sauga said:
I think that the Ritz and RBC are prime examples of the different methodolgies surround construction costs in Condo versus Commercial buidling. Although the Ritz started excavation prior to the RBC the RBC is much further along the the Ritz. I guess it shows the prime motivation in condo development which is try to minimize costs (including construction costs).. whereas the RBC building construction costs are not really an issue (when it comes to timing) as they will receive no real revenues until after the tenants move in....
Click to expand...


This doesn't make much sense... the Ritz isn't going to receive any revenue until long after residents move in. Deposits are held in a third party trust until closing and the balance of the unit cost is not paid for by the suite purchaser until closing. Therefore the developer doesn't receive any income until closing. The developer has an objective to move as fast as possible. Carrying costs in a project on this scale will cost the developer millions of dollars.

Why wouldn't cost be an issue for RBC? In any development or business model cost is always an issue. RBC and Ritz both have budgets for the hard and soft costs which the developer will attempt to keep - costs can be hard to control when projects have a long build out (material cost changes, labour, the unexpected, long approvals process, delays etc). The revenue side is usually fixed, which poses a significant challenge.

That and as mentioned the RBC tower started long before the Ritz.
 
Plus, RBC is leasable office space putting it in competition with other downtown office buildings being built simultaneously.
 
So I have a question....

I adore this building, and one of the things that I think makes it look particularly stunning on the exterior (from renderings) is its very obvious lack of balconies.

Why is it that this development was allowed to proceed without balconies? I was under the impression that essentially EVERY new residential high-rise building was required to include balconies. Even the new Four Seasons has balconies, which means that my "expensive/elite companies pay off the OMB" theory is shot....

thanks!
 
Dane said:
So I have a question....

I adore this building, and one of the things that I think makes it look particularly stunning on the exterior (from renderings) is its very obvious lack of balconies.

Why is it that this development was allowed to proceed without balconies? I was under the impression that essentially EVERY new residential high-rise building was required to include balconies. Even the new Four Seasons has balconies, which means that my "expensive/elite companies pay off the OMB" theory is shot....

thanks!
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump has balconies either.
 
Dane said:
So I have a question....

I adore this building, and one of the things that I think makes it look particularly stunning on the exterior (from renderings) is its very obvious lack of balconies.

Why is it that this development was allowed to proceed without balconies? I was under the impression that essentially EVERY new residential high-rise building was required to include balconies. Even the new Four Seasons has balconies, which means that my "expensive/elite companies pay off the OMB" theory is shot....

thanks!
Click to expand...
The city doesn't require balconies. Developers put balconies on buildings because that's what buyers want.
 
^^ Really? and other than Trump, and Ritz... Every Other developer thinks buyer's want balconies? as a condo buyer I would never want a balcony... are Ritz and Trump REALLY the only developments that realize that?
 
what about the X Condominum?

It has balconies also?

Anyways, I like no Balconies from an ashethic view. That's why Ritz is one of my Favorites.
 
X has them.

XCondoRender.jpg
 
MisterF said:
The city doesn't require balconies. Developers put balconies on buildings because that's what buyers want.
Click to expand...

I thought there was a by-law requiring condos to have balconies.

I assumed the reason why Trump, Ritz, and Bay Adelaide don't need them is because they're mixed use buildings, not pure condos.
 
Check out the area near college and bay, north-west of ROCP, there is a condo building which almost looks like an office building, but, well it's not. No balconies, just a glass curtain wall. So, there's more of them than you might think. I'd post a pic but I don't know how to do that yet... ><
 
I thought there was a by-law requiring condos to have balconies.

I assumed the reason why Trump, Ritz, and Bay Adelaide don't need them is because they're mixed use buildings, not pure condos.
Click to expand...

THANK you... I'm pretty sure I'd heard the same thing.... Bay adelaide is an office building... which means that it doesnt need balconies.... but the "mixed use thing"? Then why does the Four Seasons have balconies? its hotel/condo.... hmmm...

Oh well.... I love the ritz, and think that.... while SOME buildings look apropriate with balconies (eg. Absolut Missauga, One City Hall) but in general I think that buildings are better without balconies.. variety makes the city vibrant... builing all the new projects with balconies has... very little variety..

More and More reasons to love the ritz!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top