April 28

This is happening all around the building
8701130976_ccdc4dd27e_b.jpg


8700006321_996392ed56_b.jpg


8699985113_967f80d275_b.jpg
 
The building is crying. It saw a reflection of itself in Casa and realized how ugly it is.
LOL!

This should have, or has been, addressed by the performance audit that the Board of Directors has to have completed once the building is handed over. The Board presents the audit to the developer who then addresses all of the deficiencies. The audit is meticulous, they inspect everything from top to bottom and address every deficiency except the suites (unless a building system affects the suites such as problems with risers, electrical systems etc.). These problems will be addressed.
 
LOL!

This should have, or has been, addressed by the performance audit that the Board of Directors has to have completed once the building is handed over. The Board presents the audit to the developer who then addresses all of the deficiencies. The audit is meticulous, they inspect everything from top to bottom and address every deficiency except the suites (unless a building system affects the suites such as problems with risers, electrical systems etc.). These problems will be addressed.

Agreed that this is the statutory process. Unfortunately, there are a number of potential pitfalls along the way. First of all, the Board may fail in its statutory responsibilities to hire a firm to do the Performance Audit (this is the first point of failure, although not very likely). The second point of failure is the Declarant, having received the Performance Audit report, fails to resolve the deficiencies. This would be the much more likely cause of the problems. Should the Developer (Declarant) not be willing to resolve the building's issues in an effective manner, the Board would have to file a legal claim, and then go through the entire elongated legal process - file the claim, mediation, arbitration, and then trial. If the developer' strategy is to try and wait things out, and see if the the Board will cave in, the entire process could run between five and ten years in duration.
 
This is the future of CityPlace, Liberty Village, and 90% of everything that has been built in the last 10 years. Cheap-shit, building boom crap in a city that has sold its soul to fast-buck developers.
 
Agreed that this is the statutory process. Unfortunately, there are a number of potential pitfalls along the way. First of all, the Board may fail in its statutory responsibilities to hire a firm to do the Performance Audit (this is the first point of failure, although not very likely). The second point of failure is the Declarant, having received the Performance Audit report, fails to resolve the deficiencies. This would be the much more likely cause of the problems. Should the Developer (Declarant) not be willing to resolve the building's issues in an effective manner, the Board would have to file a legal claim, and then go through the entire elongated legal process - file the claim, mediation, arbitration, and then trial. If the developer' strategy is to try and wait things out, and see if the the Board will cave in, the entire process could run between five and ten years in duration.

Exactly. However with Cresford continuing to build major projects right next door I can't imagine that they'd play hard ball over addressing deficiencies.
 
This is the future of CityPlace, Liberty Village, and 90% of everything that has been built in the last 10 years. Cheap-shit, building boom crap in a city that has sold its soul to fast-buck developers.

I so agree with this. I can see articles 10 years from now "How could this have happened"...completely forgetting that the city has bent over backwards to allow developers to do whatever the hell they want.
 
The City has limited ability to legislate the quality of materials used.
 
Oh it's that now tiny PoMo tower I always wondered about that got dwarfed by its neighbours...
 

Back
Top