[ksun]

The owner of the CN Tower is the federal government (i.e. all Canadians) and I think it's in the interest of all Canadians and Torontonians that the most iconic view of downtown Toronto from the CN Tower be preserved. The CN Tower is a major tourist draw and is Toronto's and Canada's most famous landmark. It's that thing that let's every Torontonian, no matter where they are in the city, know that they're home. I'm surprised that anyone would treat it with such disregard.

you put too much emotion to a TV tower. It is nothing more than a tall concrete TV tower. Let the city grow and our skyline evolve, please.
Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower used to be the same iconic thing, then the city built two office buildings much taller than it in the past few years, and the people didn't seem to feel losing their "home". I would be happy if we build something taller than the CN tower and change our perception of the skyline completely.

 

[NBGtect]

Oh my. Well if the goal here is to emulate China (even though Justin Trudeau would just love that) then we are leaving our beloved City behind. You fail to realize the importance of our tv tower. Sad really.

 

[canadaboy123]

Oh my. Well if the goal here is to emulate China (even though Justin Trudeau would just love that) then we are leaving our beloved City behind. You fail to realize the importance of our tv tower. Sad really.

The CN Tower is immensely important and is one of the most iconic buildings in our country. However, that doesn't mean Oxford Place should not be built. It will not take away from the CN Tower, it will actually add to it's view.

Oxford Place won't even reach up to the first observation pod of the CN Tower.

 

[Tewder]

you put too much emotion to a TV tower. It is nothing more than a tall concrete TV tower. Let the city grow and our skyline evolve, please.
Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower used to be the same iconic thing, then the city built two office buildings much taller than it in the past few years, and the people didn't seem to feel losing their "home". I would be happy if we build something taller than the CN tower and change our perception of the skyline completely.

Yes, let's look to China for preservation cues.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes, let's look to China for preservation cues.

Have you seen Shanghai Tower? The thing is beautiful. They'd be a fool not to build it. Especially if their only reason was because it was taller than the Oriental Pearl.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Beautiful though ST is, that wasn't Tewder's point.

 

[ttk77]

Is this a matter of preservation though? No one here is suggesting that the CN Tower be torn down. And to suggest that it's about preserving our skyline is also a bit strange considering how drastically it has evolved over the past decade.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Is this a matter of preservation though? No one here is suggesting that the CN Tower be torn down. And to suggest that it's about preserving our skyline is also a bit strange considering how drastically it has evolved over the past decade.

I think it is probably a good idea to preserve certain iconic view corridors towards the CN Tower - but those views are usually from a south to north perspective, which the MTCC redevelopment doesn't really interfere much.

AoD

 

[RyeJay]

you put too much emotion to a TV tower. It is nothing more than a tall concrete TV tower. Let the city grow and our skyline evolve, please.
Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower used to be the same iconic thing, then the city built two office buildings much taller than it in the past few years, and the people didn't seem to feel losing their "home". I would be happy if we build something taller than the CN tower and change our perception of the skyline completely.

As someone who wasn't born in Toronto and who hasn't lived in Toronto, let me express to you, as an ordinary Canadian, that the Canadian National Tower is far more than a mere tv tower made of concrete.

The CN Tower, for a time, was the tallest building in the world and, today, still is one of the most recognised Canadian structures. Obviously, it's purpose beyond being just a tv tower is the tower's popularity for being an observatory of Canada's metropolis: which is what Toronto is -- Canada's megacity.
The CN Tower is part of this country's heritage. If you're going to build new structures next to this skyline centrepiece, these new buildings must work *with* the CN Tower -- not against it. I support these Oxford Place towers, but only if they aren't the same height.

Twin towers of the same height creates a new centrepiece for the downtown's cityscape (because of their physical unification); whereas, having a slightly modest eastern Oxford tower (creating an accent by comparison to both the western tower and the CN Tower) would allow both Oxford towers to contribute their differentiated densities to the creation of a new visual layer (an 'arc') complimenting ("building up" to) the existing centrepiece: the CN Tower.

I'm glad Oxford Place is building tall.

 

[Hanlansboy]

Now now, no fighting kids! (I suddenly feel a target on my head). This evokes emotion, we're human, of course it does. Since the 70's, the CN Tower was more then just a fancy antenna, it was a symbol of Toronto, and of Canada. It was our source of bragging rights, and symbol we could all get behind. Now, flash forward to 2014, has that changed? No, it is still, and always will be one of our greatest symbols of all that is good in our city, but think about this. If the Oxford towers were actually built to current specifications, they still wouldn't approach the main observation deck. From the water front, we'll still be able to see the entire structure of both the CN tower and the new Oxford towers. Now, think about this, aside from the waterfront, where can we actually see the entire tower completely unobstructed by the ever increasing number of skyscrapers filling the gaps in our skyline? Generally, from most points of view, we can see only from the centre pod and up, the same will hold true if the Oxford towers are built, so, remind me again why you're fussing so much about this?

