RonThom said:
The massing shown for The Well is not accurate. Come on aA.
Click to expand...
Clewes admitted that the model is based on the SPA version #2 submitted to the City awhile ago and things have/continue to evolve. He is actually working on the residential buildings on Front Street for the Well while Wallman is working on the residential buildings on Wellington.
 
neuhaus said:
There should be laws against selling something that hasn't been approved.
Click to expand...

I think the law should simply make declaration of lack of approval a condition of pre-selling a unit that has not been approved. As long as the builder fully discloses that the unit has not yet been approved (and that there is a risk that it may not be approved) why would you want to prevent a buyer from buying it?
 
TOareaFan said:
I think the law should simply make declaration of lack of approval a condition of pre-selling a unit that has not been approved. As long as the builder fully discloses that the unit has not yet been approved (and that there is a risk that it may not be approved) why would you want to prevent a buyer from buying it?
Click to expand...

The problem in consumer protection is that you must come down to the lowest common denominator of what is reasonable to assume a purchaser's knowledge of how development occurs. The fact that most people can't even fully understand what a POSA actually says and how developers can manipulate the approval system. This Wellington House is an interesting one. A purchaser of Wellington House at yesterday's hearing commented to me that they had been given an opportunity for "mutual release" from Lamb for his unit in the building and that they were way below the 17th storey being debated at the hearing and that other purchasers had also been given the same opportunity to opt out. Considering Lamb sold this unit likely below $850/sqft and the going 2018 rate is +1400/sqft in this neighbourhood for new buildings, you can understand why some developers would want people to opt out at this stage and purchasers would not. One could argue if that Lamb (based on past history) doesn't get the height at the OMB, he could easily cancel the whole project (his right) and either sell the property with an OMB approval at whatever height or re-launch it at today's prices. Who really knows at this point, all speculation.

Bottom line, the average consumer can not properly evaluate their risks in the original purchase - they are not UT members.
 
Not to nit pick (seriously, great work covering this hearing, thanks!) but new stuff is not hitting $1,400 on average. The only thing above that would be KING (at +/- $1,700) and that's an incredibly unique product. Kingly sold last year for +/- $900.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Not to nit pick (seriously, great work covering this hearing, thanks!) but new stuff is not hitting $1,400 on average. The only thing above that would be KING (at +/- $1,700) and that's an incredibly unique product. Kingly sold last year for +/- $900.
Click to expand...
Agreed, KING was ranging $1600-2000/sqft. (unusual). However, the other recent launch is Richmond Condos which was about $1100-1200, Empire Maverick nearby this summer was about $1300. Not sure what the average of all of that is in terms of total psf, suffice to say that I am sure Tridel (for the Well) and Lamb (reselling potential) are watching closely. Wellington House is only 102 units, so suspect the price would be above average (to also pay for the heritage complications).
 
Pics taken Oct 30, 2018


MlglW43.jpg



ZHBLyMF.jpg
 
Here's a schedule update on the OMB hearing which began last Monday. The first four days have been spent on the evidence and cross-examination of the developer’s architecture, urban design and planning witnesses. Last Friday the City’s first witness, on urban design, was heard. Her cross-examination by the developer’s lawyer will begin this morning at 10am. Following her will be the City’s planner, whose evidence and cross-examination is expected to take until the end of Tuesday morning/afternoon. The community's planning witness (the third party at the hearing), former City of Toronto planner Paul Bedford, is likely to appear Tuesday afternoon. The tribunal will not sit on Wednesday, and will likely wrap up with final arguments on Thursday from the 3 parties. I will try to summarize at the end of the hearing - it's been interesting to say the least.

Here are some pictures of renderings that have been provided by the developer for the hearing. I think some of the viewpoints are new.

IMG_1979.jpg

IMG_1978.jpg

IMG_1977.jpg


IMG_1976.jpg
 
OMB Hearing Wrap-Up:
On Thursday, after 9 days, the hearing finally wrapped up with closing arguments from the 3 parties.

