Monarch sure does paint a great picture for the development of their condo community on the lake, but will it ever get completed? Is any one here aware of the condo that was to be built before Nautilus was launched? Does "The Breeze" ring a bell?
Unfortunately, due to a significant amount of greed on Monarch's part, this condo was never built. The reason? Well, apparently Monarch got approval to build a taller tower. All purchasers were given their deposits back. After the cancellation, 6 months later the Nautilus was launched, and the price increase for these units was ridiculous, and no longer included a parking spot. So the answer seemed to be, why charge a reasonable price for a condo, when we can get the price they will be valued at in 2013? Interestingly, Monarch has done this several times in the past few years.
The upside? Well, Monarch is probably earning some nice interest on all the deposits they are receiving from uninformed purchasers. Hopefully this time, they actually build more than a miniature model.
Condo Critic,
Monarch is one of the better developers in the GTA in terms of price point, after sales service and their record with Tarion as well as customer satisfaction surveys with J.D. Powers.
You are misinformed as to why Breeze evolved into Nautilus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'greed' - which seems to be a phrase people like to toss around about development when they actually have no idea whatsoever what the profit margins are or the reasons why projects change.
The margins on the new project would be virtually identical to the previous project (most developers have a general pro forma with respect to project feasibility and ROI). Or if anything Monarch is probably making far less profit given that the project had to be redesigned and re-launched. Monarch paid a steep price (as any developer does when a project fails) due to the very high carrying costs on the land, sales & marketing staff + budget spent on a failed project, plus planning, architecture, engineering etc isn't cheap – especially when you have to do it twice on a single piece of land if it fails the first time around. The last thing any developer ever wants to do is to launch a major project (Breeze contained 389 units at an avg psf of $351) and have it fail.
You've made several false assumptions:
1. You suggest Monarch cancelled Breeze because they got approval for a larger project…
That claim is 100% false - the project was cancelled due to lack of sales - they had a very poor opening weekend and little interest from the investment community. The project was canned after 16 months because nothing was selling.
2. You suggest that the motivation for cancellation was that Monarch got approval for a larger project...
This claim is 100% false once again. While Nautilus is a taller single tower than the Breeze project it contains fewer units (Nautilus has 377 units, while Breeze contained 389 units). Nautilus had a higher price point at an avg psf of $419 - but that reflects market realities of a 2007 launch vs a 2005 launch as well as higher construction material and labour costs as well as some regulatory chances and higher costs on some standard features.
3. You claim that the developer is getting away with steeper margins on the parking…
If you had any idea what is actually costs to construct underground parking facilities below the watertable in porous ground conditions right beside Lake Ontario you would question why a parking space was offered in the Breeze project – nothing is ‘free’ it’s built into the cost of the unit.
4. You claim that Monarch earned some "nice interest on the deposits"...
This claim is entirely 100% false. Deposits are held in a third party trust and any interest earned is returned to the purchaser - which is a legislative requirement. Monarch never touched a penny of the deposit money.
You should perhaps be better informed before you start claiming "shame on Monarch" when you make a bunch of completely false accusations about a company that actually struggled to get this project off the ground and likely lost quite a bit of money in the process of doing so (but I guess in your point of view having a massive project fail is the definition of corporate 'greed').
Get your facts right...