[Mercenary]

let's do this

 

[3Dementia]

Obviously this is decades away from being a concern, but looks like those 5 towers west of Spadina would effectively destroy south views from The Well (office and residential).

 

[Beyond]

Just saw this article with Moshe Safdie's perspective - I had thought that he knew what he was signing up for, but it sounds like he acted in good faith and now feels used.

A world-famous architect asks: Why did his Toronto design disappear?

A complex project is always subject to change. But Moshe Safdie says his Toronto design was part of a ‘bait and switch’ deception

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[3Dementia]

Can't read it (paywall) but don't blame him... only one visit to Toronto came close to respecting his work (Monde).

1. These "proponents" were never going to build anything resembling his (breath-taking?) vision for Rail Deck.

2. I lived in the Pantages Condo and Hotel, which was V-E'd big time.

3. His Opera House (at Yonge and Wellesley IIRC) was cancelled.

Maybe we owe him one... if he ever sets foot in this town again.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Yeah I don't have a good feeling about this new design team.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

As far as I know Sweeny has designed fairly decent projects in the past. So the success or failure of this initiative will likely fall on the folks who are developing this...

...and I'm not sure having rock star architect footing for the design will ever prevent what happens when the latter decides to value engineer the project and/or opt for cheap materials instead. Regardless, whatever happens here the blame shouldn't really fall to the new design team only, IMO.

 

[Northern Light]

Can't read it (paywall) but don't blame him... only one visit to Toronto came close to respecting his work (Monde).

1. These "proponents" were never going to build anything resembling his (breath-taking?) vision for Rail Deck.

2. I lived in the Pantages Condo and Hotel, which was V-E'd big time.

3. His Opera House (at Yonge and Wellesley IIRC) was cancelled.

Maybe we owe him one... if he ever sets foot in this town again.

Truthfully, I didn't particularly like the Safdie vision here, if one scrolls back in the thread for detailed discussion, it was problematic in many respects.

The current vision isn't particularly inspired either..........it has worked out some of the 'details' that were problematic in the Safdie concept, but the architecture at this stage is.......well, ho-hum, the park forgettable; and the density excessive. Not something I say all that often, but its just too much, crammed into too little space.

****

That said, Bait and Switch is a common practice in this town, and just like the elevator issue, that requires changes to provincial law.

If you gain approval (or sales) for something based on a certain render, you around bound by that; if you choose not to build, you pay back any purchaser in full, with interest, and your approval by the City is rescinded; you can start over. What you ought not to be able to do is promise one thing and deliver another.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

The Globe and Mail piece is my column. Safdie sees his experience as a prime example of The Cheapening.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Truthfully, I didn't particularly like the Safdie vision here, if one scrolls back in the thread for detailed discussion, it was problematic in many respects.

The current vision isn't particularly inspired either..........it has worked out some of the 'details' that were problematic in the Safdie concept, but the architecture at this stage is.......well, ho-hum, the park forgettable; and the density excessive. Not something I saw all that often, but its just too much, crammed into to little space.

****

That said, Bait and Switch is a common practice in this town, and just like the elevator issue, that requires changes to provincial law.

If you gain approval (or sales) for something based on a certain render, you around bound by that; if you choose not to build, you pay back any purchaser in full, with interest, and your approval by the City is rescinded; you can start over. What you ought not to be able to do is promise one thing and deliver another.

I can't think of any way that that kind of thing could be legally codified.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

I can't think of any way that that kind of thing could be legally codified.

Why not?

 

[Northern Light]

I can't think of any way that that kind of thing could be legally codified.

The City in essence codified it on Mirvish, it's in the approving by law and even specifies the architecture firm.

I would note that around the world lots of places use variations of prescriptive zoning; those 6-8 storey buildings in Paris that many people like that all have the exact same juliet balconcies and grey colour scheme are codified.

On certain streets what you can build is described in great detail.

I can think of several ways one could codify this in some measure. Now there always has to be some wiggle room as it would become utterly impractical to litigate everything to nth degree.........

But simple requirements in law that read as follows could work:

1) Where a Design architect is specified and marketed at the time of sale; that architect must remain as the design architect or the client/purchaser shall have the unilateral right to dissolve any contract of sale and shall have their deposit
returned in full with interest as specified by regulation.

2) Where marketing renders/images of a building are used to market its sale, the developer/seller shall maintain the final appearance of the building in a substantially similar manner with substantially similar material quality and character or the purchaser shall have the unilateral right to terminate any contract of sale, and have any deposit returned with interest as per regulation.

