3.24.24

IMG_6126.jpeg
 
EBT said:
In retrospect, the fatal decision made on this project was to have a column-free triple-height first-floor retail space to accommodate an Apple store. The complexities of building a super-tall tower over a column-free first floor probably doubled the cost of the tower and quadrupled the timeline and for what? In the end, Apple abandoned the project. Who is going to go into that first-floor retail space? A bank (TD?)? McDonalds? Shoppers Drug Mart? Winners? Dollarama? Who? Not only did this requirement add to the complexity and cost of the tower it also drastically reduced the attractiveness and convenience of the tower for potential condo owners who by necessity have to take an elevator up to a sky lobby to transfer to another bank of elevators up to their condo. No possibility of a private elevator for buyers of Penthouses costing over $20 million! If you could afford $20 million for a condo (or home), would you buy into a project like this?
Click to expand...
Some industry sources claim that Apple is still a possibility. It’s not over yet on that front.
 
Would they have to submit new permits to scrap the crown in favor of a cheaper flat roof/mechanical (at 328 m) , and therefore be able to squeeze in more floors of small mid-market investor boxes?

To me , this would make the more economic sense than capping at 306m, although I hope it's still 328 m and retaining the crown.
 
xy3 said:
Would they have to submit new permits to scrap the crown in favor of a cheaper flat roof/mechanical (at 328 m) , and therefore be able to squeeze in more floors of small mid-market investor boxes?

To me , this would make the more economic sense than capping at 306m, although I hope it's still 328 m and retaining the crown.
Click to expand...
The crown is what I like most about this building it's very unique I would rather have the crown than the extra floors
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top