There is no reason why the owners of the MoZo site should have seen a 1 King West style development as appropriate for their site, especially since it didn't incorporate a historic bank building. Again, you're grasping for interchangeability that doesn't exist.
Shocker, you're being a pedant. The lack of an existing historic bank building doesn't mean that the builders of Mozo precluded themselves from building a skinny condo tower. My rationale is certainly not that tall buildings must be built adjacent to bank towers. That is asinine. Incidentally, the condo across the street - King's Court -
did, in fact, incorporate a historic bank building into its design and, yet, the builders of that condo didn't feel the need to build an anorexic tower on the site. Rather, that building was appropriately scaled, in deference to the older, more venerable warehouse neighbourhood around it.
Back at the Market Wharf site, the Clewes buidling establishes no links and no ties (beside a very perfunctory podium) to the established St. Lawrence neighbourhood. While the St. Lawrence neighbourhood was more a product of Crombie-era height restriction, it had the benefit of paying respect to the century-old church spires and domes in the area, such as St. James cathedral and St. Lawrence hall. Despite lifting these restrictions, all subsequent development in the area respected this modest, yet dignified scale.
Larger sites like Market Wharf offer a wider range of possibilities, including point towers. Pier 27 is another good example of how this larger site principle works, though Clewes's design solution includes no point towers even though it is in the vicinity of several tall buildings.
Similarly large sites in the vicinity of Market Wharf have been built out in the last two decades, such as the large parcel on the southeast corner of Jarvis and Front, and the developers there didn't feel compelled to build a point tower. As I mentioned, up until now, most developers deferred building taller towers in this neighbourhood.
