Yonge & Rich Condominiums | 156.35m | 46s | Great Gulf | architectsAlliance

ProjectEnd

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
9,868
Reaction score
12,695
The north tower was supposed to have the 'shuffled deck' look that 1Thousand Bay features but I guess that got ditched as well.
 

justken

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
37
Reaction score
68
The north tower was supposed to have the 'shuffled deck' look that 1Thousand Bay features but I guess that got ditched as well.
I don't think the dev ever had any intention of doing that. in the floor plans, there was no mentioning of elongated balconies on alternating floors.
 

justken

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
37
Reaction score
68
It's shown pretty clearly in the renderings.
I understand that it was in the renderings but what i'm trying to say is, if great gulf was really gonna put in reality, they should have thrown in the dotted lines to show alternating patterns like they did in this Great Gulf "Home Condo" floor plan. but if you go look at the FP's of Y&R, you will see no mention of staggered balconies. Hence why I say there was never any intention of following through with the renderings.

,
 

mcornett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
294
Reaction score
926
Whether the shuffled deck look was the builder's subjective "intention" or not is beside the point.

It may have been clear to individual buyers (or not - we don't know what they were told) how the building would look, but the builder produced numerous renders showing the "shuffling" effect for consumption by the public and City.

I realize the public and City have no mechanism to force a builder to construct to a rendering, but I think it is still reasonable to expect that rendering be as accurate as possible, or at least within reason.

In this case, the builder has made numerous alterations that have substantially changed the look of the building. It still may not be a bad building, but it is not the building that was "sold". If I were a buyer and I hadn't been specifically informed about these changes, I would be upset, even if I had no contractual remedy.

It actually blows my mind that what is essentially false advertising is legal for housing (perhaps the largest investment one will make) but prohibited for all other consumer products. I don't know much about this area of law, but there must be better-regulated jurisdictions.
 

Towered

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
2,884
Is there anything proposed for that parking lot right to the east that can hide this thing in the future?
 

emacs

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
146
Reaction score
48
Location
St. Lawrence
Is there anything proposed for that parking lot right to the east that can hide this thing in the future?

If you mean the parking lot directly north of 50 Lombard (Indigo Condos), there are no plans.

There is / was, however, a proposal for 120 Church https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/120-church that wraps around 124 Church (McVeigh's Irish Pub). And, across Church at 89 Church Street there's the future home of The Saint https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/saint
 

Edward Skira

http://skyrisecities.com
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
13,938
Reaction score
12,491
Location
Toronto
As if the bottom line wasn't a factor back in the day. Labour was much cheaper in the old days and today's buildings are way more advanced and sophisticated which costs money.
 

Top