News   Apr 25, 2024
 46     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.6K     1 

Stinson files for bankruptcy protection

Stinson was right to say, If I can't build a tower like this here, where can I build it? I don't think people appreciated the amount of design and sales work that went into that first tower, the cost of producing the model, etc.

I was at the city meeting where Sapphire was rejected. First thing out of Kyle Rae's mouth was the reason for the rejection. When the Sheraton opened in the early 70's the city realized they had made a mistake in approving it for the shadows it cast on Nathan Phillips Square. At that time the city made the decision to never again allow any new buildings to cast a shadow on NPS. Harry knew, or should have known, this and still tried to push it past the city. He lost. He spent a fortune on something that could not pass. I have no sympathy for that.
 
Exactly. From what I've heard planning staff told Harry from day 1 that he wouldn't get that height at that site. But he pushed ahead anyway. The quality of the architecture of Sapphire and the surrounding towers is irrelevant. No new buildings can shadown NPS, period. If Harry wants to spend all that money on design and sales of a tower that he knows full well staff and council don't support, that's his problem.
 
Reply

The shadow of the point tower on NPS would have been thin and brief. Interestingly, Kyle Rae lauds the numerous apartment buildings north-east of Yonge and Wellesley. I guess the justification for these is that the area has a tradition of St. Jamestown type development, so keep up the good work. I think what you're saying is that the city is better off without the Sapphire? The project likely would have gone ahead if it wasn't for the requirement to revise the design. I can see that these sorts of blanket principles -- "no shadows of any nature over NPS, no matter the value of the development" -- are what hamper the city, bureaucrats with one size fits all policies presiding over development. The letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Anyhow, this is just my opinion. Yours seems to be the predominant opinion.
 
The shadow of the point tower on NPS would have been thin and brief

No additional shadowing means none. Not even for 5 minutes twice a year. The city gave him lots of room to build 1 King so they aren't against development per say. Had he pitched Sapphire a few blocks to the south they would have let him build it.

Now in light of how 1 King transpired the question would have been would anybody have bought into the project.
 
The project likely would have gone ahead if it wasn't for the requirement to revise the design.

Ha! Where is the evidence of this? And where is the evidence that the revised design has led to the present state of affairs?

To blame the city for Stinson's mess, takes a very special kind of denial.
 
The project likely would have gone ahead if it wasn't for the requirement to revise the design.

So it is Stinsons fault. He was told very clearly when he started putting together his first proposal for that location, which was approved, what the restrictions were.

If he designed to the restrictions, as he later did in the revised design, then he could have saved a large chunk of cash.

Of course, he wasn't selling a product very many people actually wanted to buy which may have contributed a bit.
 
I think what you're saying is that the city is better off without the Sapphire? The project likely would have gone ahead if it wasn't for the requirement to revise the design. I can see that these sorts of blanket principles -- "no shadows of any nature over NPS, no matter the value of the development" -- are what hamper the city, bureaucrats with one size fits all policies presiding over development. The letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Anyhow, this is just my opinion. Yours seems to be the predominant opinion.

The letter of the law - in this case, zoning-by-law; and the spirit of the law, which is to prevent shadowing of NPS - is one and the same. Beyond that, development isn't the city's only concern - it has to be balanced against the needs of the public, the public realm, etc - to have the policy of free-for-all in the face of development is the worst one-size fit all I can think of.

From the matter of aesthetic merit, the value of Sapphire is debatable. With regards to the legitimacy of the project and the assertion that it will be built without planning related delays is also debatable. Sales figure was never rosy for the project - and there are projects that went ahead in spite of not having secured planning approvals. In fact, one could argue that all the attention onto the project by Stintson in his fight over the tall building supremacy with Trump didn't help.

AoD
 
Stinson is welcome to join my firm. I need a guy that likes to make a fool of himself in public without flinching.

I'm very happy no further stinson eyesores will be built in Toronto. The guy maybe was a visionary--but too disorganized and unprofessional to be in a city as conservative as Toronto.
 
http://communities.canada.com/natio...-mirvish-court-battle-not-over-quite-yet.aspx

