Condos are getting taller and taller, and we’re not too far off from the city’s first 100-storey condominium.
Let’s take a look at the five tallest condo towers, both existing, and proposed…
Every time a condominium is built in downtown Toronto, the developer of the condo next door asks the city for approval on 2-3 floors higher.
I don’t work at City Hall, so I don’t know the ins and outs of zoning rules, or what the official plan is (I have to believe that there is no plan, and never has been…), but it seems to me that developers run this city now, not city councillors. Some of the proposals for condominiums are utterly ridiculous, as you’ll see in tomorrow’s PART II of this blog post under the “Proposed” section.
But first, let’s take a look at the five tallest EXISTING condos in the central core of Toronto.
#1 – Aura at College Park – 78 Storeys
444 Yonge Street
This one comes with an asterisk, since the condo is almost finished, but this goes well beyond the “proposed” state, as some of the other proposed condos, which in my opinion, may never be built.
“Aura At College Park” as it’s known is built right behind “Residences of College Park,” which at 761 and 763 Bay Street, are 45 and 51 storeys respectively. I remember when these towers were built, we all heard rumors of a “monster” condo being built on the land right behind, and I, for one, doubted that some whopping 70-storey tower would ever get approval.
I stand corrected, as Aura is almost complete, and to be honest – it’s a showstopper.
Aura is a landmark, no doubt.
The developer, Candarel Stoneridge, had previously been known for DNA in King West, the Massey Harris Lofts, the Waterford Club in the Mimico area, and of course – the aforementioned Residences of College Park. But to pull off a 78-storey monster, I have to hand it to them – they broke new heights here.
Aura is a beauty, and it’s also home to Bed, Bath, & Beyond. Oh – and last year I went waaaaaaaaaaay Beyond when I bought myself a fogless shower mirror so I can shave in the shower every morning!
#2 – Shangri-La Hotel & Residences – 65 Storeys
180 University Avenue
You’d have to figure that the hotel/condo buildings would make a big impact on this list. Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons place 6th and 7th respectively and won’t make the top-5, but four of the top seven buildings are hotel/condos.
65-storeys tall, and an unbelievable EIGHT levels below ground! No wonder it took so long for them to build this gem.
The developers – Westbank Projects Corp and Peterson Investment Group Inc., have really only ever worked in British Columbia, but after pulling off a 61-storey version of “Shangri-La” in BC, I guess it was time to take Toronto.
360 condominium units and 202 hotel units.
And I’ve been in the hotel units. It took five of us morons, twenty minutes, to figure out how to open the window…
#3 – Trump International Hotel & Condo Tower – 57 Storeys
325 Bay Street
There’s a bit of a discrepancy on this one.
I’ve seen it listed several times as 57-storeys, but www.urbandb.com, which is my go-to for anything-condo, has it listed as 60-storeys.
In any event, it places 3rd on this list, and that can’t be the norm for The Donald.
Have you ever watched his show?
I’m actually proud to say that I’ve never watched a single, solitary minute of “The Apprentice,” and yet it’s spawned 13 seasons, in multiple countries.
Every time I drive east along Adelaide Street and pass this ugly building with no balconies or terraces, I can’t help but notice that there’s a Bentley, Ferrari, or Rolls Royce parked in the valet parking area. One of two things is going on here:
1) Trump Towers attracts a demographic that drives Bentleys, Ferraris, and Rolls Royces, and they need them kept above ground for easy access.
2) Trump Towers rents/owns luxury cars and places them in the driveway to try and convince people that the building is high-class, and that people should pay $1,800/sqft for condos, or pay $500/night to stay in a room that could be rented down the block for 20% of the price.
#4 – Success Tower – 55 Storeys
18 Harbor Street
“Harbour” or “Harbor”?
I dunno.
Either way, I don’t really care for this building.
Have you ever heard of “The Concrete Jungle?”
It’s a term that collectively refers to 10 Queen’s Quay, 10 Yonge Street, 12 Yonge Street, 16 Yonge Street, 18 Yonge Street, and now – 18 Harbour Street.
Residents of 18 Harbour Street, or even 18 Harbor Street, will argue, “No, no – our building isn’t part of the Concrete Jungle. It’s totally different!”
But I ask, “How, exactly?”
