I've alerted Urban Design (part of Planning). They weren't consulted. They'll be speaking to Heritage tomorrow.
42
42
kotsy
Senior Member
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Isn't that just mesh? It looks like the original windows are still behind that material and nothing has been replaced yet.
RealEstater
New Member
That picture was taken from my phone camera (and obviously >300m below), so its pretty fuzzy.
From ground level, it looks like the white banding is replaced with dark grey spandrel-type cladding. Just on top of the windows, there is a blue strip that looks like home wrap (tower wrap?). I will try and post a better shot later today, assuming the rain stops.
From ground level, it looks like the white banding is replaced with dark grey spandrel-type cladding. Just on top of the windows, there is a blue strip that looks like home wrap (tower wrap?). I will try and post a better shot later today, assuming the rain stops.
RealEstater
New Member
Amare
Senior Member
How is it the planning department does not consult with heritage department (or vice-versa) on these issues? If I recall correctly this is the 2nd major re-skin/reclad that the department wasnt aware of (the first being the Simpson's Tower). Although im sure there have been dozens of more cases involving this very issue.
The Planning Department did not consult with Heritage because, as I said, the Planning Department were not consulted about it themselves. They didn't know about it. The owners are not required to go the Planning Department for approval of this sort of thing, only the Building Department. City procedures regarding the re-skinning of major buildings need to change, and I'm not sure how many rules need to be re-written for them get a new process going. It has to happen though.
42
42
44 North
Senior Member
Very much agreed. All the lines and proportions are a thing of beauty. Don't want to see that changed. Wondering if it is floor-to-ceiling, could they use some kind of mylar/film layer that would be transparent from the interior, but show up as white from the outside.
doug
Active Member
It's actually an active communications tower, with an observation deck and restaurant.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I was out on my patio and did a double take when I noticed this. Here's a good quality zoom:
What was seen in previous photos was a tarp. You can see better proportions of the leftover rings. It doesn't look like they'll be eliminated entirely but they're really messing with an icon of this city. Adding the EdgeWalk barnacle was bad enough. It changed the iconic outline of the observation deck. What they're doing now is verging on sacrilege!
Trizec Hahn had so much more respect for the tower. The latest management will do anything to look good on a balance sheet.
What was seen in previous photos was a tarp. You can see better proportions of the leftover rings. It doesn't look like they'll be eliminated entirely but they're really messing with an icon of this city. Adding the EdgeWalk barnacle was bad enough. It changed the iconic outline of the observation deck. What they're doing now is verging on sacrilege!
Trizec Hahn had so much more respect for the tower. The latest management will do anything to look good on a balance sheet.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Um ok so they aren't allowed to make changes to it attract more tourists to it?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Nope, but given the historic nature of the site, the tower should be designated and changes should be reviewed.
AoD
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
So basically it has to stay stuck in the 60's/70's because it's "historic" give me a break as long as they don't take it down which isn't going to be done I say let them make any changes to it that attracts more tourists and even residence of the city to it. If putting in larger glass pains in improves the veiw who cares if they got rid of some old cladding.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No one is necessarily against change - but do we even know what the end product will look like? What matters it that we shouldn't treat this landmark (which is what it is) as a free for all. Can you imagine someone offering a free for all attitude to I don't know, Empire State Building? Eiffel Tower? Washington Monument? If not, I don't see why we should at least put in place a recognition for what the tower is - a landmark - so that changes can be publicly reviewed.
AoD
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Exactly my point. But there seems to be a few people that want to report it to the historical board and planning department because it alters the original CN tower. They remind me of the architect of Roy Thompson hall complaining about the Toronto symphony changing the interior of the hall so they actually sound good. Sometimes changes to buildings are good.