1 Bloor East, DEAD AND BURIED (Bazis, -2s, Varacalli)

[Build Up]

Believe it or not, there are many Harveys locations outside of downtown Toronto

I have seen others close, but I don't think it's disappearing by any means.

Your right so many places outside of toronto have harveys, i can think of alot of towns/ cities.......... but definitly not as much as mcdonalds

 

[adma]

And remember that with the eclipse of the drive-in, A&W nearly went extinct in Ontario in the 70s before coming back as more of a food court affair...

 

[Observer Walt]

Those condos were significant because they brought back the age-old tradition of blockbusting. Roy's square was like Toronto's Hutong.

Huh? I take it you weren't around during the bad old days of blockbusting. I'll miss Roy's Square, now and again, a little bit, maybe. But this high-profile corner was shabby shabby shabby, and I shed no tears when I saw the whole darn thing being demolished.

 

[Observer Walt]

Apparently 1 Bloor sent out a memo saying that the agreement of purchase and sale states the Condition Date for satisfying the economic viability was December 15, 2008 and now it has been changed to March 15, 2009.

Certainly sounds like there is trouble brewing in paradise. I don't know legal issues like this but wouldn't they have satisfied viability if they had sold enough units and had the funding in place already?

I don't think approvals have been obtained yet, and they are covering their butts "just in case". This seems to have the fingerprints of lawyers, not financial people, all over it.

 

[taal]

Well if it happened to Malibu as stated above maybe it's nothing to be concerned about. I'll reword that, I'm sure it's something to be concerned about but maybe it's something that can happen for a verity of reasons not necessarily implying the project is in jeopardy.

 

[Peepers]

This is nothing more than a standard escape clause to cover the "Enforceability of Condominium Purchase Agreements where Municipal Approval is Unavailable"


For more information refer to this website of a local law firm : http://www.robinsapplebyandtaub.com/newsart/LNC_2000_01.php4 .

Here is a complete quote:

QUOTE:

"Enforceability of Condominium Purchase Agreements where Municipal Approval is Unavailable

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the case of Dinicola v. Huang & Danczkay Properties (1998) 40 O.R. (3d) 252.
In this case, Huang & Danczkay were held liable for damages for failure to complete new condominium Agreements of Purchase and Sale, notwithstanding that the Municipality had passed an Interim Control By-law and indicated its intent to downzone the property, thereby preventing the development from proceeding. The developer alleged that these were unforeseen external circumstances that frustrated the contract and should have relieved it from any liability of the purchasers.
The purchasers took the position, which was supported both at trial and at appeal, that these circumstances had been envisaged under the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale, particularly in light of the fact that there was an escape clause in the Purchase Agreement which permitted Huang & Danczkay to terminate the Agreement without any liability in the event that Municipal approval for development was not obtained by a certain date. Huang & Danczkay waived this condition but then subsequently found itself in a war with the City over development philosophy for the entire Harbourfront property. The developer, however, could have used its rights under the Agreement and failed to do so within the permitted time frame.
The Court was therefore not prepared to accord the developer any additional rights to escape liabilities based on the doctrine of frustration. The Court also assessed damages as of the date of the intended possession. The Court could have used the extended possession date (the vendor having the right to extend possession dates under the Purchase Agreement) or the date of breach of the Agreement, i.e. failure to close on the original anticipated closing date, which have resulted in lower damages being assessed against the developer (due to a falling market). Unfortunately, the Court chose to use the earliest possible date, being the original proposed date of possession which resulted in significant damages of approximately $4,976,134.00 to the Purchasers who were parties to the action.


Recommendation

Most prudent condominium developers provide for an escape clause for both development approvals and economic viability. These clauses should normally contain a right to extend by the developer for at least one or two 6-month periods in order to provide the developer with maximum flexibility. Developers should ensure that their Agreements of Purchase and Sale contain such flexible clauses and that they rely upon same when choosing to firm up their Purchase Agreements.

UNQUOTE

So there is NO REASON FOR ALARM. The letter received by purchasers does not imply that the project is in any kind of financial jeopardy. The developer HAD to invoke this clause because the City is DRAGGING ITS FEET on the approvals process.

 

[khris]

Makes sense to me!

 

[cdr108]

This is nothing more than a standard escape clause to cover the "Enforceability of Condominium Purchase Agreements where Municipal Approval is Unavailable"


For more information refer to this website of a local law firm : http://www.robinsapplebyandtaub.com/newsart/LNC_2000_01.php4 .

So there is NO REASON FOR ALARM. The letter received by purchasers does not imply that the project is in any kind of financial jeopardy. The developer HAD to invoke this clause because the City is dragging its feet on the approvals process.

Thanks for the info Peepers.
Are you in the legal profession?

 

[Peepers]

Thanks for the info Peepers.
Are you in the legal profession?

No but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express tonight

 

[adma]

What makes it "Express"? Are the bellhops like this?

 

[yyzer]

So there is NO REASON FOR ALARM. The letter received by purchasers does not imply that the project is in any kind of financial jeopardy. The developer HAD to invoke this clause because the City is DRAGGING ITS FEET on the approvals process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that is comforting to know....but the city is 'fiddling' while Rome is burning all around it....someone needs to light a fire under these guys..

 

[Solaris]

This is nothing more than a standard escape clause to cover the "Enforceability of Condominium Purchase Agreements where Municipal Approval is Unavailable"

So there is NO REASON FOR ALARM. The letter received by purchasers does not imply that the project is in any kind of financial jeopardy. The developer HAD to invoke this clause because the City is DRAGGING ITS FEET on the approvals process.

I don't exactly agree that the City is exactly 'Dragging it feet' on the planning/building approval process ... like every other development it follows the same steps, I question why others get through within projected timeframes in the agreements of purchase and sales and 1BE doesn't

this explaination still doesn't answer why 1BE was not able to satisfy + waive the 'economic viability' condition ... what is outstanding exactly?? Bazis has given NO EXPLAINATIONS

for some reason, the response appears to come through as a Bazis defence statement to state that "it is not the developer's fault, go blame the City"....... which I question

 

[MisterF]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the city for "dragging its feet" on approvals. There might be Building Code or Development Agreement issues that the developer still hasn't resolved. When this happens developers routinely blame the city to make themselves look good to buyers. When a developer doesn't get permits as soon as they'd like there's usually a very good reason for it. Think about it - what does the city have to gain by dragging its feet?

 

[taal]

I don't exactly agree that the City is exactly 'Dragging it feet' on the planning/building approval process ... like every other development it follows the same steps, I question why others get through within projected timeframes in the agreements of purchase and sales and 1BE doesn't

this explaination still doesn't answer why 1BE was not able to satisfy + waive the 'economic viability' condition ... what is outstanding exactly?? Bazis has given NO EXPLAINATIONS

for some reason, the response appears to come through as a Bazis defence statement to state that "it is not the developer's fault, go blame the City"....... which I question

The fact that there was no explanation isn't surprising to me ... it's Bazis we're talking about. So in other words I wouldn't get to concerned about this.

Regarding the city dragging it's feet I can almost guarantee you it's 100% the opposite. Such aprovals do take quite a while to get - as someone pointed out around 1 year in the case of BA.

One thing not to forget everyone ... this whole project went to marketing - what 1 year ago, a little bit more. Considering the massive size of the project it must be one of the quickest time lines for any condo in history! Even if they don't start construction for 1 whole year it would still be amazing if you stop and think about it.

 

[philofra]

I have heard that the developer of 1 Bloor St. E. has walked away from the project.