I read the Toronto Star article about the height being capped at 85 floors. Hopefully, this will be reversed since as we all know they have approvals to go to 91 floors. Why go to all that trouble (and expense) of getting approvals to go to 91 floors which will provide a higher return on investment only to cap the tower at 85 floors? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Heck, why not just say to the new developer "Build as many floors as you wish to recoup your investment"? Doesn't that make sense?
It seems to me City Hall could intervene to make possible completion of this tower at 91 floors.
No doubt major commitments were made by Mizrahi worth many millions of dollars as a concession for the increased height. The city could say to the new developer that they will rescind these requirements (extorsion payments)
if they complete the tower at 91 floors. Of course, this won't happen because the politicians want to maintain the ability to extort millions from developers for their pet projects which only serve to drive up the price of housing in an already unaffordable environment. Don't condo owners already pay enough in property taxes on the inflated price of their homes?
Unless of course they think they can’t sell the extra units.
This is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen on this forum. Doesn't warrant explanation.Today, I read an article in the Toronto Star... The One has $1.9 B in hole! It does not look good. I think it's very slow to build up because they have to pay the pick up for more crane additional to make it higher, pay to the deliveries, pay to the policemen to control the street, pay to employers, pay to the workers, pay supplies of electricians, etc etc etc. $.1.9 would be paid off in 50 years who knows? Blame on the city hall of Toronto to approve in the first the place, did they?
...and I thought mine's where bad. >.<This is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen on this forum. Doesn't warrant explanation.
For good or bad, this article is not the first to be saying that regarding the height change. But the two things I gleamed off of said article that maybe at play here: First that there was an indication of significant numbers of buyers who got spooked and bailed over this, so they don't have as much of the monied clientele in the pocket as they did before the insolvency shite hit the fan with Mizrahi. And secondly, the extra floors may have fell upon an extended contract that hasn't fully been sussed out or agreed upon yet. Meaning, it could be subject to cutting with little on no penalties on the road to recuperation and "let's get it done with!", or something like that...
This is not to say any this is true or factual here, rather how I am reading it and for what that's worth. As well as to say, I hope this all incorrect and they still going with the 91 in the end floors. But I guess we shall see.
Truncates is also a poor term here, as the crown will remain unaffected regardless of what height the building is decided upon in the end. You can safely go with a tad shorter, but stubby or truncated it will most certainly not be.
Thank you because i am deaf person... that is my view of point! You need to respect!This is the most nonsensical comment I've ever seen on this forum. Doesn't warrant explanation.