ksun said:
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)
Click to expand...

Is this the kind of view you would prefer?
verticalvillage said:
View attachment 23730
Click to expand...
 
Although I do agree that the Oxford Place twin towers are too close to the CN tower, lets not pretend like they aren't MUCH better looking than the entire financial district. In my opinion the only "important" tower that they would be blocking is Scotia Plaza, but other than that, I wouldn't mind looking at Oxford Place Twins rather than the Financial (aka Box) district. You can also still see the td towers.

The only thing that the oxford place towers negatively affects is the skyline because it is too close to the CN Tower. The view from the CN tower sky pod actually better imo.
 
You know, I gotta say I don't get why people are so zealously protective of the CN Tower and seem to believe it's in dire need of some sort of exclusion zone.

The structure stands on its own merits, has its own deserved historical place on the city's skyline, and will not be in any way compromised by the addition of other tall structures popping up in its vicinity.

Some people acting as if it's some sort of holy shrine. The exceptionalism and reverence accorded it strikes me as bizarre.

It's an iconic building, to be sure - but let's move on, shall we? I think the tower can stand some striking nearby company without toppling in abject shame.
 
Lenser said:
You know, I gotta say I don't get why people are so zealously protective of the CN Tower and seem to believe it's in dire need of some sort of exclusion zone.

The structure stands on its own merits, has its own deserved historical place on the city's skyline, and will not be in any way compromised by the addition of other tall structures popping up in its vicinity.

Some people acting as if it's some sort of holy shrine. The exceptionalism and reverence accorded it strikes me as bizarre.

It's an iconic building, to be sure - but let's move on, shall we? I think the tower can stand some striking nearby company without toppling in abject shame.
Click to expand...

Considering it's only use at this point is as an observation deck (and tourist attraction) it seems silly to block the view of the CBD. From that referenced view, if these towers were 10-15 stories shorter, I'd have no issue with this, it would block far less then IMO.

Anywhere else go fill your boots with 100s more, I just think we should be respectful of the views from the cn tower. I know I'd be pissed as a tourist to drop cash on the tour and basically have these blocking the city's money shot.
 
Don't have much philosophical issue with something exceeding the height of the CN Tower -but- at the same time it better be truly iconic in its own right. I haven't seen anything remotely worthy anywhere.

AoD
 
junior43 said:
Considering it's only use at this point is as an observation deck (and tourist attraction) it seems silly to block the view of the CBD. From that referenced view, if these towers were 10-15 stories shorter, I'd have no issue with this, it would block far less then IMO.

Anywhere else go fill your boots with 100s more, I just think we should be respectful of the views from the cn tower. I know I'd be pissed as a tourist to drop cash on the tour and basically have these blocking the city's money shot.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
While our financial district may not be the most stunning in the world, I'd much rather pay to view it rather than a close-up of some stock broker's office. There are still so many parking lots and empty lots just wasting away, why not develop those first? Why not add to the views instead of blocking them?
 
This is not a centrally planned economy. Property owners develop lots in the order that they choose, based on what they can sell or lease space wise. Parking lots will get redeveloped when their owners are ready to do it. Other existing buildings will get redeveloped based on the agenda of their owners.

42
 
ChristopherC said:
Isn't signature tower cancelled?
Click to expand...

ChesterCopperpot said:
Nope. Still going ahead as a twin tower proposal
Click to expand...

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...

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

AoD
Click to expand...

Not cancelled, no, obviously. But Peter is out. Forsey and Harland have instead taken 'his' place.
 
Why do people constantly smash skyscrapers in Asian cities? I understand that a lot of the skyscrapers in Asian cities are rather pointless and empty, but in a city like Toronto they wouldn't be. I also understand that Toronto is an amazing city that doesn't need to "copy" or "follow" the steps of other major cities. However it is worth mentioning that cities like Hong Kong and Dubai arguably have some of the nicest skylines in the world (much nicer than anything you would find in North America apart from NYC and maybe Chicago).

I know building skyscrapers isn't all about the effects it has on the skyline, but if a city needs them then why not make them look nice??? And what do people not like about the ones in UAE and major Asian cities (Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.)
 
ChristopherC said:
Why do people constantly smash skyscrapers in Asian cities? I understand that a lot of the skyscrapers in Asian cities are rather pointless and empty, but in a city like Toronto they wouldn't be. I also understand that Toronto is an amazing city that doesn't need to "copy" or "follow" the steps of other major cities. However it is worth mentioning that cities like Hong Kong and Dubai arguably have some of the nicest skylines in the world (much nicer than anything you would find in North America apart from NYC and maybe Chicago).

I know building skyscrapers isn't all about the effects it has on the skyline, but if a city needs them then why not make them look nice??? And what do people not like about the ones in UAE and major Asian cities (Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.)
Click to expand...

Other than the Burj Khalifa, the Dubai skyline is not that impressive. It's just one road with buildings flanking it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top