Look carefully, you guys, before you diss this. This revised proposal is better city-building than what we were presented with before. Far better. I'm hoping this passes, as is.

And the compromise was predictable, to be totally frank about it -- two towers better spaced rather than three practically abutting each other. The three towers presented a wall that was in total a little bit cumbersome. This revision is much more airy.

I didn't like everything about the prior proposal. It wasn't about losing the history in this instance. It had more to do with what was going on at sidewalk level. This is much better. And the skyscraper design evolution was also predictable, keeping in mind Gehry's masterpiece in Manhattan.

And I love the 92 storeys.
Without renderings, just based on pictures of the physical model, I find this revision to be considerably more drab than the original. But with that said...I just want to express how grateful I am that there is still some form of life to this project. It could still happen.

And the theatre gets saved!!
And the compromise was predictable, to be totally frank about it -- two towers better spaced rather than three practically abutting each other. The three towers presented a wall that was in total a little bit cumbersome. This revision is much more airy.

I love the new plan.

While I was a big fan of the original three towers, it was more from the point of a "wow" factor. Places like Abu Dhabi and Shanghai have some serious wow factor stuff too, but I'm not sure how well it all ages or how good it feels at street level. To me, this looks much more like something we'd see built in Chicago or NYC - which I view as positive. Also, I think we'd be pretty damn thrilled if this was the first iteration that we'd ever seen.

And we keep the heritage buildings ( retaining a liveable-feeling streetscape trumps a giant art project imo )! The CN Tower is a great example of this. An amazing wonderful landmark - but a pile of shit to hang out at, at the base. The original iteration felt like a CN Tower to me. It would have been an amazing landmark, but lacking as far as being a place you'd want to hang out at near street level.

That all said, I'm just an average guy with no architectural or design background. But I'm pretty happy with how this all turned out =)
Though I love the original plan, I was happily surprised by this! City/developer compromises almost always result in NIMBY-tecture, but these towers look pretty good. Two taller towers is far better than three butchered ones.

Finally, Toronto's first super tall!!!
Not unhappy about this outcome - though the architectural details need to be articulated more to get a sense of what the final product will be. If the podium turned out to be a more transparent version of IAC, then it might not be such a bad thing afterall.

That, and let's keep in mind that one can still build atop 322 King St W in the future, in a less aggressive manner (think 7 St. Thomas) even if it isn't included in the current scheme.

Since the probability of the project actually getting built has now increased so much, it is worth noting how much the balance of the city's skyline appears to be shifting westward. For four decades, the skyline rose to a peak at FCP or the earlier bank towers. Now the peak would be at Mirvish + Gehry or quite possibly at whatever gets built at the Oxford site. (It is too valuable not be developed, perhaps in the next cycle.) Nor is the peak merely the (now) pair of M + G towers. There are shoulders. Shangri La and the Ritz Carlton are already built at over 200m and 300 Front W, as unpopular as it may be here, is topped out. Then there are the proposed office towers at 156 Front Street and the Union Centre. It represents a major change in the "shape" of the city, IMO.
This is the definition of bitter-sweet. I'm deeply mourning the loss of a spectacular Frank Gehry construction in Toronto but ecstatic that a Gehry will now most likely be built in my neighbourhood.

My negative feelings dominant however. This is so Toronto — a derogatory statement. We're getting another AGO. A Gehry, but not quite a Gehry. It's beautiful inside and in its details but you walk around it and you don't quite get the true experience that you would get in Bilbao or LA. Toronto loses again because our city doesn't take risks and doesn't dare to dream big.

It's clear Mirvish had to tone down the expensive engineering required of all those Gehryesque slopes on the towers and the podium because two towers bring in roughly one third less of the originally projected revenue.

This is most likely our last chance at getting a true Frank Gehry on a blank slate. I fear that we missed it. Some hope remains since this was put together quickly to get approval and maybe Gehry will be able to bring out more daring lines once he begins working in depth with his new canvas and limitations.

Don't forget the office component at the Well at Front and Spadina will be anchor the new western edge of the CBD - and MTCC redevelopment will be the big megaproject bidding its' time.


I am not sure if we can't call it not quite a Gehry - the cross section of the tower suggest 8 Spruce.

Personally, one change that I do like is that the towers looks lighter than before.

Last edited:
Honestly, I highly doubt those undulating forms and irregular edges would have performed well in the winter with ice build up.

Yes, I think this – plus the fact that the building would be run by a condo board that would need to pay for maintenance – would have led to a drastic "cheapening" of the original design anyway. So we would have still had the destruction of all the heritage buildings, and that 'wall' effect of the three towers, but a far more conservative final version than what was proposed. Over all I'm happy with this new one.
I far prefer a coherent design taking into account the local context than a context-less spectacle. I also wondered how the first towers would perform and be maintained over time through cold winters.. never really seemed to be more than a fantasy.