[Torontovibe]

Council does not have the legislative tools to implement some rather restrictive provisions you've suggested based on some peoples desire to have some water-colour painting / rendering equal exact reality.

Material changes are sometimes necessary; buildings aren't fully designed down to the last detail when projects open for sales and suppliers and manufactures change all the time – it takes many years to bring a site through the planning / sales / construction / occupancy / after-sales service stages . Building designs are based on blue-prints, architectural plans, electrical plans etc - not a drawing from a vantage point far away put together by an artist with no engineering/architectural training based on the general vision of what the tower will look like. When you last opened a beer did the Swedish bikini team drop out of the sky? Rendering = advertising.

If the province stepped in to significantly alter the regulatory landscape to require zero material changes and altering sales & marketing timelines to extend to overall development process timelines, risk would increase significantly and some business practices (i.e. ordering windows 3 years in advance of construction and storing them somewhere to ensure supply is available) seem pretty far fetched as being practical. All those associated costs would be passed onto consumers. So while as a benefit we'd all have perfect renderings, we'd reduce the level of competition with fewer developers in Toronto being able to take on additional risks and have even higher condo prices reducing affordability.

It is too bad no one has any blue-prints or landscaping plans to see how much the actual plans changed. I doubt the budget changed significantly throughout the project. So I question how significantly the project scope was actually altered or if the artist drawing the rendering was just given far more free range than was necessary. Sometime less is more with these drawings. I’m assuming it was just a really badly put together rendering that was entirely mis-leading rather than the budget being chopped at the last second (Concord had to live up to specific commitments based on parkland dedication requirements and sec 37 agreements).

If that's the case, at least give buyers the option of opting out. Why does everything have to be only in the developers interests? I don't buy what you're saying. I think it could be changed and should be changed as a matter of principle. People deserve to get what they paid for. I'm sure there are very good rea$ons for it, but it's too one sided the way it is now. I personally would never buy a new condo until it's built and I knew exactly what I was getting.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Council does not have the legislative tools to implement some rather restrictive provisions you've suggested based on some peoples desire to have some water-colour painting / rendering equal exact reality.

Material changes are sometimes necessary; buildings aren't fully designed down to the last detail when projects open for sales and suppliers and manufactures change all the time – it takes many years to bring a site through the planning / sales / construction / occupancy / after-sales service stages . Building designs are based on blue-prints, architectural plans, electrical plans etc - not a drawing from a vantage point far away put together by an artist with no engineering/architectural training based on the general vision of what the tower will look like. When you last opened a beer did the Swedish bikini team drop out of the sky? Rendering = advertising.

If the province stepped in to significantly alter the regulatory landscape to require zero material changes and altering sales & marketing timelines to extend to overall development process timelines, risk would increase significantly and some business practices (i.e. ordering windows 3 years in advance of construction and storing them somewhere to ensure supply is available) seem pretty far fetched as being practical. All those associated costs would be passed onto consumers. So while as a benefit we'd all have perfect renderings, we'd reduce the level of competition with fewer developers in Toronto being able to take on additional risks and have even higher condo prices reducing affordability.

It is too bad no one has any blue-prints or landscaping plans to see how much the actual plans changed. I doubt the budget changed significantly throughout the project. So I question how significantly the project scope was actually altered or if the artist drawing the rendering was just given far more free range than was necessary. Sometime less is more with these drawings. I’m assuming it was just a really badly put together rendering that was entirely mis-leading rather than the budget being chopped at the last second (Concord had to live up to specific commitments based on parkland dedication requirements and sec 37 agreements).

I've read your thoughts on the rendering process in several threads now and for the most part, I think you're right. Here though, it was not one or even two renderings, it was those drawings, plus whatever was on Coupland's and Smallengerbfarvaagyadayadayada's websites, plus the models put out by Cityplace advertising each building separately. I believe the big Parade model still has the initial design laid out in front of it. Brochures for most of the buildings also contained the phantom park as did the invitation to the opening itself. Though Mike's inside insight often proves right in the end, I can't help thinking we got just a little screwed here, if only because the projections promised so much and the park, while good, delivers so much less.

The question now is will Cityplace change their marketing material to match the new, 'less-equiped' design.

 

[MatrixElement]

Re the discussion on cheapening and costs, I attended the pedestrian bridge public meeting at back in February and during the Q&A Alan Vihant from Concord complained that the park cost had doubled from the budget. He also said they expected to finish in August or September, so they are more or less on schedule. He also said they were going to create a "grand entrance" to the park at Dan Leckie Way and beautify the space under the Gardiner there, and had even hired an artist to do something special there. As of a few weeks ago they just had some generic paving there; I haven't had a chance to check it out in person yet.

 

[adma]

Our Millennium Park is Yorkville Park, FWIW.

 

[interchange42]

Ehhhhhhhhh - I think our Millennium Park is... well, we don't have one. The only reason anyone is going on about this now is because CityPlace dared to compare this park with Hyde and Central Parks, etc., in their silly advertisements. I can't believe how many keys have been clacked over this.

42

 

[MadMax]

Ehhhhhhhhh - I think our Millennium Park is... well, we don't have one. The only reason anyone is going on about this now is because CityPlace dared to compare this park with Hyde and Central Parks, etc., in their silly advertisements. I can't believe how many keys have been clacked over this.

