From the patio next door:
IMG_3923.jpeg

IMG_3924.jpeg

Fun fact for those unaware, the building in the foreground is having its walls knocked out and combining the floor space of the upper two office floors with this new tower.
 
Last edited:
It really should be illegal to misrepresent the context of your development in sales renderings like this, it feels like false advertising. This large plaza at Richmond and George they've mocked up in this rendering straight up does not and cannot exist. The neighbouring building of 112 and 116 George occupies the entire block and basically goes up to the intersection.

It's so misleading to show this to buyers and imply that their building will be located right across from this beautiful plaza when it doesn't exist. It also implies there's much more space between the new tower and existing developments than there is in reality.

This is such a common practice in this city and it should be illegal. The Nobu tower is another egregious example, I've included renderings versus reality below.

Pictures of this development added for comparison.
Screenshot 2025-06-28 at 1.31.10 PM.png


Building_Img1_2x-1.jpg


Nobu rendering shows wide streets and wide sidewalks/plaza:
15117-81645.jpeg


Nobu reality, a tiny sidewalk and a street that is essentially and alleyway:
Screenshot 2025-06-28 at 1.35.11 PM.png
 
...the ole adage of not relying renders, sexed up, exaggerated or otherwise as the final product comes into play here. Instead, one should focus on what the plans are submitted to The City and any revisions and variances thereof to get a better idea what's going to end up here and there.

This is not to justify the sometimes dodgy and disingenuous ways they are trying to market these. Rather just pointing the legal discourse in presenting renders as "visions" as opposed to actuals in the plausible denials. /sigh
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...the ole adage of not relying renders, sexed up, exaggerated or otherwise as the final product comes into play here. Instead, one should focus on what the plans are submitted to The City and any revisions and variances thereof to get a better idea what's going to end up here and there.

This is not to justify the sometimes dodgy and disingenuous ways they are trying to market these. Rather just pointing the legal discourse in presenting renders as "visions" as opposed to actuals in the plausible denials. /sigh
Click to expand...
I totally understand that. It's just unfortunate that one needs to rely on official city planning documents rather than the marketing materials. I'm assuming that 99% of buyers aren't looking at plans submitted to the city and instead take the developer at their word.
 
ComptoirGeneral said:
I totally understand that. It's just unfortunate that one needs to rely on official city planning documents rather than the marketing materials. I'm assuming that 99% of buyers aren't looking at plans submitted to the city and instead take the developer at their word.
Click to expand...
I can't account for that percentage, but I wouldn't be surprised that most do that. Buyer beware is such a lacking value in our civics. >.<
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top