UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
I can least be sympathetic with Flat Earthers that from this vantage point this would have been a spectacular shot of the lake shore as well if their nonsense was true...From Niagara on the lake View attachment 679322
I can least be sympathetic with Flat Earthers that from this vantage point this would have been a spectacular shot of the lake shore as well if their nonsense was true...From Niagara on the lake View attachment 679322
Mizrahi was not big enough to find financing for a project of this size without putting all of his assets up for recourse purposes. Very large developers like Tridel can finance their projects on the basis of their corporate covenant alone.Maybe this is too in the weeds but I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable with the real estate / development sector can speak to this: I've never quite understood why people who have certainly "made it" in life (Mizrahi presumably had millions of dollars in personal assets before embarking on The One) would personally guarantee something related to their corporation (in this case a $1.5 billion real estate development loan). Why take on that risk? Why remove a main benefit of the corporation structure that real estate development usually uses (a separate legal entity for each project)?
Are all the lenders requiring this as a condition and there's no other way to get the funding? Or is it just to reduce the interest rate?
For context, my understanding is that a personal guarantee is often (always?) required when signing a retail lease for say a coffee shop or restaurant, but that makes a bit more sense to me because at least in the case of someone trying to open a small restaurant they probably haven't "made it" yet with significant personal assets at risk, so they're perhaps more willing to roll the dice. But still, I see small retail shops in the new buildings around me close down and I think about how if the owner personally guaranteed a 5 year lease, they might be out hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is that really the case?
In 1894, the Toronto skyline was visible from Buffalo:
![]()
Fata Morgana (mirage) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If the Fata Morgana were to happen again, then One Bloor West would be very easily visible from Buffalo.
It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.Theoretically the top of the CN tower should be visible from the top of the Seneca One tower. In reality it’s exceedingly difficult as atmospheric distortion at those distances makes it very challenging to see.
Yes for sure. From Niagara Falls you can easily see the downtown Toronto skyline on clear days as well.It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.
Buffalo is about 50% further than Niagara Falls - which is why it is even tougher to make it out. The curvature of the earth starts to block a lot more of the skyline at that distance meaning only the tallest buildings would be visible. For Toronto looking towards Buffalo, basically only Seneca One would be tall enough to be visible.It can’t be that bad. We live 190 feet up and our south windows directly face Niagara Falls. On clear days we can make out the taller buildings of NF (Skylon, Can and US Casinos) with the naked eye.
Ugh. Likely St Mike's (they generally receive the traumas south of Bloor)At times I think this building is cursed:
![]()
Worker seriously injured at site of Toronto highrise under construction
One worker has been taken to a trauma centre after suffering an injury at the construction site of an 87-storey highrise building in the heart of downtown Toronto.www.cp24.com