***

Further:

3) Where the approving municipality specifies that an approval is conditional on the design architect being attached to said project and approving any final design, any move to change said architect or alter their design w/o their express approval in writing shall permit the municipality to rescind any approval.

4) Where the key elements of an architectural design, including, but not limited to, its form, massing, style of architectural expression, colour palette, key features such as cornice, glazing type and form, cladding, canopy, atria or any other feature specified by the approving government as a condition of approval, these features shall not be removed or altered in any material way w/o the written permission of said municipality. Inability or unwillingness to adhere to the agreed conditions of approval shall result in rescindment of said approval except by the written authorization of the legal and planning staff w/the support of Council.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The City in essence codified it on Mirvish, it's in the approving by law and even specifies the architecture firm.

Only because Westbank were willing to go along with that. I certainly wouldn't have. In the end, Diamond Schmitt are the ones actually doing the working drawings there so Henriquez' citation in the by-law is for appearances only.

I would note that around the world lots of places use variations of prescriptive zoning; those 6-8 storey buildings in Paris that many people like that all have the exact same juliet balconcies and grey colour scheme are codified.

On certain streets what you can build is described in great detail.

I can think of several ways one could codify this in some measure. Now there always has to be some wiggle room as it would become utterly impractical to litigate everything to nth degree.........

But simple requirements in law that read as follows could work:

1) Where a Design architect is specified and marketed at the time of sale; that architect must remain as the design architect or the client/purchaser shall have the unilateral right to dissolve any contract of sale and shall have their deposit
returned in full with interest as specified by regulation.

What if that architect no longer wants to do the project? What if that firm ceases to exist? What if the project is sold and a new developer takes it on?

2) Where marketing renders/images of a building are used to market its sale, the developer/seller shall maintain the final appearance of the building in a substantially similar manner with substantially similar material quality and character or the purchaser shall have the unilateral right to terminate any contract of sale, and have any deposit returned with interest as per regulation.

Under whose authority is that decided? What is 'quality' and how is it defined? What if the specified materials are no longer available? What if the supplier went under?

***

Further:

3) Where the approving municipality specifies that an approval is conditional on the design architect being attached to said project and approving any final design, any move to change said architect or alter their design w/o their express approval in writing shall permit the municipality to rescind any approval.

The Planning Act does not give cities the right to 'rescind an approval'. And again, what if the architect doesn't want to do the project?

4) Where the key elements of an architectural design, including, but not limited to, its form, massing, style of architectural expression, colour palette, key features such as cornice, glazing type and form, cladding, canopy, atria or any other feature specified by the approving government as a condition of approval, these features shall not be removed or altered in any material way w/o the written permission of said municipality. Inability or unwillingness to adhere to the agreed conditions of approval shall result in rescindment of said approval except by the written authorization of the legal and planning staff w/the support of Council.

Two things here - again, Cities can't 'rescind an approval' and I think you're putting a lot of faith in Staff. Remember too, that it's Toronto Buildings, not Planning or Urban Design, that are the final adjudicators and trust me when I say 9/10 of them could not care less.

 

[Northern Light]

Only because Westbank were willing to go along with that. I certainly wouldn't have. In the end, Diamond Schmitt are the ones actually doing the working drawings there so Henriquez' citation in the by-law is for appearances only.

Right, but I'm not suggesting codifying this under the existing Act as is; but rather amending the act to add the requirement; so that what has been done 'ad hoc' could be done as-of-right.

What if that architect no longer wants to do the project? What if that firm ceases to exist?

How is that my problem as a customer? If I buy a car, and the contract specifies the names of certain part suppliers as a condition of sale (and this is the case for some high-end and customized vehicles) then if the car arrives with different parts in it, you, as the seller have voided the contract. That's black-letter law.

You can try and dispute it, and a court proceeding would result, and you would lose. I agreed to buy a model 'x', in black, with heated seats and 8 speakers etc etc. If you try to give me a car by a different manufacturer, a different model, a different colour or omit key features agreed to in my contract of sale, I'm taking my money back, and you can keep the car.

No reason it can't work the same for a housing unit. I bought a unit in a red brick building, you will deliver a red brick building, I bought a unit in a building clad in Limestone, you will deliver the limestone, I bought/paid 2x per ft2 to own
a condo designed by Gehry, you will deliver a unit designed by Gehry. Period, full-stop. If you can't deliver what I bought, give me my money back, the end. The rest is your problem as the seller/builder, not mine, as the buyer.

What if the project is sold and a new developer takes it on?

What is being sold, under the law, as I envision it, is a 'conditional approval'; if you don't like the conditions, don't buy the site and its approvals.

Under whose authority is that decided? What is 'quality' and how is it defined? What if the specified materials are no longer available? What if the supplier went under?

