has built in decades.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure this project is dead. I don't doubt that Oxford has backup plans for the site, but I don't think those include anything by Foster, sadly.
 
boogersugar said:
Exactly. That's the tricky part. I'm not sure how that would be written into law either. How do other cities do this for significant building views they wish to preserve? If we can put so much emphasis on shadow concerns--especially in the case of Nathan Phillips Square--surely we can identify some angles of the tower that should be preserved. An example of the North Easterly views I'm talking about would be this: View attachment 13178
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you could have such a broad approach. Depending on the angle and location relative to the CN tower, pretty much any building can block the CN Tower. These Oxford towers would have blocked some of the CN Tower's sightlines, but hardly very many. Instances where you have vista preservation tend to be more restricted (i.e. Queen's Park terminating University Avenue). I don't think preserving general sight-lines of the CN tower from anywhere in the City is feasible.

I think Oxford Scale towers near the CN tower could even improve it. Imagine the vista from Dundas n McCaul south. You'd have OCAD in the foreground with parts of with Ritz and the Oxford towers to the left of the CN tower. Or the view from King's College Circle. Dunno, it's subjective I guess. I'm sure ~70s towers here would obstruct some views, but they'd improve others.

I don't see any reason to hold the general silhouette of Toronto's skyline as the ultimate built form. Cities should always be a work in progress. Assuming towers at this site were of good architectural quality, I don't see how they would detract from the skyline or its iconicness. Nor is it necessarily productive to compare the CN Tower to the Eiffel Tower, or Paris in general. To begin with, and to state the most obvious point, Toronto isn't Paris. We're not a master-planned city which derives its appeal from homogeneity and geometric order. There's a certain aesthetic value in our skyline clashing with itself. All of our major office towers purposefully attempt to upstage each other. Our commercial streets are a mishmash of builtform and signage.

Also, as a general point, the CN tower is not as iconic as the Eiffel Tower. It's a civic symbol no doubt, but in the same way that, I dunno, the Gateway Arch or Space Needle is. That's not supposed to be a knock on the CN tower. TV/Observation towers are pretty widespread and I'm not sure there would be any agreement that the CN tower is the greatest example of that particular built form.
 
jje1000 said:
Mind you that it was stated that the convention centre is still set to be rebuilt at some point in time, as stated earlier in the thread.

I'm fairly confident that the Foster plan will go forward in some form, just not every part of it (and no one knew if all of it was going to go ahead anyways)

My guesses on what will be built from 'most likely' to 'not likely':
- New Convention Centre
- Offices/ Residential Towers
- New Mall
- Park
- Casino Resort
Click to expand...

At the Land & Development Conference held today at the MTCC, the VP of development at Oxford Properties Group told the attendees that the plan is to still go ahead with the redevelopment plans of the convention space, the development of new office & residential towers, a hotel, green space over the train tracks, etc...basically everything included in their plan announced last year minus the casino. He stated that the casino really was minor and that the plan wasn't ever dependent on the casino being approved at this location anyway; it just would have helped to accelerate their plans.

So no need to worry. We will be getting a large project here and it's not dead by any means, but the plan is a little longer term as they continue to seek the funds (without a casino), to deal with some funky engineering to build overtop of the existing convention spaces, and to work to get the approvals they needed anyway (i.e. for the Metrolinx ROW, City of Toronto, etc). Good news.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic news RiverCity1!

So are there still any likely show-stoppers? For example the City refusing permission because the planned development violates the "skyline tapering" idiocy?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top