Canadian City Proposals II

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Gresto

According to someone at UT, the construction is just related to the Gardiner/Park Lawn bridge replacement.

Ya, I drove past yesterday. Nothing going on.

[davidivivid]

Canada and Quebec partner to deliver hundreds of new affordable, supportive and transitional homes across Quebec

Just two months after confirming the signing a memorandum of understanding related to the deployment of Build Canada Homes funding, the Governments of Canada and Québec are partnering to deliver nearly 865 new affordable homes across Quebec, representing a total investment of $200 million.

The announcement was made by the Honourable Gregor Robertson, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, and by Caroline Proulx, Quebec Minister responsible for Housing and Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The partners took advantage of their presence in Québec City to confirm funding for the Îlôt Saint-Vincent-de-Paul project, one of the first projects to move forward under this partnership.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-quebec-partner-deliver-hundreds-174700774.html


The Îlôt Saint-Vincent-de-Paul project will house 151 affordable housing units, 80 subsidized daycare spots and a community garden.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Allies and Morrison, a UK-based architecture firm, is behind a number of masterplanned, multi-tower projects that dot Toronto's inner suburbs. None of them are under construction, but they're all at various stages of planning:

- The Downsview site is the latest, but there's also:

- 2150 Lake Shore in Etobicoke's Humber Bay

Source:Urbantoronto

- Beltline Yards, near Eglinton and Caledonia



This one won't impact the skyline, but they have a masterplan for some of the lands at Woodbine racetrack that is midrise in nature:



I'm not sure if these projects will be built to their full extent, and when, but they all have a very British look to them, and they will stand out in the skyline of the western inner suburbs where they're all located. You'll actually be able to see them from one another, especially since the buildings are placed at non-orthogonal angles to the city's grid, so they'll stand out due to their shape and red brick materials. They're also all located next to a new GO train station, which is how many people will arrive to them.

I've said before that Toronto and other Canadian cities have been gradually drifting away from the US in look and feel, and in Toronto the feel of the city and how it's experienced has become markedly more like London in recent years. There's the youth culture and slang - which is a coincidence of similar immigration patterns and ethnic mixing - but architecturally and transport-wise, the sensation of gliding across the city on an elevated commuter rail line across a landscape of tightly-spaced red brick semis with these types of highrises, designed by British architects, in the distance is very London-coded.

The scale is totally off representing warehousing of Toronto's vast temporary residency economy than typical European masterplanning. Architectural design is not to be taken lightly but, it's highly conceptual for developments going through rezoning which focuses on planning principles such as density and massing. Also, it's undoubtably designed from the Toronto office than the overseas parent so the execution should this somehow make it to construction will follow Toronto's production trends than London's Bankside.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What they have done to Quayside is a complete abomination. Why did the City allow such a downgrade or even Waterfront Toronto for that matter?

I think you mean Bayside. Quayside is conceptual. It's an abomination but not from an architectural standpoint. The building spacing and heights are ridiculous.


Bayside is not that bad. There's a landmark design among the forgetable buildings. It's actually mixed use. The spacing and building heights are tight but, not insanely tight and even appropriate for a downtown waterfront location. Mind you there's two remaining development sites. One apparently is already planned to have a 30 storey slab crammed on it and abutting the landmark building. The other , AFAIK, is still planned office.

[Maldive]

23 Toronto Street | 299.04m | 91s | Goband Investment | SvN l Approval Recommended

This is now Recommended for Approval just a metre shy of a super-tall.


UT

UT

[MolsonExport]

why not just one more metre?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Maldive

23 Toronto Street | 299.04m | 91s | Goband Investment | SvN l Approval Recommended

This is now Recommended for Approval just a metre shy of a super-tall.

Couldn't they add a nice decorative festive cornice to it to push it over the top???

How about some gargoyles???

[O-tacular]

I like the crown and the top half but find the weird glass midsection breaks up the flow of the cool facade. Then the Toronto special base that shrinks down and looks completely alien to everything else just ruins it. Why do Toronto developers love to do this so much? It's the equivalent of Calgary's practically mandatory policy of twins.

[MolsonExport]

count me in as another person that dislikes the Toronto base shrink down.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I like the crown and the top half but find the weird glass midsection breaks up the flow of the cool facade. Then the Toronto special base that shrinks down and looks completely alien to everything else just ruins it. Why do Toronto developers love to do this so much? It's the equivalent of Calgary's practically mandatory policy of twins.

In this case, these are actually historically significant and stately buildings by any city's standard, particularly the Consumers Gas building, which is the Italianate building on the right.

