News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2K     13 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.3K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 714     0 

Mode Lofts Condos (Cresford Developments) - Real Estate -

Some News....

Just spoke to someone at Cresford. I know, I actually got somebody on the phone. They told me now that they would have an answer by tomorrow morning about the status of the building. The City is giving them the final word on the plans. I was told that the top 3 floors were not approved by the city, meaning, they might not even be allowed to build the top 3 floors. This would make or break the building as I'm sure the pricing is based on 11 floors, not 8. What makes me angry is that these contingincies for approval were either not conveyed at the time of purchase or very cleveryly hidden in the purchase agreement. I'm so pissed.


At this point, I'd be willing to cough up more cash to get construction started, instead of paying market price for something else now. I bought almost 2 years ago and we all know prices have gone up substancially since.

I just hope they let us know soon and give us back our money so we can get in on something else before it's way too late. Looking at the avonshire at Yonge and 401, starting at $265K for 650 sq/ft, no parking, damn that's expensive!
 
I think this issue goes back to the set-backs for the higher floors. 455 Adelaide was approved with ten floors only with set-backs from the seventh floor up.

Actually, the whole issue with height is a little odd in this area. There are buildings in the planning stages for the north side of King which exceed ten storeys in height. Yet on Adelaide, proposals for the south side are restricted to eight floors. If the issue is sunlight, then why would buildings on north of King have to be lower than those on King?
 
That's true, doesn't make sense at all. So if it's just set backs, they still should be able to make a nice enough building and floorplan for the upper floors to charge a ridiculous amount of money for at going market prices right? If the building is too tall, I volunteer to give up a foot of my ceiling height, 9 feet ain't so bad, if the entire building did it, we could shave a floor off the height of the building. They should give us that option before cancelling the project if that's the case. How can we future tenants band together to get our city hall reps to approve plans and listen to our voices? If the guys on King street are fighting to keep our building from being built, how can fight back to get our building built? Should we drop a bag of cash off on King Street courtesy of Mode?
 
I think this issue will only become more common in the near future with all these developers selling units before getting planning approval. The reason why the north side of King st has a higher allowance for height is because it wouldn't cast a shadow onto the street. The reason they want the south side buildings lower is to allow the street to have some sunlight.
 
My friend who lives at Quad Lofts told me tonight that someone posted on their community board that they had talked to the City who indicated that that Mode is not being approved by the City's planners and the project file is dead. Still so unofficial and just rumour, but certainly more coming from the direction of cancellation.

If the developer does indeed send out the "Dear John" letters to purchasers, it would be interesting to get a hold of one, black out the personal bits and then post it to this board so that consumers can learn something out of this fiasco.
 
cabeman said:
... a bit of background here:

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl060421_#1014.pdf
Click to expand...

Great find! This ruling provided a variance of 34.6m height including a wrap-around penthouse. The developer was asking for 38.45m including the wrap-around. So, they got 4 m chopped off, aka about one storey. It looks like a compromise as the City wanted almost 10m less height in order to meet the existing bylaw.

The question remains, is one less storey enough to kill this project? Does anyone know what the original height proposed by Cresford at the time of the first purchase? Did Cresford ask for more height later in the game in order to make up for lost profit and the delay? Is the reasoning for a potential cancellation a rouse?
 
Legal recourse?

cabeman said:
... a bit of background here:

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl060421_#1014.pdf
Click to expand...


Thanks for the Doc. Now why couldn't Cresford keep us up to date like that.

Anyone know if the purchase agreement covers the developer from blunders such as these? Shouldn't approvals for items which can kill a project be approved prior to selling their first unit? People have a lot at stake here, cancellation of this project will be devastating for many people, imagine if you bought like me 2 years ago, now you have to buy something at today's prices? I have to downsize for sure now. This can't be legal. We must have some legal recourse here. I can't believe there can be this much risk.

I'm holding some hope alive. I think they can still pull off a profit or breakeven minus the top floor. The good thing is that they have not sold any units in the upper floors yet, so I guess they can price them at or a bit above current market value. Worst case, save their reputation and break even on the project?
 
You should discuss this matter with your Real Estate lawyer. These agreements are air-tight 100% in favour of the developer so I suspect you have no recourse except to wait this out. Sorry about what's happening, it must be really stressful.
 
The bottom line is that Cresford sold units without Site Plan Approval so all buyers, unknowingly perhaps, bought at risk. Cresford took a risk with their money hoping for a height of 38.45m and then transferred some of this risk to purchasers, which is way above King/Spadina rules.

If Cresford can't make it work at the compromised OMB height of 34.6m, then these purchase agreements were always wishful thinking and nothing more. The City's bylaw for King/Spadina is pretty clear and anytime you venture beyond, it's a crapshoot.
 
I bought my unit at Spire when Context was still fighting at the OMB for the project. Developers do this all the time, it's very common. Off-hand, I can think of M5V and East Lofts that sold before all approvals in place. I bet there's dozens more.
Like I said, in a situation such as this one's best bet is to speak to a Real Estate lawyer. Don't waste your time trying to rally fellow purchasers to draw blood from the developer, since you're pretty much guaranteed to have zero recourse due to the terms and conditions of the purchase agreement.
 
SpadinaBus said:
The bottom line is that Cresford sold units without Site Plan Approval so all buyers, unknowingly perhaps, bought at risk. Cresford took a risk with their money hoping for a height of 38.45m and then transferred some of this risk to purchasers, which is way above King/Spadina rules.

If Cresford can't make it work at the compromised OMB height of 34.6m, then these purchase agreements were always wishful thinking and nothing more. The City's bylaw for King/Spadina is pretty clear and anytime you venture beyond, it's a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

So are you saying, we should have some legal recourse? I need to really review my purchase agreement, see if this contingency was stated. I'm sure at this point, all the purchasers would be willing to pay some more money to get this building built, as long as the end cost is below market price. I wonder if that option has ever been given to a purchaser.
 
SUMBODYHELP said:
So are you saying, we should have some legal recourse? I need to really review my purchase agreement, see if this contingency was stated. I'm sure at this point, all the purchasers would be willing to pay some more money to get this building built, as long as the end cost is below market price. I wonder if that option has ever been given to a purchaser.
Click to expand...

You should consult your lawyer and I believe your position will be clear. IMO, developers will never ask for more money to keep a project of this type alive. At this stage and in this hot market for King/Spadina, it is easier and more lucrative to re-brand and start over.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top