There was the usual back and forth on policy exclusions and enforcement, height precedents, context and built form responses to heritage buildings etc.. Since the Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association (WPNA) has hired their own lawyer and was a full participant ($$$$$$), the end result was a bit of a 2 against 1 in the closing arguments. The biggest single blow to Lamb was the testimony of his own architect and both the City's and WPNA's lawyer pounced upon it strongly in closing. They re-iterated that the architect in his cross-examination testimony has suggested that the building's response to the rear yard setback and the heritage building in the south-east corner of King Toronto's site could be improved with more setback and even suggested less height - yikes! As well, Lamb's architect also suggested that the 2nd-6th floor "slim-jim" units could be improved with more side-yard setback, perhaps deal better with providing light into those spaces (the issue was that theses were previously live/work spaces and now are residential) and needed some refinement. WPNA's lawyer was the strongest in the closing suggesting that if the developer's own architect admits at this stage of the game in a OMB hearing that if the building's rear setback, sideyard setback (floors 2-6) and height needs to be re-thought, then perhaps this design was not as well thought out as the developer is suggesting to the Board with the application.

All in all, the City and WPNA had a very strong case with great lawyers and witnesses (former Chief Planner Paul Bedford, especially) and argued well the issues IMO (yes I am biased - no kidding). Lamb's lawyer is also great, had some good points too but the reality is that her own witnesses let her down and you could just feel in the hearing room that she had an uphill fight in closing.

You just never know how these turn out. It is a good test of how much "law" there is in planning policy and is definitely going to be precedent case for future OMB hearings still in the old cue, some on Wellington just west of subject site. A decision is not likely for months. I will post once received. Get out the popcorn!
 
Update:

Wellington House - Fortress

Wellington House will feature spectacular modern architecture by Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance that will make the building a standout in the area. The site for this proposed high-rise development is located at 422-424 Wellington Street West, north of Front Street West, and west of Spadina...
fortressrealdevelopments.com fortressrealdevelopments.com

March, 2019
The project did not receive approvals within anticipated timelines outlined in the sales contract. As a result, the developer cancelled the existing sales and plans to relaunch after approvals are achieved. The developer is awaiting a decision from the OMB hearing held on October 29, 2018.
Click to expand...
 
PMT said:
Update:

Wellington House - Fortress

Wellington House will feature spectacular modern architecture by Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance that will make the building a standout in the area. The site for this proposed high-rise development is located at 422-424 Wellington Street West, north of Front Street West, and west of Spadina...
fortressrealdevelopments.com fortressrealdevelopments.com
Click to expand...

If this is true, Brad Lamb strikes again. First he “allows” some of the buyers to get out in 2018 though mutual releases before the LPAT hearing and now suddenly he can’t understand why the LPAT has not come back with a favourable ruling knowing all along that there is considerable backup (up to a year or more) in getting rulings past the hearing conclusion. I wonder if it is the fact that he can sell units now at >$1300-1400/sqft as opposed to the <$1000/ sqft most of his deals were for a few years ago. I feel sorry for all of those that lost their investment in the growth of the last couple of years.

I am sure Brad wants to blame all the “NIMBYS” but maybe he should recollect how he told us on day one years ago that it didn’t matter what we thought and he as the developer should unilaterally decide what is best on his property.

Next step will be a sale to Allied for an office project because suddenly that’s worth more than residential according to City Planners who have appeared to gone rogue. It’s coming. Wait for it.
 
I heard from a friend who works at Le Select that last Friday there was an "electrical fire" in the heritage structure on this property that required multiple fire trucks to attend. He also said the building hasn't had power for years. Mysterious.
 

Inside the fall of Fortress

Fortress Real Developments raised $920-million from 14,000 Canadians who thought they were getting low-risk, steady income. Now, as the company comes under the pressure of an RCMP investigation and faltering projects, some face the prospect of devastating losses
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
400WellingtonGuy said:
If this is true, Brad Lamb strikes again. First he “allows” some of the buyers to get out in 2018 though mutual releases before the LPAT hearing and now suddenly he can’t understand why the LPAT has not come back with a favourable ruling knowing all along that there is considerable backup (up to a year or more) in getting rulings past the hearing conclusion. I wonder if it is the fact that he can sell units now at >$1300-1400/sqft as opposed to the <$1000/ sqft most of his deals were for a few years ago. I feel sorry for all of those that lost their investment in the growth of the last couple of years.

I am sure Brad wants to blame all the “NIMBYS” but maybe he should recollect how he told us on day one years ago that it didn’t matter what we thought and he as the developer should unilaterally decide what is best on his property.

Next step will be a sale to Allied for an office project because suddenly that’s worth more than residential according to City Planners who have appeared to gone rogue. It’s coming. Wait for it.
Click to expand...

Office does generate higher tax revenue but the land values aren't even remotely close. You couldn't buy a residential site using office underwriting as you wouldn't be able to compete.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top