4.5K 
There is a common gripe from UrbanToronto readers that frequently pops up across our Forum: a development is proposed and the initial renderings show a flashy, audacious building that creates excitement among our urban enthusiasts, but months (or sometimes years) later the final proposal that actually gets approved and built pales in comparison, with a design seemingly whittled down to something much less inspiring and ambitious. Many complain about the sometimes long and arduous municipal planning and review process, but often our conversations focus on the end result as compared to the start, without really paying much attention to the process in between.
The municipal planning review and approvals process is an important step in the design and eventual construction of all buildings that rise up across the city, and is considered by proponents and designers alike as an integral step to getting a building out of the ground and ultimately contributing to our urban environment. While most developers, architects, and engineers have a narrower focus on their particular site, city planners take a wider lens to anticipate impacts to the broader neighbourhood and city, and the two visions do not always see eye-to-eye. The recent changes to the College Park Redevelopment offer an opportunity to dive into this oftentimes confusing planning process to understand what impacts are studied, why adjustments are made, and how the results of this process are translated into the design of the building.
Now, we want to be clear that this article is not a critique of our existing development approvals process. Whether or not you think the current system is working great or needs improvement, the intent here is to give just a glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes in between iterations of major proposals. A high-profile project like College Park, with such a huge cultural and physical impact on the city, offers the perfect opportunity to study the process, and not just the results.
The redevelopment of College Park is being led by GWL Realty Advisors and is designed for them by Hariri Pontarini Architects, with heritage specialists ERA Architects taking on the rehabilitation of the heritage components. The project involves the construction of three new residential towers rising 65, 75, and 96 storeys from the retained and expanded heritage podium. The unbuilt portions of the historic podium will be filled in with a compatible design in the style of the original, and the heritage interiors will be retained and restored to their former glory. The proposal includes a total of 2,339 residential units; a 250-suite hotel; a daycare; three levels of retail space; four levels of flexible commercial space; and the restored event venue, the Carlu.
Since the initial rezoning and Official Plan amendment application in July, 2025, the College Park team has been busy with a comprehensive community engagement and city consultation process that has led to the recent design changes submitted in January, 2026. There have been two public consultations — an open house and a community meeting — two meetings with the current tenants in the building, a presentation before the Toronto Design Review Panel in September, 2025, and a series of workshops with City staff from various departments throughout November and December. The feedback from all of the above engagements was consolidated and addressed in the current iteration.
The most visible adjustment is the shift in massing, where 10 storeys was taken from the north tower and added to the south tower. The north tower, which will be the first one built out of the three, now rises to 65 storeys, the central tower remains the same at 96 storeys, and the south tower increases in height to 75 storeys.
The primary driver behind this reorganization of massing was the impact on two protected heritage views: the view corridor looking north along Bay Street from the corner of Temperance Street toward Old City Hall, and the view looking north from the southern edge of Nathan Phillips Square of new City Hall. A study of these heritage views shows that the new towers would infringe on the eastern edge of these view corridors, and the shifting of the massing is intended to minimize this impact.
The other significant adjustment to the building exterior involves the southwest corner of the building, where the podium facade on the south side of the building meets the contemporary facade on the west side. Previously, the new stone cladding of the podium stopped short of the corner, with the glazing wrapping around onto the south facade and recessed from the adjacent new and heritage stone finishes. In response to comments regarding the heritage components of the project, this condition has been refined with the new stone cladding now extending the full length of the south facade, which simplifies the massing at this corner and presents a more complete visual of the heritage base.
Perhaps the most impactful revisions to the building have occurred on the interiors. Comments received asked for the rental replacement units to be replaced like-for-like which has now been implemented in the design. Previously, the 210 existing rental units were being replaced with 244 new units which differed in size from the existing. The additional rental replacement units were largely in the format of one-bedroom-plus-den configurations, which don't exist in the current apartment building. The design team was able to add these by reducing the square footage of the new one-bedroom and two-bedroom units compared to their existing counterparts by 10-20%, and by reducing the number of studio units provided. In response to the comments through the consultation process, the new rental replacement units were adjusted to match the quantity and square footage of the existing, and the result is a total of 216 rental replacement units, with 6 additional one-bedroom units included.
The displacement of the existing tenants was also reduced in time from 6 years to 4 years with the revised design. This was done through optimization of the phasing plan, which takes into account the many complexities of the project including preservation of the heritage components, termination of existing tenancies, and the logistics of construction. The proponents note that due to the various constraints, it is not possible to build the north tower, which contains the rental replacement units, before demolishing the existing rental addition.
Another comment regarding the residential provisions was the request to increase the number of family-sized units across the three towers. Currently, there are 513 two-bedrooms (24% of the total) and 211 three-bedrooms (10% of the total) throughout the towers. For this revision, the proponents took a rather a novel approach. Instead of providing more two- and three-bedroom units, the design team instead introduced knock-out panels between adjacent smaller units so that in the future the two smaller units could be combined into one larger unit. A total of 266 units are what they refer to as adaptable and convertible, which could potentially add 133 more family-sized units to the project. This more flexible approach is not commonly found in Toronto, so it remains to be seen if the City will accept this as an appropriate solution.
Elsewhere in the interior, comments were received to improve mobility and circulation through the ground floor and lobby areas. This led to a relocation of the bike parking for the north tower from the southern portion of the building to the north part, taking up some space on the flexible commercial floors within the existing historic building. All bike parking will be accessed through dedicated elevators with separate lobbies that take users up to the parking spread across the podium levels above. Across the remainder of the ground floor, refinements were made to improve circulation and wayfinding while keeping access to the different uses of the building separate. The revised drawings also show the connection to the new accessible College subway station concourse, which is currently under construction and scheduled to open later this year.
Other smaller adjustments were made on the exterior of the building in response to public and City comments. The parkland dedication was increased slightly from 530 to 600 square metres, consolidating the previous dedication into one continuous strip of land adjacent the existing park to the southwest. The 600 square metres of parkland makes up 70% of the required amount, with the remaining 30% being covered by a cash-in-lieu contribution.
Elsewhere, trellises were added at ground level and on the outdoor amenity level to mitigate wind conditions, and sun shadow studies were conducted on the revised massing that concluded that the shadow impacts on nearby Allan Gardens and Queen's Park — both protected from net new shadowing — are minimal.
The resubmission of College Park offers a glimpse into the approvals process and the many conversations and consultations that take place as the design evolves. The development is still working its way through the planning process and may be refined further before receiving rezoning and OPA approvals. In the meantime, the design team continues to add layers of detail to the building, as interior layouts shift and the finer design aspects of the building are developed.
UrbanToronto will continue to follow progress on this development, but in the meantime, you can learn more about it from our Database file, linked below. If you'd like, you can join in on the conversation in the associated Project Forum thread or leave a comment in the space provided on this page.
* * *
UrbanToronto's research and data service, UTPro, provides comprehensive data on construction projects in the Greater Golden Horseshoe—from proposal through to completion. Other services include Instant Reports, downloadable snapshots based on location, and a daily subscription newsletter, New Development Insider, that tracks projects from initial application.
| Related Companies: | Adamson Associates Architects, ERA Architects, Grounded Engineering Inc., Hariri Pontarini Architects, RWDI Climate and Performance Engineering, Urban Strategies Inc. |