Stinson, Mirvish court battle not over quite yet

It's hard to go a week in this city without hearing about the latest development in Harry Stinson's real estate struggles. From his public war of words with Donald Trump to his legal matters with David Mirvish, Stinson sure knows how to keep the media's attention on him.
The Post's Chris Wattie reports on the latest Stinson-related news:
The judge overseeing a running battle between two of Toronto’s best-known businessmen reserved her decision yesterday on a bid to appoint a receiver to take over the luxury condominium and hotel tower One King West.
Madame Justice Sarah Pepall told lawyers for developer Harry Stinson and for theatre impresario David Mirvish, who provided much of the financing for the 51-storey building, that she would issue a ruling “in a matter of days.â€
However, the judge hinted that she does not expect her decision to end the long-running and increasingly acrimonious dispute. “I do appreciate that this is a difficult matter for all concerned,†Justice Pepall said at the end of the two-day hearing in Ontario Superior Court. “It’s frankly highly problematic.â€
Lawyers for Mr. Mirvish, who was not in court for the hearing, are asking the court to appoint a receiver to oversee operations of the hotel and condos at the corner of King and Yonge streets. “We hope that the court will put something into place to end all the litigation,†said Patricia Conway, of the law firm Miller Thomson, representing Mr. Mirvish. “Mr. Mirvish just wants out of it at this point.â€
Mr. Stinson, the flamboyant hotelier who first proposed the ambitious One King West project, said after the hearing that he was not optimistic that the dispute will end, even if the judge rules in his favour and does not appoint a receiver.
“There’s too much mud that’s been thrown here — that’s the sad part,†he said. “An outstanding project has turned into a giant negative experience for everyone involved — except for the guests in the hotel. Given that we’re full tonight they seem to like what we’ve done.â€
Despite the months of court, Ms. Conway said her client holds no grudge against Mr. Stinson. “Mr. Mirvish has always, always wished the best for Mr. Stinson and in my opinion has turned himself into a pretzel to accommodate him.â€
But Arthur Jacques, the lawyer for Mr. Stinson, told court that if a receiver is appointed to take over management of the hotel, it would have disastrous consequences. “You will destroy this operation economically; you will destroy its goodwill,†he told the judge.
The fight began earlier this year when relations soured between Mr. Mirvish, who put up most of the cash for the award-winning building, and Mr. Stinson, the creative force behind the project, after the theatre impresario sought $11.8-million for the lower floors.
In February, Mr. Stinson sought bankruptcy protection for two of his One King West companies. Mr. Mirvish’s legal team replied with a separate action to appoint a receiver who would take charge of the hotel assets.
In April, Mr. Stinson counter-attacked with a $38-million lawsuit, claiming Mr. Mirvish failed to deliver on several promises. The suit was dismissed after the former partners appeared to reach a compromise.
Mr. Stinson still manages the Suites at One King West and owns the first four floors, including the hotel lobby, several meeting rooms and the former banking hall of the Dominion Bank of Canada.
But under a court-supervised deal in April, Mr. Stinson must be monitored by receiver Ira Smith, who now oversees all of the condo king’s business records.
Photo of Harry Stinson by Peter Redman for National Post
 
More on Stinson

I really like the Stinson eyesores. One King West is something special. I'm glad that guys with wacky hairdo's who work themselves to the point of illness, with complete disregard for the stone-faced business-as-usual types still exist. We're always hearing how Canada needs more risk-takers. I wish there were more people cutting Stinson slack and giving his projects a chance than seeking to lynch him. I find the statement, "No additional shadowing means none. Not even for 5 minutes a year" inflexible and depressing. It's incredible how public opinion turned on Stinson so soon after he was celebrated for his projects in Toronto dailys. Columnist Jennifer Wells couldn't wait to find fault. I'm grateful that there are guys like Stinson who will "make fools out of themselves in public" for the sake of a dream.

I better drop out of this topic, since I clearly won't be convinced.
 
stinson.jpg

250px-Droopy_Dog.png

I guess The Donald should be called "Gorgeous Gorillawitz", then
 
I'm very happy no further stinson eyesores will be built in Toronto. The guy maybe was a visionary--but too disorganized and unprofessional to be in a city as conservative as Toronto.

I don't see what conservatism has to do with anything. Stinson liked to say banks and other lenders in the city were too timid and conservative to consider funding his projects. By this point however it should be pretty clear that the banks were right on the money. It's not that he couldn't get them to fund him because his ideas were too unconventional - it's because he simply wasn't worth the risk for them.
 
Refuse to lend money to Stinson and suddenly you're conservative? Riiiight. I know I wouldn't lend money to someone who'll never pay me back.
 
We let Trump win.... We let the homegrown, Toronto developer lose. :rolleyes:

That's the 21st century... bring in Hong Kong (Concord), Kazakhstan (Bazis Intnl.), and Trump (USA) to create our city for us. Damn... Atleast we have One King West left as a unique and exciting piece of modern Toronto history.
 

Back
Top