Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

I'm of the same opinion - I do think the developer's had a reasonable expectation that their applications would be approved, but I won't pretend to know how this all works legally. The councillors were very upset at the prospect of this 'corporate welfare' to the pension funds, etc. but I thought that the developers pass these savings onto tenants to make leasing more attractive.

I felt as though neither side articulated their points very clearly and it pretty much devolved into a shouting match at points. The first city council I've tuned into and it didn't seem all that professional!
/\ Correct.

Only The Well and the Sanofi Pasteur HQ got the grant.

I'm of the opinion that it's fine to phase the thing out (which isn't even what's happening), but if a number of developments had already applied for it and were expecting to receive it, Council should have approved those that were in line but denied subsequent applications moving forward.

To @westtoeast's post, those projects will still move forward. They're being advanced by billion-dollar pension funds and while not being granted an IMIT might injure them slightly, they'll be fine.

Agreed, not to mention the insanely low vac rate currently. There is a large demand for new AAA office space in the core.
I want to clear this up, so there will be some repetition in this post for the sake of emphasis:

Thing that bugs me is the 298 metre height cap that puts it more less equal with FCP... it's odd and I guess I don't understand the reasoning. Any higher and there'd be shadowing on some important site or...? Just seems like a rather arbitrary limitation. I would rather it go higher but slim down a tad - it's a bit of a monster in its massing.
There is no height cap.

^^^Who says there's a 298 m height cap?
Only people who are mistaken on that particular matter.
The 298m height has to do solely with the developer. That height may decrease but only if the developer chooses to build a smaller tower due to lower demand and lower risk. The city IMO would have no problem with this height, especially because it's right downtown in the financial district. People expect buildings to be tall here.
It doesn't have to do with the developer exactly; it has to do with the architects checking where shadows would fall, and stopping the building before it would add more shadow on St. James Catherdral/Park, which the City would not allow.
Hello Forumers,

I've been monitoring activity on this site for quite sometime and am an occasional member on SSC international forum. Finally decided to become a member here.

I'd have to agree that 298 metres is just an arbitrary number that the developers came to. If there is enough demand for office space to occupy 64 stories, this project will go forward as is. The project could change depending factors such as the number of tenant and space secured. Could go down to 50 stories or even as high as 70 stories. We will have to wait and see. On a side note, he developers if they choose to go for bragging rights, may increase the fins to a final height of 300 metres for bragging rights to get the title of he tallest office building in Toronto.
The heights of new buildings are not quite as capriciously arrived at as your post indicates. The developer will go for every square metre of density that they can get within the planning restrictions imposed on the site. As this is right at King and Bay, there's no way they will not build to the maximum they can get.
I thought this building had to be capped to 298m due to shadowing on St. James Park? My understanding is that the developers would build taller if they could, not shorter.
You sir, get a star for being correct.

It being the exact same height as First Canadian Place just smacks of Toronto Planning interference. Why would any developer—on their own—say "let's build this exactly the same height as Toronto's tallest office tower"? It's nuts.

Besides all that, the architecture here is undisciplined at this point. Having the cladding split at the corners just emphasizes bulkiness, like it's wearing a shirt that's two sizes too small.

We need more rigour and height here before this gets approved.


I know people have mentioned shadowing of a park that's half a kilometre away as the reason but maybe there's another reason? Multiple geniuses working independently like those at the private developer and at Toronto Planning were bound to come up with the same numbers and solutions if it was the optimal solution right?

Not going to lie but this tower is thicc looking but not in a good way.

Please, enough of the "sky is falling" prophesies. Planning is not a conspiracy machine: it considers sites individually per all of its rules and guidelines.


I call making deals with the local councillor legalized conspiracy. Maybe that's what they've been doing since this summer!
But that back and forth is sequential. Then it stops and, generally, it doesn't get rehashed until some new news comes up and the thread is brought to the fore.
Toronto Model 11-19-18 CBD close-up.png
I love your rendering photo shots angles Koops, keep them coming ! But there's a lot of buildings that are being constructed in Toronto. That haven't been Illustrated in Toronto's skyscraperpage. Love to see some of those renderings done when you got the time thanks !
I haven't been a member of the forum for long (though I've lurked for a while) so I may not know the norms of engaging, but personally I welcome seeing these renders bump a thread! I always enjoy seeing the different angles and getting a sense of how the the building will feel from different vantage points and interact with the buildings around it.
I always appreciate Koops’ work. While a particular render of a building may also appear in a thread on a neighboring structure, it is still helpful to have it here. If I want to check out the render at some future point, it is much more convenient simply to come to this thread than to try to remember which other thread it appears in.

Keep up the good work!