Again, if the law is amended, you specify the authority in the Act.

The law allows a limited ability for substitution in certain circumstances for other goods/services based on good faith necessity, and on providing an equivalent or better product or service.

Put simply, you can make a case for a right to buy my Quartz countertop from a different supplier, but you can't put in porcelain instead. You can make a case to provide my appliances by someone else, but they
still have to be of comparable quality, features and measurements and still have to be stainless steel. Same rules for everything else.

The Planning Act does not give cities the right to 'rescind an approval'.

I'm talking about Amending the Act.

And again, what if the architect doesn't want to do the project?

We're talking about a complete submission, with drawings in order to get approval. I would not specify who the architect of record is; so long as they adhere to the approved design.

Two things here - again, Cities can't 'rescind an approval' and I think you're putting a lot of faith in Staff. Remember too, that it's Toronto Buildings, not Planning or Urban Design, that are the final adjudicators and trust me when I say 9/10 of them could not care less.

The Act can be changed, it's not written on a stone tablet. The final authority can be changed on different items. Keep in mind as well, I'm not saying the City needs to specify every element of every building at time of approval; only those elements that are key to its approval.

The issue of the relationship between seller and buyer is a different matter, and as I noted above, rules are quite clear on this when you buy a product; what's inside must match what's on the package. No substitutions allowed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The City codified a requirement for Mirvish-Gehry to be designed by Gehry, not to be built exactly as approved. The project has actually changed substantially since it was approved.

Even then, the requirement for the building to be designed by a specific architect has no real legal standing and only made it into the by-law because Mirvish agreed not to fight it. If Great Gulf had wanted to switch architects they likely could have easily gone to the OLT to have it struck out.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Right, but I'm not suggesting codifying this under existing Act as is; but rather amending the act to add the requirement; so that what has been done 'ad hoc' could be done as-of-right.

That doesn't change the fact that Diamond Schmitt, not Henriquez, are doing that project. So what is the point of putting Henriquez name in the approval?

How is that my problem as a customer? If I buy a car, and the contract specifies the names of certain part suppliers as a condition of sale (and this is the case for some high-end and customized vehicles) then if the car arrives with different parts in it, you, as the seller have voided the contract. That's black-letter law.

You can try and dispute in it, and a court proceeding would result, and you would lose. I agreed to buy a model 'x', in black, with heated seats and 8 speakers etc etc. If you try to give me a car by a different manufacturer, a different model, a different colour or omit key features agreed to in my contract of sale, I'm taking my money back, and you can keep the car.

No reason it can't work the same for a housing unit. I bought a unit in a red brick building, you will deliver a red brick building, I bought a unit in a building clad in Limestone, you will deliver the limestone, I bought paid 2x per ft2 to own
a condo designed by Gehry, you will deliver a unit designed by Gehry. Period, full-stop. If you can't deliver what I bought, give me my money back, the end. The rest is your problem as the seller/builder, not mine, as the buyer.

My point is what if Gehry dies? Or the firm goes bust? Also, Frank Gehry (the person) is not 'designing' your unit or even your building, so again, what does his inclusion in an approval achieve? Also, again, it's not even Gehry doing Forma: it was Quadrangle and is now Adamson.

What is being sold, under the law, as I envision it, is a 'conditional approval'; if you don't like the conditions, don't buy the site and its approvals.



Again, if the law is amended, you specify the authority in the Act.

The law allows a limited ability for substitution in certain circumstances for other goods/services based on good faith necessity, and on providing an equivalent or better product or service.

Put simply, you could can make a case for a right to buy my Quartz countertop from a different supplier, but you can't put in porcelain instead. You can make a case to provide my appliances by someone else, but they
still have to be of comparable quality, features and measurements and still have to be stainless steel. Same rules for everything else.



I'm talking about Amending the Act.



We're talking about a complete submission, with drawings in order to get approval. I would not specify who the architect of record is; so long as they adhere to the approved design.

What is 'adhere'? Who controls that? To what degree is 'adherence' achieved?

The Act can be changed, its not written on a stone tablet. The final authority can be changed on different items. Keep in mind as well, I'm not saying the City needs to specify every element of every building at time of approval; only those elements that are key to its approval.

The issue of the relationship between seller and buyer is a different matter, and as I noted above, rules are quite clear on this when you buy a product; what's inside must match what's on the package. No substitutions allowed.

Right, because when you buy a packaged product, it's one of thousands or millions of identical copies of that product. Conversely, every single building is custom. If every pencil case or blender or Hot Wheels was a one-off custom product, you'd far more variation in its construction / assembly / sale.