Waterloo Region appears to have an extraordinary number of towers on the way. Depending on which projects are counted, the total can climb into the hundreds.
The most frequently cited public inventory identified at least 184 high-rise buildings that were proposed, approved or under construction across the region as of July 2023. Ninety-one were in Kitchener alone. The number is almost certainly different today: major proposals have been added, others have changed, and some projects have stalled or disappeared.
But 184 towers are not necessarily “coming.”
That figure combines buildings under construction with approved projects that may never obtain financing, active applications that council could reject, projects under appeal and early concepts that could be substantially redesigned. Waterloo Region’s three cities do not maintain a single, consistently updated public count of “towers,” and there is no universal definition of the word.
The most defensible answer is therefore:
Waterloo Region has more than 180 high-rises somewhere in its development pipeline, but only the buildings already under construction can be described as certain. Dozens more have planning approval, while a much larger group remains conditional, proposed or speculative.
The distinction matters. A council-approved rendering is not a construction schedule.
What counts as a tower?
For the purpose of this analysis, a tower means a building of approximately 12 storeys or more. That broadly captures the type of concrete or steel high-rise development changing the skylines of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, while excluding most mid-rise apartments.
Even that definition creates complications. Waterloo recently approved a 12-building project at 446 Albert St. in which the buildings would range from 11 to 26 storeys. Should the one 11-storey building be excluded while the other 11 count? A development may be described publicly as a “12-tower project” even though not every building meets the same technical high-rise threshold.
The Albert Street project alone is expected to contain more than 2,800 homes. Council reduced the plan from 13 towers to 12 and added a park block after concerns about the amount of open space. Only 48 of its units are planned with three bedrooms, while more than 2,100 would be one-bedroom homes. Three per cent—106 units—are identified as affordable, according to the reported details of Waterloo council’s approval.
In Kitchener, council has approved zoning for two towers of 51 and 57 storeys at 50 Borden Ave., representing more than 1,200 proposed homes. The approval includes a holding provision associated with water capacity. The developers still require additional work before construction can begin, meaning the towers are approved but not yet inevitable. CityNews reported the committee approval and servicing condition.
Those two decisions added 14 towers to the approved pipeline in a matter of days. They did not add 14 construction sites.
Four different versions of “coming”
The regional tower count is more meaningful when divided into four categories:
| Status | What it actually means | |---|---| | Under construction | The strongest evidence a tower is coming, although projects can still be delayed | | Approved or site-plan approved | Legally closer to construction, but financing, permits, servicing and market demand remain | | Proposed or under municipal review | The height, unit count and design can still change | | Appealed or before the Ontario Land Tribunal | The final outcome may be decided through a settlement or provincial tribunal ruling |
This is why the 184 figure should be treated as a measure of development ambition, not a construction forecast.
The region is carrying a large inventory of approved and proposed housing into an unusually difficult building market. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation expects total housing starts in Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo to fall in 2026. Weak pre-construction condominium sales are expected to be partly offset by purpose-built rental construction, but CMHC also identifies infrastructure capacity as a downside risk. Its 2026 housing outlook warns that condominium apartments face weaker absorption while rental projects are comparatively better positioned.
Water capacity has made the difference between approval and construction even more pronounced. A Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association survey of 12 member companies claimed more than 5,000 approved homes and over $500 million in investment had been held up by the Mannheim servicing constraint. That is an industry estimate rather than an independent government audit, but it demonstrates the scale developers say is affected. The association published its findings through its Reopen Waterloo Region campaign.
In other words, the region may have an enormous tower pipeline at the same time that relatively few new towers are able to start.
Preston’s 40-storey test
No current proposal better illustrates the uncertainty than the high-rise application at 210, 218 and 226 King St. E. and 229 Queenston Rd. in Preston.
ABS Space Investments Corp. applied to build a 40-storey, 129-metre mixed-use building containing 475 residential units and 150 square metres of commercial space. It would have a six-storey podium containing parking, with a 34-storey residential tower above it. The application proposes 182 vehicle spaces and would demolish every existing building on the property.
