400WellingtonGuy
Active Member
All good points but all it takes is one crazy ass condo board (and we have seen them in the best of buildings) and the whole thing falls apart.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
All good points but all it takes is one crazy ass condo board (and we have seen them in the best of buildings) and the whole thing falls apart.
AHK
Senior Member
If the stipulations regarding maintenance of the gallery components are contained in the condominium's declaration - it would require a 90% vote of the owners (that's owners, not just the residents) of the condominium to change, a virtually impossible threshold, and not one a board can modify.
Not that I agree with the idea of using condominium maintenance fees to support what is essentially a third party organization - just pointing out restrictions which exist under the terms of the Ontario 1998 Condominium Act
balenciaga
Banned
I have no idea why some of you guys think the condo owners should pay for the maintenance of a public and free museum. This is absurd. It is worse than charity because in doing charity, you get to decide whether, when and how much you offer yet in this case you are obligated to contribute indefinitely, and the cost increase is beyond control as well. How does that make any sense?
Why can't the city or the patrons of the museum pay for the cost? What am I missing here? It is not innovative, it is day dreaming.
Why can't the city or the patrons of the museum pay for the cost? What am I missing here? It is not innovative, it is day dreaming.
skyrise
Active Member
I couldn't agree more with balenciaga. Funds from the sale of the condos will cover the cost of constructing the museum (much like TIFF did with thier condo project). The operating costs of the museum should be covered by patrons. As this is a significant collection of art, one would think that there would be enough interest for this to be sustainable by charging museum goers and holding additional fundraising activities (again much like TIFF does) and perhaps some government grants.
Last edited:
HotStuff
New Member
Does anyone of the status of this project? Any clue if the city will approve this project, its Frank Gehry come on.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the concept in the proposal - but all financial arrangements would be made clear in the condominium's declaration - so yes any potential buyers are given a clear choice to "decide whether" to contribute or not. This is a complex project and no one is forcing anyone to purchase one of the 2,700 proposed units - should the project contain complex long-term financial arrangements or obligations for owners, those proposed arrangements are a risk that the proponent in this early stage of the project appears to be considering bringing forward to the market. The highly competitive Toronto condo market will ultimately evaluate whether or not to accept those financial arrangements and perhaps this is a risk Mr. Mirvish is willing to incorporate into the project based on a long-term value-proposition of the gallery that his team believes the market will accept and absorb.
As noted earlier by AHK, the condominium declaration is a pretty iron-clad legal agreement that is virtually impossible for owners (especially a project as large and investor driven as this) to alter at a future date unless the legislation is substantially overhauled (certainly a risk of that 90% figure declining somewhat but virtually no chance of it declining significantly).
fedplanner
Active Member
I have no idea if this is legally permissible in Ontario, but if someone wanted to get really creative... Mirvish could retain ownership of the land and sell a 99-year "ground lease" for the condo tower and other improvements. The condo corporation would be liable to pay the ground rent, and the condo fees would indirectly pay for the ground lease which would be a perpetual source of funding.
Mirvish might also retain ownership of some of the commercial space with revenue going to offset operating costs of the museum. It has already been mentioned about the museum expenses being included in the condo declarations (similar to amenity space but with Mirvish retaining ownership).
A very interesting project if it ever gets built.
Mirvish might also retain ownership of some of the commercial space with revenue going to offset operating costs of the museum. It has already been mentioned about the museum expenses being included in the condo declarations (similar to amenity space but with Mirvish retaining ownership).
A very interesting project if it ever gets built.
pw20
Active Member
This is the most f'd up thing I have ever heard. This asshole (and I'm going to call him that) has decided to donate his art collection so that you and I can see it for free - but instead of endowing the collection with a fund to support operating costs (perhaps utilizing some of the money he's going to get from selling condo units) - he expects the buyers of these condos to fund it? The hubris in this endeavor is beyond.
