Whether the shuffled deck look was the builder's subjective "intention" or not is beside the point.

It may have been clear to individual buyers (or not - we don't know what they were told) how the building would look, but the builder produced numerous renders showing the "shuffling" effect for consumption by the public and City.

I realize the public and City have no mechanism to force a builder to construct to a rendering, but I think it is still reasonable to expect that rendering be as accurate as possible, or at least within reason.

In this case, the builder has made numerous alterations that have substantially changed the look of the building. It still may not be a bad building, but it is not the building that was "sold". If I were a buyer and I hadn't been specifically informed about these changes, I would be upset, even if I had no contractual remedy.

It actually blows my mind that what is essentially false advertising is legal for housing (perhaps the largest investment one will make) but prohibited for all other consumer products. I don't know much about this area of law, but there must be better-regulated jurisdictions.
 
Is there anything proposed for that parking lot right to the east that can hide this thing in the future?
 
Towered said:
Is there anything proposed for that parking lot right to the east that can hide this thing in the future?
Click to expand...


If you mean the parking lot directly north of 50 Lombard (Indigo Condos), there are no plans.

There is / was, however, a proposal for 120 Church https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/120-church that wraps around 124 Church (McVeigh's Irish Pub). And, across Church at 89 Church Street there's the future home of The Saint https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/saint
 
DC2E3832-0112-4C85-B964-91ADCCC72B8D.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 74004732-FE09-459F-BF69-A46936D0085C.jpeg
    74004732-FE09-459F-BF69-A46936D0085C.jpeg
    293.9 KB · Views: 360
As if the bottom line wasn't a factor back in the day. Labour was much cheaper in the old days and today's buildings are way more advanced and sophisticated which costs money.
 
Edward Skira said:
As if the bottom line wasn't a factor back in the day. Labour was much cheaper in the old days and today's buildings are way more advanced and sophisticated which costs money.
Click to expand...
Mostly agree with this statement, however... artisanship and skill was always valued, never cheap.
We have lost most artisans not because they were too expensive, but rather because market for their skill just vanished.
Besides, sophistication inside doesn't preclude its presence on the outside, and there are plenty of examples from around the world - if there is a will....
 
Edward Skira said:
As if the bottom line wasn't a factor back in the day. Labour was much cheaper in the old days and today's buildings are way more advanced and sophisticated which costs money.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a factor. Read what I wrote again. I said it wasn't the ONLY factor...and to tell you the truth, these days...not just with construction..the bottom line is the only factor with a lot of companies. Having integrity and doing right by your clients isn't too high on the list for some.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top