If constructed as submitted, it would become the tallest built or approved building in Cambridge. The approved Cambridge Mill project contains towers of 37 and 28 storeys, while the completed Gaslight District towers are each 20 storeys. CambridgeToday compared the proposed building with the city’s existing and approved high-rises.
The site is beside the anticipated extension of ION light rail into Cambridge. A future platform would cross part of the property, making it precisely the kind of transit-oriented location where provincial and municipal policies generally direct greater density.
That explains why 40 storeys is not an entirely random number. It does not, however, answer whether 40 storeys is appropriate on this particular property.
Cambridge planning staff concluded that it was not.
Staff cited an inadequate transition to nearby low-rise development, concerns about height and massing, an incomplete transportation analysis and insufficient consideration of future regional infrastructure. They recommended that council permit no more than 16 storeys—less than half the requested height. The staff position and principal planning concerns were summarized ahead of council’s decision.
On July 21, council rejected the developer’s requested 40-storey amendments. It then declined to adopt the 16-storey staff compromise.
That does not necessarily end the proposal. The developer may revise its application or appeal council’s decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Until those options are exhausted, neither 40 nor 16 storeys can be treated as the final answer.
For the regional count, the Preston proposal remains one proposed tower—not one tower definitely coming.
Why council is split
The disagreement is not simply between people who support housing and people who oppose it. Several separate arguments have become entangled.
One side views the site as a logical place for major intensification. It is within a planned transit area, would provide 475 homes without consuming farmland and could place hundreds of residents within walking distance of Preston businesses and a future LRT station. Under that argument, a substantial reduction from 40 storeys risks undermining the city’s own transit-oriented growth strategy.
The other side argues that intensification does not make every height appropriate. Preston’s core is defined by a comparatively low historic main street, narrow blocks and nearby low-rise neighbourhoods. A six-storey parking podium topped by a 34-storey slab would not merely add density—it would introduce a building of regional scale into a much smaller urban setting.
Council’s division is also influenced by the history of the property.
The former Argyle Arms building at 210 King St. E. is a surviving 19th-century commercial structure. City heritage staff recommended designation, but council rejected it in a five-to-four vote before the 40-storey application became public. Mayor Jan Liggett and councillors Adam Cooper, Nicholas Ermeta and Ross Earnshaw supported designation. Councillors Corey Kimpson, Sheri Roberts, Helen Shwery, Scott Hamilton and Mike Devine opposed it.
After the tower proposal was disclosed, Cooper attempted to reopen the designation decision. The same five-to-four division held. Liggett said council and staff had not known the 40-storey application was coming when the original heritage vote occurred. Hamilton argued heritage designation should be based on the building’s merits, rather than used to prevent an unwanted future development. CambridgeToday documented the votes and councillors’ explanations.
That history has damaged trust around the application. To some residents and councillors, the proposal now represents the possible loss of historic Preston as much as it represents new housing.
What do Preston residents think?
The opposition heard at public meetings has focused heavily on traffic, neighbourhood character, height and the number of people being concentrated on a relatively small property.
Neighbouring property owner John McNie told council the project would effectively place more than 1,000 people in one building within a community dominated by much smaller structures. Other questions focused on congestion and whether the proposal’s traffic study adequately captured conditions in Preston. The applicant’s study predicted a negligible effect at four nearby intersections. CityNews reported the arguments raised by residents and councillors at the public meeting.
There is an important limitation: council delegations and letters to local media are not a representative opinion poll. They prove that organized and strongly held opposition exists, but they do not establish what most Preston residents believe.
Online responses have also included support for greater density, particularly because the property is near planned rapid transit. Some residents argue that rejecting the staff-supported 16-storey option could increase the likelihood of another costly tribunal dispute.
The honest conclusion is that Preston is divided, but there is not enough reliable public-opinion data to assign percentages to either side.
How tall is too tall?