I'd also like to know the tax repurcussions - I'd imagine that without donating his collection Mr. Mirvish (or his estate) would be forced to pay capital gains on the collection upon its disposal or his death?
yyzer
Senior Member
I think calling Mr. Mirvish an 'asshole' at this point is an overreaction that is both unfortunate, and unwarranted - we don't even know the facts yet......shameful, pw20...
greenleaf
Senior Member
This does happen. For example, Victoria University at the University of Toronto has agreements with a handful of buildings on land it owns, such as the Colonnade building and the McKinsey building. In the latter case, Vic will get the McKinsey building in about 22-23 years from now or so (a real beauty from Hariri Pontarini).
pw20
Active Member
I'm entitled to my own opinion? I have no problem with people rationalizing their land holdings and building however many condo units as they want. I have a major problem with someone masking their cash grab (which is great!) with artistic nonsense. That's what this is. And then asking condo owners to fund their own artistic vision? Hunh?
His tactics are similar to Oxford arguing for a casino for their Front Street proposals or for major league sport honour asking for tax breaks in order to build stadiums etc. What's worse in this case is that Mirvish has masked his messaging (brilliantly to some degree) with this mantra of "Perhaps, Toronto is not really" and "Maybe Toronto doesn't think world class enough" or "my art collection is so great, but perhaps the citizens of Toronto aren't ready for it".
There have been major donations of art both in Canada (thompson collection) and around the world that have involved less strings than this. His attitude throughout that video is complete entitlement and therefore - I think he's an asshole. And quite frankly - I've rarely heard a nice word said about him
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Exactly, if the details are up front, its your choice as the willing buyer, under no duress to purchase, to decide whether you like the deal or not. I feel like price matters little here and status matters most; its no longer based on the law of substitution if there is no substitute. People will pay what is necessary to be known. I have a strong feeling that there is this kind of passion about art in cities like NYC, or London and this "scheme" might work well there.. Perhaps not here, but time will tell. I know some very art-passionate and wealthy people in NYC who would likely go for something like this I think. Don't underestimate the will of the wealthy to be known well to others as a generous and charitable soul. Probably something we should encourage. I guess if Mirvish can make some coin off it and doesn't have to fund the museum himself, then he won't. I didn't watch the video, haven't had the time, but wondered if if mentioned if he will at all be contributing to the funding of the operations at all? That hasn't been ruled out has it?
Also do we even know the condo fee costs associated with the museum? Spread over so many units, with likely other philanthropic donations to the museum in the future by others, it might not amount to as much per unit as we think? That said, I realize many have issue with the principal of passing the buck, and I completely understand where that anger is coming from, regardless of how much of it comes from emotion.
pw20
Active Member
You're right - if I choose to buy a condo in these buildings presumably I would know what I'm getting into. Similarly - I hope people who bought in Trump did their own due diligence.
My anger stems from Mirvish passing of the buck in some perceived holier than though attitude. It's kinda like the kid who you went to grade school with that got Nintendo 64 before everyone else - then tried to charge you to play it - and when you said nah, I'm fine with Super Nintendo - he was a whiney baby about it... "you're probably not very good at GoldenEye anyway..."
gristle
Senior Member
It's not known how CEF's would be used for the museum. It's possible that the building would be maintained with them (heating, water and so on). Salary for staff, displays, etc. would have to come from another revenue source.
Regardless, using fees to pay for or maintain the museum is an abuse. That's not what these fees are intended for. They should not to be used as a permanent subsidy for a cultural institution. If Mirvish wants a museum or gallery in there, he should raise the funds for it himself.
Regardless, using fees to pay for or maintain the museum is an abuse. That's not what these fees are intended for. They should not to be used as a permanent subsidy for a cultural institution. If Mirvish wants a museum or gallery in there, he should raise the funds for it himself.
400WellingtonGuy
Active Member
Any subsidy of operational costs or otherwise for a public cultural institution by unsuspecting condo owners (most of them don't read the fine print) is just wrong. Look at how this project will unfold. The first tower built, which does not have the proposed gallery in its podium, will have in their docs and condo budget this future cost sharing expense with other third party condo boards (the other two towers) and that expense will likely not even be defined with an actual value but a projected value or % split as the second and third towers/gallery are not even designed and built? The lawyers are going to be making a killing on this project writing up this nonsense.
As well, if his art collection is so impressive and he is such a great guy, why have not folks like the big banks or large companies that typically fund the arts come forward and help subsidize the construction and operating costs for his gallery if this entire project is so awesome? e.g. "The Scotiabank Mirvish Collection" or the "TD Mirvish Collection"