Does this mean it's still incomplete until they finish the alterations?
Hmm that's interesting, I had always thought commercial fit out fell under the permits already obtained by the developer.The building has reached 'substantial completion'.
The permits reflect fit-out.
Sometimes, when developers build, they have all the tenants arranged well in advance, and much the of work for retail tenants or commercial tenants is known and in the approved 'new buildings' permits.
But often, especially in residential building bases, those tenants are not secured at the time construction commences, so the permits only cover those areas of the building to a 'base' condition.
When the building is closer to completion, and secures tenants and/or develops a strategy to secure tenants they have a more specific idea of what is needed; unit sizes, demising walls (walls that internally divide units), security details, signage details, needs for washrooms or patio access etc etc.
These permits are to begin to fit out spaces either for specific tenants, or to be tenant-ready. The arguable exception to that, here, is the addition of an exterior canopy not previously contemplated. That will likely be either the request of a specific tenant, who is large enough to be worth that investment or an advised retail strategy by a consultant/broker.
* I should add here, that permits are required for a host of repairs/renovations over the life of a building; but aren't always required (re-tiling a floor or repainting, as examples do not require permits); however, anything structural, or that materially alters plumbing, electrical or HVAC will require permits)
Hmm that's interesting, I had always thought commercial fit out fell under the permits already obtained by the developer.
What counts as fully completed then, when the city inspectors give the final approval, when the title transfers to purchasers, something else?
Thanks for the info.It does, sometimes, in the manner I described above. Though, even when you know who your tenant is; and really build to purpose, you can often see supplementary permits.
65 King East (for which we have a thread) is a good example, because the building had secured Google as its principle commercial tenant taking most/all of the building office space early on........
Yet, as Google was ready to move in, supplementary permits were required for various aspects of fit-out, to be tenant ready.
Needless to say, if this is required when you know who your tenant is; and the footprint in their lease is determined; you can imagine that there is more that will change when you don't know who your end tenant will be, when construction begins.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.
The City closes permits as the work described in them is completed, and inspected and passed.
If you're trying to ask if the City can/does close a 'New Building' permit when aspects of the interior (not structural, related to fit-out) remain unfinished, the answer is generally yes. ****
However, since you made me look it up, LOL, the City has NOT closed the 'New Building' permit for this site yet; it is currently listed as 'inspection':
View attachment 423709
Thanks for the info.
That is kinda weird, since it's marked as 'completed' in the UT database. Did someone mark it in error?
Why not set it according to whatever the city says? It could even be automated to save effort.
This is UT owner @Edward Skira's bailiwick, actually, but the status change essentially has to do with when occupancies begin in a building, and I have argued that we should use "open" instead of "completed".Why not set it according to whatever the city says? It could even be automated to save effort.