42

Absolutely! That's what they get for making that ridiculous video! Hopefully the video hasn't and won't make the Tourist Promo rounds in other countries....pretty embaressing if they were to come and check out Toronto's new "Central Park"...

 

[wyliepoon]

Sep 11 - Views from the fence. (I can’t believe that it’s still going to be “closed†for a couple more weeks - a fall/winter opening seems so anti-climactic)

The lightbox with the picture at the bottom of the photo is part of the park, I believe.

 

[MatrixElement]

Sep 11 - Views from the fence. (I can’t believe that it’s still going to be “closed” for a couple more weeks - a fall/winter opening seems so anti-climactic)

They had better open it soon now that they've publicized it and created a buzz. I checked it out yesterday and there were an unusually large number of people (ie a few instead of zero) wandering around Dan Leckie Way and along Fort York Blvd, and they clearly weren't urban geeks. In fact there was a mother with several children looking to use the park who was disappointed when I told her it was just a sneak preview and won't actually open for a few weeks.

Also noticed yesterday there is still a lot of work to do at the Dan Leckie Way entrance under the Gardiner. It isn't a grand entrance yet.

 

[GrinTO]

Cityplace park

Yes they did their political BS speeches then locked the park up so that we can't use the park till the weather turns bad and the city doesn't have to mow the real grass.
At least open the damn path so the many people now west of Spadina can safely get to the Lake!

 

[gei]

Yes they did their political BS speeches then locked the park up so that we can't use the park till the weather turns bad and the city doesn't have to mow the real grass.
At least open the damn path so the many people now west of Spadina can safely get to the Lake!

I usually just walk around the fences and go anyway.... and I've noticed many others are doing the same thing. Security can't keep chasing all these people away forever.

We saw a guard chase away a few other people and when she encountered us she just let us through... I think she gave up.

 

[ponyboy]

I spent an hour in the park this past week near sunset (the day there was an event earlier in the day). There were a lot of people using the park, some throwing frisbees, and no guards telling people to leave. I think it is open folks. I don't really care for all of the Terry Fox photo signs everywhere, but the new cement sidewalks look pristine (no bubble gum spots on them yet).

 

[gei]

I spent an hour in the park this past week near sunset (the day there was an event earlier in the day). There were a lot of people using the park, some throwing frisbees, and no guards telling people to leave. I think it is open folks. I don't really care for all of the Terry Fox photo signs everywhere, but the new cement sidewalks look pristine (no bubble gum spots on them yet).

As has already been discussed in this thread, the park was officially open for a "preview" on Wednesday, and then closed again.

 

[catcher_of_cats]

This park is definitely closed for the time being. For those that want to explore, just hope the fence were the wooden skid is on Fort York and explore away. The fence can be opened and closed within a minute down at the corner to Lakeshore and Dan Leckie to get out. The canoe looks much better and bigger in person then is visualized in the photos. I loved the feeling of being in this park yesterday and I cannot wait until all the trees are mature. For all the rantings of those that have never been inside the park, go down and experience it for yourself before criticizing one of Toronto's better designed parks.

 

[Mike in TO]

If that's the case, at least give buyers the option of opting out. Why does everything have to be only in the developers interests? I don't buy what you're saying. I think it could be changed and should be changed as a matter of principle. People deserve to get what they paid for. I'm sure there are very good rea$ons for it, but it's too one sided the way it is now. I personally would never buy a new condo until it's built and I knew exactly what I was getting.

This is a subject for another thread, so I'm not going to get into it other than to say that legally if there are significant material changes to one's unit (i.e. square footage, layout, major material/upgrade changes, condo fees increase by over specific % or other items outlined in your contact etc) you do have the option to opt out. Obviously the government could make further changes to this, but there would be other consequences from those changes - if purchase and sale agreements are significantly weakened allowing consumers to easily escape contracts, major lending institutions would perceive residential construction loans of being much more risky than they already are. This would limit the volume of capital available, significantly increase carrying costs and significantly increase equity requirements - at the end of the day new condos would be much more expensive than they are today and there would be a smaller pool of developers able to operate in Toronto reducing competition (consumers can always buy resale if they prefer).

The role of government is to carefully balance a variety of stakeholder interests including developers, lenders and consumers while weighing all the various implications and consequences (including unintended consequences) of altering the regulatory framework that all operate within.

As far as the rendering debate - it seems clear that Concord was a little over-zealous in their models and rendering promoting the park. I think the "under-promise; over deliver" motto would go a long way to manage public expectations in many cases.

 

[Tewder]

Ehhhhhhhhh - I think our Millennium Park is... well, we don't have one. The only reason anyone is going on about this now is because CityPlace dared to compare this park with Hyde and Central Parks, etc., in their silly advertisements. I can't believe how many keys have been clacked over this.

42

We were expecting a little gem or 'showpiece' of a park at the centre of City Place and at a very visible site in the foreground of the city. This didn't quite happen and so yet again we are disappointed; yet again the outcome does not match the expectations.

I'm glad to see discussions on this. It's a little uninspiring to keep reading posts about floor counts and/or whether the undersides of balconies will be painted or not. There's so much more to the urban realm. There's so much more we could be doing better in Toronto with our public spaces that the critiques and analysis is important I think.