From the sub:

upload_2016-11-1_16-33-56.png


upload_2016-11-1_16-34-29.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-11-1_16-33-56.png
    upload_2016-11-1_16-33-56.png
    209.4 KB · Views: 911
  • upload_2016-11-1_16-34-29.png
    upload_2016-11-1_16-34-29.png
    187.3 KB · Views: 851
The dataBase file has now been updated with new renderings, along with the thread title which acknowledges the decreased height of the proposal. The decreases and stepbacks of the building design are meant to minimize shadowing on the new park at "Wellesley on the Park".

42
 
It's amazing how Cresford consistently sells such high amounts of pre-construction units. Makes me wonder if it will be as easy for them to sell 100+ storeys of units at their YSL project once it's released.

They will, no doubt. The near sell out of this building occurred in a matter of hours when it was released. Consider as well Cresford's Clover condos up the steeet was also 80%+ sold the day it was released as well. They, like Daniels and Tridel simply have a vast network of agents that are able to sell their product, lots of repeat buyers as well.
 
The dataBase file has now been updated with new renderings, along with the thread title which acknowledges the decreased height of the proposal. The decreases and stepbacks of the building design are meant to minimize shadowing on the new park at "Wellesley on the Park".

42

quadrangle is not the architect
 
The height being only 38 storeys is really really unfortunate. I am sure the city wants to minimize development on Yonge Street.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, why is it unfortunate to the really squared?

42
 
So, why is it unfortunate to the really squared?

42
It is because the city is trying to lower the amount of development because they are trying to avoid a possibility of shadowing. Also, buyers may have bought on the uppermost floors, what will happen to them? Especially if they really wanted to live up there.
 
It is because the city is trying to lower the amount of development because they are trying to avoid a possibility of shadowing. Also, buyers may have bought on the uppermost floors, what will happen to them? Especially if they really wanted to live up there.

They knew the risks of purchasing in a project that is not even approved yet. They will receive their deposits back and be given the opportunity to purchase elsewhere within the redesigned project.
 
They knew the risks of purchasing in a project that is not even approved yet. They will receive their deposits back and be given the opportunity to purchase elsewhere within the redesigned project.
What if they really wanted to live on the uppermost floors? Will they try to submit an application to modify the project just to make their dream home in Halo?
 
I don't believe units were sold here before the reduction. The reduction was done with the redesign by cresford.

From what I recall Cresford managed to get Vox to 100% sales without any marketing beyond giving floorplans to their agents.
 
What if they really wanted to live on the uppermost floors? Will they try to submit an application to modify the project just to make their dream home in Halo?
Even if it were the case that people had bought on floors that were not eventually allowed to be built (not the case here), it is not the City's responsibility to allow higher floors just because higher floors have been sold. That's entirely a developer's responsibility to deal with, and a risk that a buyer enters into. (Anyone who buys in a building that has not been approved takes a risk that they may not get that unit. If they have not checked for the approval, then they are being cavalier about locking up some of their money for a while.)

42
 
New renders from the Dev App site:
upload_2017-2-17_21-22-40.png
upload_2017-2-17_21-23-11.png

upload_2017-2-17_21-24-23.png


upload_2017-2-17_21-25-18.png


upload_2017-2-17_21-25-41.png


upload_2017-2-17_21-26-5.png


upload_2017-2-17_21-26-26.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-2-17_21-22-40.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-22-40.png
    525.6 KB · Views: 421
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-23-11.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-23-11.png
    545.8 KB · Views: 440
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-24-23.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-24-23.png
    765.3 KB · Views: 455
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-25-18.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-25-18.png
    414 KB · Views: 390
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-25-41.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-25-41.png
    879.7 KB · Views: 412
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-26-5.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-26-5.png
    444.4 KB · Views: 375
  • upload_2017-2-17_21-26-26.png
    upload_2017-2-17_21-26-26.png
    789.2 KB · Views: 378

Back
Top