That aside, if you're going to compare, take any major city, not just those in China. At one point in every single major cities history, comes a time to let go of the past, and integrate it into the future. Before first Canadian Place was built, they had to demolish the a Toronto Star tower, a beautiful skyscraper that was many generations definition of our skyline at the time. Yet we now enjoy FCP without a thought to what was there before. I'm often surprised by the amount of resistance when the old must be removed in favor of the new. Did NYC refuse to build the twin towers, or the new WTC, because it would somehow take away from the Empire State Building? Of course not, nothing can stop the relentless march of progress, and that's a good thing. Can you imagine how boring our skyline would be had they rejected every proposal that changed the past? Besides, in the case with Oxford, nothing is being torn down, no real views will be obstructed, and we'll finally have not one, but hopefully 2, official supertalls in our skyline, what could be better then that? If you want an idea of how they will look, the Treky in me is saying have a look at the last Star Trek movie, specifically, the scene that shows the future skyline of London, UK. It has an exact duplicate of the Oxford proposal, looks impressive, as it will next to Canada's and Toronto's symbol of power, strength, and ambition. Ok.....let's the comments fly, just go easy on me guys, I'm having surgery in a few months (yeah, I know, lousy F ing cancer!), I'm very fragile.....well...meah, never mind

 

[ChristopherC]

Gosh why are there so many whiners on this forum! The Oxford Place towers would look amazing standing next to the CN Tower, and they easily look nicer than any of those boxes in the Financial District (apart from Scotia Plaza), one of which is unfortunately the tallest skyscraper in Canada -.- Although it would be amazing if the Oxford Towers were on the other side of the CN Tower because they would make the CN Tower look like the center of the skyline rather than in the corner.

 

[innsertnamehere]

FCP is fine, especially since the reclad. Its very handsome IMO. Not quite TD or Scotiaplaza, and it certainly looked rough around the edges there for a while, it looks great now.

 

[Strange Advance]

FCP is great. Love it. Now, anything new about the Oxford twins and their road to realization?

 

[Wrenkin]

That aside, if you're going to compare, take any major city, not just those in China. At one point in every single major cities history, comes a time to let go of the past, and integrate it into the future. Before first Canadian Place was built, they had to demolish the a Toronto Star tower, a beautiful skyscraper that was many generations definition of our skyline at the time. Yet we now enjoy FCP without a thought to what was there before.

Who's we? Someone who is informed enough to be on this website has probably seen the photos. Even if you are the type to enjoy the TD Centre you can still appreciate what the extant banking hall replaced.

I'm often surprised by the amount of resistance when the old must be removed in favor of the new. Did NYC refuse to build the twin towers, or the new WTC, because it would somehow take away from the Empire State Building? Of course not, nothing can stop the relentless march of progress, and that's a good thing.

Cities aren't people. People have ideas about what should and shouldn't be built. People may not have been opposed to the World Trade Center being built on the basis of some vague appeal to the "skyline" (I don't know if they were). They certainly were opposed on the basis that the government was using eminent domain to destroy a vibrant business district (Radio Row). There are plenty of other contemporaneous developments that never went ahead based on (to my mind) good preservationist arguments, like the original Eaton Centre proposal, or MetroCentre (which would have meant the demolition of Old City Hall and Union Station, respectively).

I think you're mixing two arguments here. I don't think you can win an argument against preservationsists merely by shouting "progress" (Cf. Mirvish). But until some posters come up with a clearer idea of what they mean when they say something will ruin the skyline I think we can safely refuse to bar developments on that ground.

 

[Tewder]

I think you're mixing two arguments here. I don't think you can win an argument against preservationsists merely by shouting "progress" (Cf. Mirvish). But until some posters come up with a clearer idea of what they mean when they say something will ruin the skyline I think we can safely refuse to bar developments on that ground.

I don't know that it's an issue of 'ruining the skyline' so much as preserving what could arguably be viewed as a significant view corridor (yuck i hate this term)... or to express it a little better, preserving the context/surroundings in which a notable building/monument was originally conceived, the context forming part of the greater whole. I understand that this is a thorny issue, but this doesn't mean we should ignore it outright. There's more to urban planning and beautification than simply plopping up tall buildings wherever possible.

Don't get me wrong, i agree with most of what you are posting... and i'm not suggesting Oxford should or shouldn't go ahead. I'm simply saying we owe it to ourselves to question what's appropriate from different perspectives other than height, including preservation.