Planning policy does not contain a scientifically correct height for Preston. Height is evaluated in relation to the width of the site, tower separation, setbacks, shadows, wind, street design, heritage, transportation and the transition to surrounding properties.
Council and staff have nevertheless produced a useful range.
The applicant says 40 storeys can be justified by the future transit station and the need for intensification. Staff determined 16 storeys was defensible on this site. Work on the broader Preston Secondary Plan has contemplated buildings reaching approximately 18 storeys in parts of the core.
That suggests the real disagreement is not over whether Preston will grow vertically. It is over whether the first generation of significant towers should remain in the mid-to-high teens or leap immediately to 40 storeys.
A 16- or 18-storey building would already transform this portion of King Street. Forty storeys would establish an entirely new scale for Cambridge.
The Preston Springs warning
Council’s decision carries an obvious legal and financial risk because Cambridge has been here before.
At the former Preston Springs Hotel property, council imposed limits on a proposed redevelopment despite a different recommendation from city staff. The Ontario Land Tribunal ultimately approved three towers of 22, 20 and 17 storeys. The property, now listed for sale, has development approvals but no guarantee of immediate construction.
CambridgeToday obtained records showing that the city spent $148,509 on outside legal and consulting costs for various tribunal disputes during 2024 and 2025. That figure did not include the final Preston Springs bill, which remained unresolved. The records also showed $44,632 in costs associated with a separate five-tower proposal at Hespeler Road and Langs Drive. The outlet’s freedom-of-information reporting details the cases and costs.
The lesson is not that the tribunal automatically approves every tall building. It is that council needs defensible planning evidence when it rejects staff advice. A political objection to height is not necessarily the same as a planning case capable of surviving an appeal.
Because council also rejected the 16-storey staff option, defending its position could require outside planners and lawyers rather than relying solely on municipal planning staff.
Is Cambridge changing faster than people think?
Physically, yes—even if population growth has recently slowed.
Cambridge’s population increased 6.6 per cent between the 2016 and 2021 censuses. The Region estimated the city’s population at 153,290 at the end of 2024, an increase of approximately 1,160 people over one year. Statistics Canada provides the census comparison, while the Region’s year-end estimate incorporates development and other adjustments.
Regional growth then nearly stopped in 2025, with an estimated increase of only 90 people. That short-term reversal was connected partly to changes in the number of international students and other temporary residents. It does not erase the longer-range development framework.
The Regional Official Plan requires Cambridge to accommodate at least 65 per cent of new housing between 2022 and 2051 within its existing built-up area—approximately 16,655 units. That makes substantially more apartment construction unavoidable unless governments change the target or permit much greater outward expansion. The official plan’s intensification table assigns even higher built-up-area targets to Waterloo and a larger absolute number of units to Kitchener.
Cambridge is therefore changing in two ways at once. Its historic centres are confronting high-rise proposals that would once have seemed improbable, while its politics and infrastructure remain organized around a much lower-rise city.
The skyline may change faster than the streets, water system, transit network and public consensus beneath it.
The final count
So, how many towers are actually coming to Waterloo Region?
More than 180 are proposed, approved or under construction in the broad public pipeline. That is the best available regional-scale estimate, but it is not a reliable prediction of what will be built.
Within that total:
- Buildings already under construction are the closest to certain.
- Dozens of approved towers still require some combination of servicing, permits, financing and sufficient market demand.
- Large multi-phase projects may take decades to complete.
- Proposed buildings can shrink, grow, be appealed or disappear.
- Early concepts and rumours should not be counted as future construction at all.
The Preston tower belongs in the uncertain category. Forty storeys has been proposed, 16 was recommended, and council accepted neither. What eventually rises there could be 40 storeys, something closer to the mid-teens—or nothing for years.
That uncertainty is not a footnote to Waterloo Region’s tower boom. It is the central fact.
Reporting note: The regional total is based on the best-known public high-rise inventory, which identified at least 184 proposed, approved and under-construction buildings in July 2023. Because the three cities do not publish a unified real-time tower register, the figure should be understood as a minimum pipeline estimate—not a verified construction forecast.