ProjectEnd
Superstar
Pissed as some of you might be, no-one was 'promised' anything.
Toronto Sixty Colborne Condos | 82.29m | 25s | Freed | a—A
- Thread starter Edward Skira
- Start date
TheKingEast
Senior Member
No one is ever promised anything though, are they?
condovo
Senior Member
Contra
Senior Member
See, if they'd gone with the metallic option we'd all be blind right now.
LUVIT!
Senior Member
At the end of the day this will still be very interesting. With all due respect to the designers a great attempt was made to make this have visual interest and I believe this has been achieved.
Northern Light
Superstar
Not specifically speaking of this development in saying that this is wrong to me from a moral perspective; legally, what's in writing aside, I don't wonder whether this ought to be considered illegal as 'bait and switch'.
If you even lure someone to a store on the pretense of an item being available at a certain price, and then it turns out only a different product is available, that is considered illegal if done on purpose.
Never mind if you SELL someone a product and then deliver something different from what you 'advertised'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch
I am of the opinion that the law should be clarified on this subject and that if a developer actually sells you a unit via legal contract they are required to deliver exactly what they sold you, no substitutes.
If they fail, they owe you the purchase price/deposit back with interest, and some sort of penalty beyond that to discourage wilful misrepresentation.
***
I think in this case the developer has made a fairly reasonable effort; though I think most of us will agree it falls a bit short of what was advertised/hoped for...........however, it offered a more ambitious promise than many, and I think, has come somewhat close to that.
***
Cladding aside, I really miss the arch from the original renders.
I also wish the streetscape and the way the building addresses Colborne were handled better.
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
In the context of Canadian real estate law, this is impossible. At the time of sales, buildings are not real things. This is part of the reason why presales are a bit of a gamble. Sure, you'll likely get something that looks like the render, but because nothing has yet been tendered, nothing really 'exists'.
Unless you're proposing to build a building first, then sell it after (good luck securing construction loans), the process you've described above is impossible.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm not sure why in presales it could not be understood that you are entering a legally binding contract for a service to build a 'thing' along w/the rights of ownership and occupancy associated therewith. That contract specifies exactly what thing it is the purchaser is contracting the developer to build.
If I pay someone to renovate my home, that renovation has not yet taken place at the time a contract is signed. But I expect the walls to be moved where an agreement said so, the fixtures selected would be the ones installed and the colour of the paint would be what was specified.
Why should an as yet, unbuilt building be any different?
Should insufficient sales be generated, based on the proposal, I would expect the developer to cancel the project and refund the purchasers.
I see no reason why if the development did its targets, and moved ahead w/construction that it should be permitted to alter what was paid for; unilaterally.
If that's the case, purchasers should have an equal right to alter the price they paid; it's a goose/gander thing.
* if there is no way to make this work under existing real estate law, the law(s) should be amended.
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
The issue is that beyond your specific unit layout, you're not really buying a 'thing'. Building exteriors are notional and suggestive of something. They are not that thing itself.
From sales to occupancy, buildings take years to complete and the market for trades, the price of materials and value of any number of other things will fluctuate greatly in that time. To tie a developer to a precise set of specs at the time of purchase puts undue pressure on them precisely because at the time of sale, the materials which constitute the future building and the price of the labour that will construct it are susceptible to change. Budgets and pro-formas are always in flux.
So a question to you then: if the law should be changed, given the above, how would you propose to change it?
From sales to occupancy, buildings take years to complete and the market for trades, the price of materials and value of any number of other things will fluctuate greatly in that time. To tie a developer to a precise set of specs at the time of purchase puts undue pressure on them precisely because at the time of sale, the materials which constitute the future building and the price of the labour that will construct it are susceptible to change. Budgets and pro-formas are always in flux.
So a question to you then: if the law should be changed, given the above, how would you propose to change it?
Northern Light
Superstar
There are multiple options.
First a developer surely has to be tied to some level of specificity in the nature of the project in which I am buying an interest. It just makes no sense otherwise. When a home is purchased in a subdivision, each item is specified including the colour and/or pattern of brick, the front door colour, and what trees if any are to be planted and where, and whether there's a backyard deck.
We can agree there many need to be 'some' wiggle room on the narrowest of points; if there is an elm tree in the render and a sugar maple is planted, that need not to trigger a refund scenario.
But if I buy into a Gehry building I sure as hell expect Gehry and no you can't substitute because I'm paying a premium for that.
Likewise if you've done a very clear conceptual render and used that to market the building I expect a substantially identical product to the one advertised.
We're not talking about which company made the windows (normally) nor every common element. But again, if I'm forking over my money because I love the idea of that rooftop terrace w/an infinity pool; you (the developer) can't keep my money if you nix the pool or stick it on a much lower floor.
There are a host of options as to how controlling an agreement would be, and what the mitigation options would be.
In general, I would like to see a contract that said all 'key' elements in this design will be delivered in a manner which is substantially identical to the render/promise; if the developer feels the need to alter the promise, I have an 'out' clause with full refund and interest.
I expect the onus is on the builder to use contingencies in their budget and/or secure goods and services pre-construction at a fixed price for a certain window/period. If they have to pay extra for this so be it.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
What you've described is largely what happens. More substantial changes are what's referred to as a 'material change' and purchasers may be released if it is decided that the product has 'changed materially'. Here, however, Freed envisioned a building with an orange podium. Nowhere was it specified that it would be glass or constructed in a certain way. Sure, renders may have been produced which projected that effect but it was never 'promised'.
Fundamentally, are purchasers currently getting a building with an orange podium?
Fundamentally, are purchasers currently getting a building with an orange podium?
Northern Light
Superstar
I really wasn't talking narrowly about this building, but the broader principle.
That said, you made me want to go back and look at the original marketing materials.
The earliest picture I see is on p.11 of this thread. I may have missed one (and a few are now dead links)
In looking at it and in the subsequent discussion in the page or so after the pic, what I see, and see mentioned is 'copper podium'.
Which I don't really think of as orange per se, and I do think metallic.
I'm not sure how many render modifications occurred from that time, vs any subsequent variation.
Would I be happy had I bought into this? Based on the original render? Probably not, but the missing arch is the bigger issue for me and that disappeared pretty early.
To me that made the design along w/the copper. It felt like a modern expression of the older heritage in the area. Something different yet complimentary.
I reserve judgement on how the cladding will look, as I simply need to see more of it up.
At first blush, it's what I think was promised at the very beginning, but may adequately match later renders.
But there's simply too little up yet to get a holistic impression.
I'm also not clear what promise, if any, was made in the original marketing as to the nature of the external material.
I think one should have been made, and it was then the comparison of end product to promise applies.
If one was not........we're back to one should have been.
Razz
Senior Member
TheKingEast
Senior Member
And yet it’s still a nice addition to the area. The more freed projects the better.
