Myself, if I was buying a condo, the design of the building would have influence. How much influence? I'm not sure.
But if the building were drastically altered, it would have an effect on my purchase for sure, regardless if it effects my specific unit or not.
 
Thanks for the reply solaris, I am looking into it further to see whether I can back out. I will say that I bought because it was a great location and I thought it would be a good investment but it was also largely because I thought it looked so unique. That uniqueness was part of what I thought would help it maintain its value, as it would set itself apart from the many other condo towers. I was extremely disappointed when I found out the toe was going to be missing. It's still an attractive building but the severe change in design really has made me, for one, less happy about the building.
 
Presented with the unsurpassed amount of choice we have in Toronto, I'd think the design of the building would be a major element in the decision making process for many buyers (as in riley's situation above). The tower is still nice, but it has lost an incredibly distinctive element that really set it apart.
 
grey said:
Presented with the unsurpassed amount of choice we have in Toronto, I'd think the design of the building would be a major element in the decision making process for many buyers (as in riley's situation above). The tower is still nice, but it has lost an incredibly distinctive element that really set it apart.
Click to expand...

I agree.
This is a significant alteration fom the original design of this development. In other words, what buyers were told and shown, at the time of purchase is now, not what what they are going to get.
Whether it is argued that it is a better or worst design, simply does not factor into it.
Bottom line: The buyer IS NOT getting what he bought.
 
Last edited:
I'll echo what others are saying here - as soon as the funky 70's platform boot was eliminated, I lost all interest in this project. Now I honestly couldn't care less if it gets built or not, whereas before I was drooling at the prospect. For once it would be nice to get some truly bold residential buildings in this city that didn't go through a dumbing down between render and reality.
 
3Dementia said:
I think most L tower purchasers looked at a helluva lot more "value" issues (when deciding to purchase here) than an artist's impression/render that included a proposed public component (now amputated).

The toe had nothing to with the residential condominium ... besides being attached to the building... realistically, the revised tower sans toe offends those of us in the peanut gallery more than it would any future owners.

I suspect they would remain concerned about issues such as when will construction begin, will the finishes of their suite live up to the promise... and will the value of their purchase survive these challenges to the local market.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. I cannot imagine the huge interest and rush to buy if there was nothing iconic about this building. Yes, the location is great, but I'm willing to bet 90% of the people were buying here because they wanted to live in a very unique building.

It would be the same thing if the developers of the "Marilyn" tower in Mississauga suddenly changed the design to be just a tall round building.

Everyone should be able to back out without penalty at this point... And like Towered, I've also lost much interest in this project.
 
At the very least, Flipper will want to know if it was merely frostbite that caused the toe amputation, or a potentially more damaging flesh-eating disease that might nibble away at his investment, before deciding whether or not to tippy-toe away.
 
The new design may work better with the Sony Centre, but it doesn't have the impact of the original.
 
Totally disagree. I cannot imagine the huge interest and rush to buy if there was nothing iconic about this building. Yes, the location is great, but I'm willing to bet 90% of the people were buying here because they wanted to live in a very unique building.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want but your membership on this forum puts you in a small, rarified group of buyers who spend more time on the edifice they will inhabit than the suite/home they will inhabit. Sorry, but that ain't normal.

BTW:
a) the building can still claim to be iconic (read "starchitect") even without one of its toes (it still has a southerly appendage) regardless of all the complaints on this forum.

b) to suggest most purchasers think the "toe" is more important than their suite finishes, common element amenities, Libeskind cache, location... schedule/closing.... is kinda ridiculous.

I can't imagine many purchasers screaming "I don't give a damn if I have a toilet or the kitchen cupboards you promised... give me back that toe thingy!".

Even though you are buyer and purchased a suite in Casa, you are afterall an Urban Toronto (architecture/development/skyscraper) member and hardly typical of the typical buyer...

Obviously the artist's impressions and cool render people help brand a project and help create traffic to sales... but the exactness of built form/exterior design falls quickly down the list of priorities when one is putting dollars on the table and purchasing a home to live in (and the payment $chedules associated with such a commitment).

To suggest otherwise is pure UrbanToronto folly... which is fine.

-


FOLLOW-UP/EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: if this whole discussion is actually about a typical "investor's" response to the design change... then my argument loses buoyancy... my comments are based on the (reported) high percentage of "buy to live in" as opposed to "buy to flip". Mmmm... green.
 
Last edited:
I think the argument here is about the building losing its original "perceived value". A one-of-a-kind, unmistakable structure would be worth much more (to residents/flippers/the community) than just another point tower.
 
this debate will never end! i mean, that's fine with me but it just gets so repetitive.

even without the boot podium, this building is still unique. when's the last time you saw a tower that looked like that?

the public space will be beautiful. so will the tower. the humming bird will also be less tainted. i'm fine with the redesign, i just want them to refine the foot of the building slightly.
 
I agree that anybody who bought here, strictly for an investment, wouldn't care much about the changes but people who bought here to have a home, in a building they thought was beautiful and unique, would give a damn. I certainly would. Design is a very important issue for me, so is originality. This change has a huge impact and this building has lost much of it's appeal, for me. I'd be FUMING!
 
Casaguy raises an interesting point in an earlier post.

"It would be the same thing if the developers of the "Marilyn" tower in Mississauga suddenly changed the design to be just a tall round building."

At what point does a drastic design alteration constitute a different product being sold to a future resident. Minor cosmetics are certainly understandable. We have all seen it happen a number of times with various developments in the city. Sometimes referred to as the 'Cheepening' by some disgruntled members and often justifibly so.

How much freedom does a builder actually have before he has to allow the buyer to say "No, this is not what I committed my deposits to. I want out." and give the buyer that option?
Where do you draw the line?

As an aside I personally have warmed up to the change. The venerable Sony/Hummingbird/Okeefe Centre certainly appears more comfortable with this new contrast in design. That is however purely an asthetic perception on my part, and I certainly can appreciate the consternation of those individuals who bought into something quite different.
 
Lots of speculation here on what buyers do or do not care about, and obviously the different reactions among buyers will be a similar cross-section as the differences between people in general. However I am speaking as a buyer, and an investment buyer, and I know several people who also bought in as investors, and all of us are concerned and annoyed by the change. We are NOT only worried about the 'finishes' as I'm confident they will be adequate, but the reason we bought here, and considered it a unique investment, was because it stood out. The fact that I am on this website does not mean I just one of a small percentage of people who will respond to dramatic architecture. ALL buyers care about the look of the building too. When passersby would have walked past the former L tower, they would have really NOTICED it. Love it or hate it, it would have been a landmark. That would mean something to potential buyers more than just trying to differentiate between a million lookalike towers.
 
riley said:
When passersby would have walked past the former L tower, they would have really NOTICED it. Love it or hate it, it would have been a landmark. That would mean something to potential buyers more than just trying to differentiate between a million lookalike towers.
Click to expand...


...but a landmark at what cost? I'm going to intone US's precautions here about 'empty' spectacle. The Sony Centre provides the ample wonderful spectacle of a modernist heritage building at this location. A new tower will fill its context far better by embracing this rather than trying to compete with it. In a theatrical context, not everybody gets to be the 'star' but the supporting chorus is just as important to the overall effect.

The 'L' in a different location would be exciting, I would agree, but here it just doesn't work for me. I'd rather see a thoughtful rethinking of the design than lazy tinkering with the older one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top