Waterlink at Pier 27 | 43.89m | 14s | Cityzen | a—A

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,411
Reaction score
4,640
I applaud the "turn your back" strategy of the east phase... sugar should stay in Toronto (plus I love seeing giant freighters jockying for primo parking spots with smart cars at the foot of Jarvis), so this is a logical solution to future (resale) neighbourhood complaints... not to mention the buffer/wall of this phase appears (as rendered) as attractive as the rest of the development.

Kudos to you guys^^^. Great solution.
 
Last edited:

harbourf

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
50
Reaction score
1
Phase 1 & 2 are being built at the same time. The building flanking Redpath is designed with a single loaded corridor thereby providing sound attenuation.

Thank you, Cityzen!

And I agree with 3Dementia...it seems to be a logical and great solution.
 

casaguy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
1
Location
Toronto
Phase 1 & 2 are being built at the same time. The building flanking Redpath is designed with a single loaded corridor thereby providing sound attenuation.

We need more Cityzens and TridelWebmasters playing a role in this forum and being up-front about it.
 

OldManKensey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Location
Downtown Toronto
There is an interesting story on the Star's website this morning about Capitain John's going up for sale (pasted below). I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Capital John's would be forced out of the current location once Pier 27 was completed and the public promenade down the Westerrn edge of the development, alongside Yonge quay, became operational. Now that work has commenced driving piles for Pier 27, I would imagine that we're only about two years away from this occurring. Was I mistaken? Would Waterfrtont Toronto really allow Captain John's to stay? Do they lack the legal power to force them to find a new pier? It seems to me that a sale wouldn't really be practical if the restaurant was facing imminent eviction.

Toronto Star
December 22, 2009
Noor Javed

In an ideal world, Captain John Letnik's retirement would involve simply pulling up anchor, starting the motor and steering into the sunset aboard the M.S. Jadran, the cruise-ship-turned-restaurant that has been a fixture on the city's lakeshore for decades.

But for Letnik, owner of Captain John's restaurant at the foot of Yonge St., the reality is more grounded. After lengthy deliberations, Letnik has put his prized ship up for sale for $1.5 million. The online listing seeks someone willing to buy "one of Toronto's historic icons" – and then some.

"The boat needs a little bit of upgrading. And it needs younger blood," said Letnik, 72, sitting in the dining hall of his ship.

"More than half the ship is still empty. There is a lot of potential here for a young person," he said. "They can make it into a hotel, a lounge, or even a casino. We need more attraction down here."

After nearly 40 years, it took months of pondering for Letnik to let go of the boat that became a major tourist attraction in the city.

"It was a difficult decision because this is my life," he said. "But you have to be realistic. I don't have anyone to carry it on."

Letnik first opened the floating restaurant in 1969 on a defunct island ferry called the S.S. Normac. In 1981, the ferry sank after being struck by the municipally owned Trillium ferry. He sought damages from the city and was compensated.

Letnik had bought the M.S. Jadran, a former Adriatic cruise ship, from the Yugoslav government for $1 million and sailed it to Toronto in 1975 with 16 crew members. When the Normac sank, he reopened the restaurant on the new ship.

There were times years ago, Letnik recalled, when the lineup for a seat for lunch or dinner was out the door. These days, empty tables are plentiful. Patrons are harder to come by.

His tax battle with the city is also ongoing. Earlier this year, Letnik's lawyers argued the ship didn't rest on a foundation and couldn't be assessed. A judge ruled that since the ship had been moored to the shore since 1975, it could be taxed. Letnik attempted to appeal the ruling, but was denied. He plans to meet with assessment officials early next year.

Despite such woes, Letnik is in no rush to sell. The restaurant is still open and going forth with weddings booked for next summer.

"It's not going to be an overnight sale. It's going to be a while to find a proper person. Because it's a ship, it's not a building.

"They have to know how to look after it."
 

Mongo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,324
Reaction score
213
There were times years ago, Letnik recalled, when the lineup for a seat for lunch or dinner was out the door. These days, empty tables are plentiful. Patrons are harder to come by.

This is partly due, no doubt, to the current economic climate, but the more permanent factor has to be poor word of mouth. As a restaurant Captain John's is lousy, and by now most Torontonians know it. So most of its customers are out-of-towners, and their numbers are down from several years ago.

I had not considered whether Captain John's would be forced to move, but my first thought is that the City would not have the right to do so, unless they declared the section of quayside it is moored next to, to be a 'no parking' zone. This seems like overkill to me.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,264
Location
South Parkdale
OMG.. 1.5 mil, this thing is a 50yr. rust bucket and i doubt anyone nowadays in their right mind will pay that amount for that eyesore.:eek: The city should just tell them to anchor somewhere else.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,274
Reaction score
2,309
$1.5 million sounds surprisely cheap when you consider he paid a million in the 1970s for it and a new one of that size probably is in the high tens of millions. A penthouse condo in some Freed midrise on King West costs you a lot more. However, I wouldn't want to know about the toxic chemicals hidden under the tasteless decor in this rust bucket.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,274
Reaction score
2,309
^I don't get your point as the owner of said Freed condo doesn't own the land it sits on either. Heck, the condo owner doesn't even own things like walls and ceilings! All he really owns is the interior living space.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,264
Location
South Parkdale
^I don't get your point as the owner of said Freed condo doesn't own the land it sits on either. Heck, the condo owner doesn't even own things like walls and ceilings! All he really owns is the interior living space.

Sorry for me asking, but now you got me confused, are you trying to tell me that if say 150 condo units are in a building each condo unit owner does not own a precentage of the land the building sits on, if thats the case i guess there is no property tax on condo units paid by the condo owner.:confused:
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
15,865
Reaction score
17,196
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
^I don't get your point as the owner of said Freed condo doesn't own the land it sits on either. Heck, the condo owner doesn't even own things like walls and ceilings! All he really owns is the interior living space.

Yes, BUT a condo owner also owns a share in the Condominium Corporation which owns the land, the common elements and everything not a unit. Condominiums are non-profit Corporations that have members instead of shareholders. Condo buildings are divided into units and common elements; everything that is not a unit is a common element. Unit boundaries are described in the Declaration. The Corporation does not own the common elements, they are jointly owned by all unit owners in the percentages shown in the Declaration. If an owner pays 2% of the expenses s/he owns 2% of the Corporation.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,274
Reaction score
2,309
Semantics. What is ownership when you don't have majority control of it. I don't go claiming a square millimetre of FCP marble as my own or go out and paint over the lane markers of a mile of highway. I do know of one person who did though.

Sorry for me asking, but now you got me confused, are you trying to tell me that if say 150 condo units are in a building each condo unit owner does not own a precentage of the land the building sits on, if thats the case i guess there is no property tax on condo units paid by the condo owner.

I'm not entirely sure about this but, AFAIK, The tax payable is based on the market assessments of the individual units. Techincally, everything under the corporation isn't really at play. Of course, location and building amenities is what ultimately sets the retail value.

It's one reason co-ops usually pay less tax. The assessed value is on the entire building. (a building being cheaper to buy than the individual units)
 

isittimetomoveyet

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
0
As a restaurant Captain John's is lousy, and by now most Torontonians know it. So most of its customers are out-of-towners, and their numbers are down from several years ago.

Totally agree... the place is run down. Having seen the place many times whenever coming to the City, when my wife and I finally moved here last year I was psyched about Captain Johns Sunday Brunch! God, we took three steps into the place, couldn't smell anything but the innards of fish and stale furniture, not to mention there were only two patrons... and so we decided to bolt.

Maybe the food is still good, but the place really would need an overhaul to be successful again!
 

Top