Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 29 September 2014
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 45 Bay Street; 141 Bay St
- Ward
- Ward 10 · Ausma Malik
- Submitted
- 29 September 2014
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 14 209662 STE 28 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property.
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
Ivanhoe Cambridge · registration SM22431
45 Bay Street Site Plan Application, 141 Bay Street Rezoning, Combined Imagination, Manufacturing, Technology (IMIT) Incentive Program application.
Evidence High confidence · score 0.92
A model scored this link 0.9 or higher out of 1. Links are not checked by a person; links scored this high are usually right but can be wrong.
Source records
- Registration SM22431: 45 Bay Street Site Plan Application, 141 Bay Street Rezoning, Combined Imagination, Manufacturing, Technology (IMIT) Incentive Program application. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA at 45 Bay St: Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 45 Bay Street Site Plan Application, 141 Bay Street Rezoning, Combined Imagination, Manufacturing, Technology (IMIT) Incentive Progra…
Matched fields
- address
- 45 BAY ST
- application_address
- 45 BAY ST
Ivanhoe Cambridge · registration SM21032
45 Bay Street, 141 Bay Street rezoning, site plan and minor variance applications.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.82
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM21032: 45 Bay Street, 141 Bay Street rezoning, site plan and minor variance applications. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA at 45 Bay St: Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 45 Bay Street, 141 Bay Street rezoning, site plan and minor variance applications.
Matched fields
- address
- 45 BAY ST
- application_address
- 45 BAY ST
Ivanhoe Cambridge · registration SM20662
Site plan approval of 45 Bay Street Project
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.87
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM20662: Site plan approval of 45 Bay Street Project (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA at 45 Bay St: Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: Site plan approval of 45 Bay Street Project
Matched fields
- address
- 45 BAY ST
- application_address
- 45 BAY ST
Ivanhoe Cambridge · registration SM20452
45 and 141 Bay Street proposed development application.
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.88
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM20452: 45 and 141 Bay Street proposed development application. (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 14 229173 STE 28 SA at 45 Bay St: Site Plan Approval application for the development of an office tower on 45 Bay Street, a bus terminal integrated into the podium of the tower, an open space area over a portion of the rail corridor and an access to the open space from the north side of the rail corridor on the 141 Bay St property. (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 45 and 141 Bay Street proposed development application.
Matched fields
- address
- 141 BAY ST
- application_address
- 141 BAY ST
Lobbying on linked registrations
4 linked registrations · 18 communications · 18 meetings · 5 offices contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 5 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale | Member of council | 11 | 11 | 21 September 2016 |
| Ward 37 Scarborough Centre | Member of council | 3 | 3 | 16 November 2015 |
| City Councillor, Pam McConnell, Ward 28 | Councillor staff | 2 | 2 | 1 September 2017 |
| Chief of staff, Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 19 April 2016 |
| Office of councillor Ward 28 | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 1 September 2017 |
Consultant firms
Linked registrationsOther registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- 141 Bay Street ULCSM25419 · 11 December 2017 · “141 Bay Street”
- 141 Bay Street ULCSM25422 · 11 December 2017 · “141 Bay Street”
- 141 Bay Street ULCSM25427 · 11 December 2017 · “141 Bay Street”
- Ivanhoe CambridgeSM22961 · 1 April 2016 · “141 Bay Street”
- Ivanhoe CambridgeSM22961 · 1 April 2016 · “45 Bay Street”
- Ivanhoe CambridgeSM22507 · 16 November 2015 · “141 Bay Street”
- Ivanhoe CambridgeSM22507 · 16 November 2015 · “45 Bay Street”
- Ivanhoe CambridgeSM22393 · 29 October 2015 · “141 Bay Street”
Comparison with similar applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 10
66 lobbied · 165 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 66 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 3% | 0.05 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 165 | — | 100% (n=11) | 0% | 2% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.