The Concrete Jungle is basically Yonge Street’s “CityPlace,” whereby a glut of boring towers, built closely together, stands out like a sore thumb and doesn’t have much more to offer than the average condo. I will say, in the Concrete Jungle’s defence, that these towers are walking distance to the Financial Core of Toronto, and a stone’s throw from Union Station. But in the real estate circles, they still get a pretty bad rap. You want to rent here, but you don’t want to buy here.
Success Tower isn’t any more special than Pinnacle Centre at 18 Yonge Street, in my opinion, other than the fact that the building is newer, and you have the privilege of paying MORE for your unit! Oh – and there’s only like four, maybe five other condos being built within spitting distance…
#5 – Quantum (North Tower) – 54 Storeys
2191 Yonge Street
If you’re a resident of the “Davisville Village” area, please let me know the background on this tower.
Well, as an aside, “Davisville Village” is a name for this area, that was invented by real estate agents, to try and increase prices and panache of the neighbourhood, which was successful. But whether you call this North Toronto, Davisville Village, or Yonge/Eglinton, I’m dying to hear some stories about what it was like to fight this development.
The fight lasted a half-decade, from what I understand.
The residents of the Yonge/Eglinton area did NOT want these two towers – measuring 39 and 53 storeys respectively, built on the Yonge Street strip.
If you’re standing on Mount Pleasant Avenue facing north – you can see these towers, from anywhere.
Come to think of it, you can probably see them from Bayview.
Eventually, the residents lost, as is common in any dispute when the City of Toronto is looking at an increased tax base and probably kick-backs from developers (did I just say that?), and the two towers went up, over the space of three full years.
Yonge & Eglinton is the centre of Midtown Toronto, and I honestly don’t think these towers look out of place.
Plus, there’s a wicked Keg in the base of the north tower, and I get a French onion soup and peppercorn steak about six times per year with my fiancee’s grandparents, so “sorry” to the residents of Yonge/Eglinton, but SERIOUSLY – how good is that French onion soup?
.
Stay tuned – tomorrow we’ll look at the Top 5 Tallest Condos in Toronto – PROPOSED edition…
Geoff
at 9:01 am
I’m a huge fan of the y-e area (and in fact want to move there once I can afford a house there) and always thought these condos were a great idea. What people forget when they think about a neighbourhood is that the very stores they like – the bars, the pubs, the cool little bookstores, etc – need customers everyday to support them. So adding some population density is a great idea, and the towers themselves are pretty nice looking (ie not the trumpdump towers).
Joe Q.
at 9:22 am
The Minto Towers (Yonge and Eglinton) are the reason why Karen Stintz is now a city councillor. She ran and won on a pledge to oppose their construction, defeating a long-serving Metro and Toronto councillor in the process. The two-fold irony is that (a) the towers are actually not in her ward (they are in Josh Matlow’s — formerly Michael Walker’s) and (b) of course, the towers were built anyway.
I lived in the area while the towers were going up, and for a little while after they were completed. I agree that density helps support the local businesses, but the area was a “destination” already (and had a number of high-rises) before the towers were built. I can’t comment on the inside, but I will say that the streetscape on section of Yonge between Eglinton and Soudan doesn’t mesh well with the stretches to its north and south (this not just the fault of the towers).
Julie
at 10:26 am
I’m a homeowner in the northwest quadrant of Yonge and Eg. I actually like the Minto Towers. My concern is not so much with the towers, but with the precedent they set. I don’t want the whole look and feel of the neighbourhood to change. Also, it’s one thing to put up a tower on Yonge, but now they’re starting to pop up further into the neighbourhood, like the Neon building going up at the corner of Duplex and there’s another one on Duplex in Chaplin Estates. How long will it be before condo towers take over the Green P parking on Castlefield, maybe the church at Duplex and Lytton or the one at Duplex and St. Clements, etc. So, it’s not the one or two towers that are the issue, it’s just that this city doesn’t seem to know when enough is enough!! It has no sense of history whatsoever. Some city neighbourhoods (such as Avenue and Lawrence) are now completely unrecognizable and even beautiful old Forest Hill mansions are now common teardowns. I’m all for progress, but it would be nice if those making these development decisions had both more of an eye to the past and to the future rather than just the RIGHT NOW!