They absolutely should be saved; I can understand why a developer would have made this proposal 4 years ago. This is very valuable downtown real estate - maybe some of the most valuable in North America outside of Manhattan, and it's not surprising to see Manhattan densities be proposed. The difference between Toronto and Manhattan is that in NYC, a developer would have transferred air rights from the historic buildings and built some kind of skinny supertall in the modern, lowrise box in the centre.

Where this practice of retaining the facade feels weird is when the developer spends big bucks bracing the plain brick facade of a non-descript 2-storey warehouse from the 1920s with no ornamentation. You see this more on the outer edge of downtown.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by davidivivid

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-quebec-partner-deliver-hundreds-174700774.html


The Îlôt Saint-Vincent-de-Paul project will house 151 affordable housing units, 80 subsidized daycare spots and a community garden.

Can my city please take note of this.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The difference between Toronto and Manhattan is that in NYC, a developer would have transferred air rights from the historic buildings and built some kind of skinny supertall in the modern, lowrise box in the centre.

Does any Canadian city have a system of heritage preservation that includes transferable development rights like NYC? They seem to align economic incentives in a way that preserves this public good, while just about every other policy I see doesn't do this. There is a Canadian tendency to either do nothing or implement some kind of rule or subsidy.

It's rare that I hear anybody in any planning situation talk about heritage preservation coherently (public good vs. private owner, aligning incentives, etc.). In Halifax the dominant views were "let's ban everything over 4 floors so nobody ever tears down an old building" and "old buildings must be torn down because they are not economical". Both depressing in their own way, and the result is what you'd expect from that, a mix of suppressed development and needless demolition through neglect designed to sidestep the debate so towers can be built.

One other little critique of the Toronto proposal which I see in so many of these is that instead of rebuilding historic facades to add to the integrity of the streetscape, they fill the space in between the heritage facades with nondescript modern boxes.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Maldive

23 Toronto Street | 299.04m | 91s | Goband Investment | SvN l Approval Recommended

This is now Recommended for Approval just a metre shy of a super-tall.

UT

UT

Too bad we can't just fix up 25 Toronto Street. At the very least can they restore it and get rid of the tacky stucco? I took the liberty of restoring the facade, and I threw in the 15 Toronto St proposal in the background.

25_Toronto_Street by Andrew Moore, on Flickr

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by someone123

Does any Canadian city have a system of heritage preservation that includes transferable development rights like NYC? They seem to align economic incentives in a way that preserves this public good, while just about every other policy I see doesn't do this. There is a Canadian tendency to either do nothing or implement some kind of rule or subsidy.

The Spire condo built in the early 2000s in Toronto was approved using air rights. Today, there is no reason to purchase or sell air rights. The two things that make it highly profitable in Manhattan are strict heritage alteration rules and capped residential densities. 10 times residential coverage was it for the longest time (I think it has been loosened a bit) By contrast, Toronto approved a 95 storey tower end of last year with a 65 times coverage and just about any heritage building owner can apply for a 60 storey plopped on top with a good chance of a revised version getting approved.

Planning in Manhattan considered a height limit redundant with only 10 times lot coverage for the deep lots on West 57th. Some will call it a resounding success. Others will say they miscalculated. There's not enough on site densities to build tall supertalls and heritage building owners with unbuilt densities under the maximum cannot do anything with it as tearing down or adding floors is flat out not allowed.

These billionaire row supertalls are a mess with the worst layout imaginable and all sorts of functional issues due to their extreme forms. I can still see them retaining status even if they become completely uninhabited. It's not like the majority of units were purchased as primary residences.

IMHO, that's how you build a neighbourhood. Every lot has as of right density to use or sell with few opportunities to grow it through rezoning. Not this by the lot zoning that establishes a new base policy and new neighbourhood density for every surrounding lot to push that new precedence even higher. It can only lead to overcrowding and overtaxed amenities.

[Tone]

Rimouski - Le Phare - approved



https://journallesoir.ca/2026/04/20/le-phare-feu-vert-des-elus-de-rimouski-a-8-contre-3/

[koops65]

23 Toronto Street - now 300 metres (as per the architectural plans), 91 floors, proposed:

In HD
[IMG][/IMG]

It's now a supertall.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Tone

Rimouski - Le Phare - approved



https://journallesoir.ca/2026/04/20/le-phare-feu-vert-des-elus-de-rimouski-a-8-contre-3/

[zoomer]

Way to go Rimouski - has there been a better new residential proposal for a 50,000-ish city the past decade? Heck its gotta be up there for cities as big as 200,000.

I really like how the Quebec proposal makes full use of the elevation changes and how it enhances the end result, very cool.

[MolsonExport]

very nice catch for Rimouski. What a great setting for a city too.

[Maldive]

164-168 Isabella Street | 244.16m | 70s | Elysium | Studio JCI l pre-construction

This one grew a bit in a resubmission. 648 rental units so this could move forward despite the condo bust.


UT

UT