Declarations can be complex documents.
Click to expand...

They are always complex documents. How is this elaborating????


There are many instances of unit owner fees covering costs of commercial and community entities.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of instances where they share costs because it makes economic sense...not where the condo covers the costs of the partnering commercial venture. And even if it were, unless it is an asset of the condo corp, this can be changed at any time the board decides. I don't see how the Condo Act allows for clauses to force condos to pay such fees in perpetuity.

The important question here is not who is going to pay the water bill...but who will actually own the gallery. Mirvish mentioned it will be an "art foundation" which I suppose means it will be a non-profit, but will it be owned by whoever owns the Whitewear building? Will it just be a tenant of the Whitewear building? I assume Mirvish will retain full ownership of the warehouse as well as the POW. Since they are no longer part of the former podium entity, and completely separate address, how could you ask a condo corp down the street to pay to run a gallery on the roof of said building???


Read back to earlier posts. It goes to how a free gallery would be funded.
Click to expand...

Again...at this stage, why do we care so much who will be paying the water bill? It just seems odd to me. I suspect it isn't just pedantics.
 
"Summer Lake (1973), a 50-by-70 inch (about 127-by-178 cm) acrylic canvas, rocketed to a price of $310,500...."

It is still pretty amazing that one can pick up a large iconic canvas by one of Canada's most famous artists for the price of a small ho-hum one bedroom condo unit...
The art market here is so tiny as to be insignificant in the larger scheme of things.



The Art Market: records tumble in $1.1bn New York auction spree
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c745a510-488d-11e3-8237-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33azvjpSx

“The run-up to its November 12 sale had been feverish, with 10,000 visitors attending the preview and 1,400 bidders packed into the firm’s Rockefeller Centre salesroom. So intense was the interest from the secretive big buyers that Christie’s was forced to build an extra “skybox†with one-way glass to accommodate the numbers.â€

 
The way Mirvish was intending to fund his gallery was by getting each condo corp hooked into a Section 37 type of arrangement, similar to the way some daycares are done in condos. He has stated this publicly in the past.

The developer pays for the construction of the space then provides a 99 year lease, rent-free (including utilities) to a non-profit using the space to provide the community service. Then, each condo unit owner as part of their monthly common fees then chips in some additional funds for operational costs to keep the cost of the services less expensive. Perhaps with the smaller size gallery, he has backed off from this approach or the reverse may be true, with the smaller size making all this approach more affordable to developer and unit owner. A free gallery to the public is not cheap to operate.
 
Does anyone know if this proposal is subject to the design review panel, and if so, what kind of timeline are we looking at?

Thanks
 
freshcutgrass said:
They are always complex documents. How is this elaborating????
Click to expand...

Of course they are complex, and some are more complex than others, no? As no such documents are available for public examination, one can hardly elaborate on unseen details.

Give 400WellingtonGuy's posting a read. That may further address your interests.
 
Last edited:
400WellingtonGuy said:
The developer pays for the construction of the space then provides a 99 year lease, rent-free (including utilities) to a non-profit using the space to provide the community service. Then, each condo unit owner as part of their monthly common fees then chips in some additional funds for operational costs to keep the cost of the services less expensive.
Click to expand...

This seems to imply that the gallery is indeed an asset of the condo corp (or a shared asset among multiple condo corps). The lease is the key. And with 2700 units, a fairly hefty gallery operational budget could be funded on a fairly low per-unit basis (likely with other sources of funding as well). It seems like a pretty good plan to me. Too bad it will probably never get to be implemented.

Although while providing the physical gallery and the art collection is obviously more than generous, I can't help but think Mirvish would also provide some sort of endowment as well?



400WellingtonGuy said:
Perhaps with the smaller size gallery, he has backed off from this approach or the reverse may be true, with the smaller size making all this approach more affordable to developer and unit owner. A free gallery to the public is not cheap to operate.
Click to expand...

I think the logistics of the new gallery scheme makes the previous funding plan difficult, if not impossible. How do you make an added floor stuck on the top of a warehouse building down the street part of your condo corp? I suppose it can be done, but I think if that were the intention, then the gallery would have been worked into the base of one of the new condo towers, rather than an existing building down the street that has nothing to do with this new proposal.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Final Report from the June TEYCC:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-70050.pdf

AoD
Click to expand...


So, two quick takeaways.....

1 - maximum height and storey counts applied - no floor or height increases through committee of adjustments here

2 - a 9,000 square foot art gallery - down rather significantly from the 60,000 square foot gallery originally proposed.


I guess rather than a grand gallery in Toronto, he will send his art to various galleries around the world. People won't have to come here to see it.

Another key loss.
 
Big Daddy said:
So, two quick takeaways.....

1 - maximum height and storey counts applied - no floor or height increases through committee of adjustments here

2 - a 9,000 square foot art gallery - down rather significantly from the 60,000 square foot gallery originally proposed.


I guess rather than a grand gallery in Toronto, he will send his art to various galleries around the world. People won't have to come here to see it.

Another key loss.
Click to expand...

Another "key loss"? Since when does a bump-up resulted in that? As to his art collection - let's not be facetious here - he could have done it even now. I will take a "loss" that can and will be built than a proposal that is stuck in the mire.

Only in Toronto would getting two towers at 80 and 90s by Frank Gehry, preserving a stretch of heritage structures AND a large working theatre plus space for retail, a design university AND art gallery be counted as a loss. Put it into perspective, shall we?

AoD
 
Last edited:
So three 80 plus towers turns into one 82 story tower and one 92 story tower is a bump up?

So, it's all about height?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top