Phil
at 12:06 pm
tall condos are good areas near our limited subway stations. They provide plenty of residential units at more affordable prices to people to want to live close to rapid transit. For example, A 50 storey tower can accomodate 1,000 people, but the same lot can accomodate 3 houses and many 12 people?
I don’t think anywhere within 10 minute radius from a subway station should have any low rises buildings/single family houses. A subway station should be sourrounded by midrise or high rises condos offering quick access to rapid transit for 500+ people, instead of 40 people living near it.
Those who live near the subway line and oppose condos are just being selfish to be honest. They want the neighbourhood to remain to same to themselves so that the same convient lifestyle won’t be shared by outsiders. It is never about neighbourhood character or history. It is all about “this priviledge is mine and I don’t want high density so that it is shared by more people”.
ditto
at 11:05 pm
or you could build more subways!! increase the supply of land near subways and increase accessibility to public transportation(…but of course, that would be detrimental to the rapid rise in value of land near current subway stations, hmmm…)
we know the demand is there!
Eric
at 2:01 pm
What a ridiculous absolutism. “It is all about “this priviledge is mine and I don’t want high density so that it is shared by more people”.” I seriously doubt the credibility to this statement. Rarely are absolutes true.
Also, what a weird landscape Toronto would have if there were only high rises within a ten minute radius of every single subway station. Talk about city planning…
Graham
at 12:52 pm
David, my man, you need to read up on the Ontario Municipal Board and its role in Toronto planning and politics.
In all the free time I know you have, check out “Planning Politics in Toronto: The Ontario Municipal Board and Urban Development”. It’s a new contribution to the literature.
David Fleming
at 1:47 pm
Is this sarcasm?
BillyO
at 1:58 pm
It’s actually not. I don’t know how many people really understand how much the OMB has sided with developers
Graham
at 2:46 pm
Correct, it is not.
Without revisiting old posts and if my memory isn’t failing me, you sometimes make remarks about development and planning in Toronto with no mention of the Ontario Municipal Board and its role as an appeal and final (besides rare appeals to the Court) decision-making body on development applications.
The OMB’s role in planning/development is a complex issue (some would say mess). I truly recommend you check it out in more detail.
The free time quip was sarcasm. Are you being sarcastic, dude? I don’t even know any more.
David Fleming
at 3:54 pm
Ah I see.
You’re right – my knowledge of the OMB needs sprucing up. I often blame City Hall, city councillors, etc, when in fact it’s a different wing of governemnt that is to blame – IF we are blaming.
But I guess I paint them all with the same brush. These are our elected officials, who are here to serve US – the tax-paying citizens of this great city, and yet these officials don’t get anything done, don’t agree on anything, and don’t put forth any real suggestions as most of them are worried about re-election.
The city is run by developers, as you pointed out with the OMB.
And our elected officials have no plan, and no vision for the future.
Imagine if that ridiculous Mirvish project on King Street was approved??? Three 80++ storey towers? That would just go to show that nobody is looking out for the future of our city.
As for the book, I just bought a copy online, and read it on my Honemoon in July. Anybody else want to join me? (reading the book, I mean…..not join me on the honeymoon):
http://www.utppublishing.com/Planning-Politics-in-Toronto-The-Ontario-Municipal-Board-and-Urban-Development.html
Joe Q.
at 4:18 pm
The difference, David, is that while City Councillors are directly accountable to citizens (we can vote them out, as Eglinton-Lawrence residents did to Anne Johnston over the Minto Towers dispute), the OMB members are appointed by the Provincial cabinet. We can’t vote for or against them, but they wield a lot of power.
Julia
at 1:03 pm
Adding condos to the landscape, as the city grows, is a great idea. However, the current makeup of the area has to be taken into consideration. Whether a building is 20, 30, 40 or 50 storeys high – it’s really in great part about lining the developers (and the city’s) pockets. For instance, while I may not think that the condos at Rosewell and Lawrence or the ones at Avenue and Fairlawn are particularly eye catching, I’m glad that the city capped the height at, what is it, 7-8 storeys – rather than putting up 40-50 storey buildings which would have been totally out of whack with the area. It’s one thing to line major commercial arteries with high rise buildings, it’s another to stick them into primarily residential areas. Also, having lived in New York, we were used to high rise living. We simply could not find a family friendly condo building in Toronto in any of the neighbourhoods that interested us – most condos seem to be the size of a shoebox and not intended for families. In the end, it cost us less to buy a 1800 sq. ft. house in our neighbourhood than a 1800 sq. ft. condo! I think Toronto could look to Chicago as to how to add density and modernize. Look at their waterfront or take an architectural tour of either city… I think they’ve got a much better grasp on urban planning that we do here.
ditto
at 10:58 pm
Ditto.
