Only because Westbank were willing to go along with that. I certainly wouldn't have. In the end, Diamond Schmitt are the ones actually doing the working drawings there so Henriquez' citation in the by-law is for appearances only.
Right, but I'm not suggesting codifying this under the existing Act as is; but rather amending the act to add the requirement; so that what has been done 'ad hoc' could be done as-of-right.
What if that architect no longer wants to do the project? What if that firm ceases to exist?
How is that my problem as a customer? If I buy a car, and the contract specifies the names of certain part suppliers as a condition of sale (and this is the case for some high-end and customized vehicles) then if the car arrives with different parts in it, you, as the seller have voided the contract. That's black-letter law.
You can try and dispute it, and a court proceeding would result, and you would lose. I agreed to buy a model 'x', in black, with heated seats and 8 speakers etc etc. If you try to give me a car by a different manufacturer, a different model, a different colour or omit key features agreed to in my contract of sale, I'm taking my money back, and you can keep the car.
No reason it can't work the same for a housing unit. I bought a unit in a red brick building, you will deliver a red brick building, I bought a unit in a building clad in Limestone, you will deliver the limestone, I bought/paid 2x per ft2 to own
a condo designed by Gehry, you will deliver a unit designed by Gehry. Period, full-stop. If you can't deliver what I bought, give me my money back, the end. The rest is your problem as the seller/builder, not mine, as the buyer.
What if the project is sold and a new developer takes it on?
What is being sold, under the law, as I envision it, is a 'conditional approval'; if you don't like the conditions, don't buy the site and its approvals.
Under whose authority is that decided? What is 'quality' and how is it defined? What if the specified materials are no longer available? What if the supplier went under?
Again, if the law is amended, you specify the authority in the Act.
The law allows a limited ability for substitution in certain circumstances for other goods/services based on good faith necessity, and on providing an equivalent or better product or service.
Put simply, you can make a case for a right to buy my Quartz countertop from a different supplier, but you can't put in porcelain instead. You can make a case to provide my appliances by someone else, but they
still have to be of comparable quality, features and measurements and still have to be stainless steel. Same rules for everything else.
The Planning Act does not give cities the right to 'rescind an approval'.
I'm talking about Amending the Act.
And again, what if the architect doesn't want to do the project?
We're talking about a complete submission, with drawings in order to get approval. I would not specify who the architect of record is; so long as they adhere to the approved design.
Two things here - again, Cities can't 'rescind an approval' and I think you're putting a lot of faith in Staff. Remember too, that it's Toronto Buildings, not Planning or Urban Design, that are the final adjudicators and trust me when I say 9/10 of them could not care less.
The Act can be changed, it's not written on a stone tablet. The final authority can be changed on different items. Keep in mind as well, I'm not saying the City needs to specify every element of every building at time of approval; only those elements that are key to its approval.
The issue of the relationship between seller and buyer is a different matter, and as I noted above, rules are quite clear on this when you buy a product; what's inside must match what's on the package. No substitutions allowed.