Chicago, New York, Boston, etc. take your pick!
Planning starts with infrastructure such as roads, highways, parks and public transit, not individually, but rather as an integrated solution working in harmony with each other. You can’t solve one issue on its own without taking the others into consideration. You can’t have the OMB ‘planning’ development without a plan for the bigger picture.
BillyO
at 1:55 pm
David, a few points.
You really need to get familiarized with UrbanToronto. They are THE go to source for all things condo, urbandb is just scratching the surface (and in some cases wrong). Also, the fact that you think Aura is a stunner would give most folks on UT a good laugh (other than the monstrous height, the building has been roundly panned as a dud).
Also, if you included Aura, then you have to include ICE I (which will be in occupancy by then end of this year) at 57 stories (202 meters), and even ICE II (be done around the same time as Aura) which comes in at 234 meters over 67 stories. I can see leaving One Bloor off since it’s not at ground level just yet, but it’s definitely happening and will be huge at 75 stories (257m).
Still though, if we are talking tallest, your list is not exactly correct. Yes in terms of floors you’ve got it right, but in terms of actual height, the list goes:
Trump (roof height is 252m but spire makes it 281m)
Aura (273m)
S-L (218m)
Ritz (210m)
Seasons (204m)
Also, both Maple Leaf Sq towers, 1 King West, Burano, College Park, Quantum 2 are all technically taller than Success Tower. Again not to nitpic, but First Canadian Place is ‘only’ 57 stories (seems way smaller than Aura, and only a few more stories than Success) yet is a massive 298m (tallest ‘building’ in TO since CN Tower is not considered a building). So yeah floor count sucks when it comes to height.
Looking forward to tomorrow’s proposal post 🙂
David Fleming
at 3:59 pm
@ BillyO
Define “stunner.”
I mean it’s a massive structure, that sticks out, and gets noticed. Are the units “stunning?” No. But the building height is pretty impressive.
I toyed with looking at the actual heigh in metres, but that’s somewhat boring, as most people can relate to the number of storeys. You go home at night, and press “18” for your floor; not “54.86” for metres. I just figured it as an easier way for people to follow the post. You’re right though – if each floor is 9-feet, instead of 8-feet, then it adds up pretty quickly.
One Bloor will be in my “proposed” section tomorrow. I know it’s beyond proposed, but you never can tell how big a condo is going to be, until it’s built. The re-designs are constant when it comes to condominiums…
In any event, thanks for all the research that went into this! Much appreciated!
johnny chase
at 5:39 pm
First Canadian Place is 72 Stories.
AsianSensation
at 2:26 pm
No love for the garlic mashed??? Infidel!!!
George
at 10:23 pm
Too expensive and/or too small. That is my reaction to almost every unit in the oversized condo buildings of our city. Then again, I am clearly not the target market for these developers since I actually live in Canada.
ditto
at 11:16 pm
Dit.to.
Haven’t done the research but heard that a few years back Australia was having issues with foreign investors buying massive amounts of real estate AND the government did something about it! Amongst some things they capped the % of units in a condo owned by foreigners to 49%. Why can’t our government DO something about our real estate issues?? oh yeah, too many self interests…
Jim Flaherty are you reading this??
Frances
at 8:51 pm
Davisville really was a village once upon a time although that was quite a long time ago. That building on the northeast corner was built in that era and, I believe, was the village store. I was in grade 8 at the old village school, now replaced by a no longer very new school. I don’t know what the actual extent of the village was but, by definition, a village isn’t very large.
Ben @ TLR
at 6:58 pm
Aura at College Park is a stunning tower. The top floor penthouse is selling for $18-million and is 11,370 sqft!
At Toronto Luxury Rentals we specialize in high-end, luxurious accommodations for rent. Check us out online at Torontoluxuryrentals.com!
Tony n.
at 11:08 am
Just love the AURA building, you can have the rest, you can see it clearly at night from 4 vantage points around the city, beautiful.