1 Bloor East, DEAD AND BURIED (Bazis, -2s, Varacalli)

[sunnyraytoronto]

Heck ...even if they held a building permit and owned the land they arent capable of building anything over 30 stories.

Seems the only way Bazis can deliver,... is if Bazis keep chopping floors,.... until they're down to zero floors,.... which is what's already at these two Bazis site,... empty lots.

 

[Eastside]

The more I think about this, the more I really hope that someone at City Hall is held accountable for this. Between this debacle and the gray lump of a building down the street that now thankfully finds itself in receivership, two of the most significant projects of the past several decades on perhaps our city's most prominent street have been absolutely MANGLED. The politicians were all over this thing when things were moving along, to the point that they had Kyle Rae as one of their most vociferous supporters and I believe David Miller even showed up at the sales centre's grand opening. Now that things have gone to hell someone from the city needs to explain why a functioning neighborhood block (which, despite Kyle Rae's labeling of it as an "armpit", was a centre for employment for dozens of people and was a benefit to the people who live in the area) was allowed to be razed when there were ALWAYS so many questions about the viability of this ridiculous project.

 

[Build Up]

Time to update my "evolution of 1BE"...

i can finish your diagram

A stump

 

[khris]

The article from The Star seems a bit fishy if you ask me. The part about it being reduced to 68 floors seems like it just pops up out of nowhere, and Gold isn't even quoted about that, or says anything regarding 68 floors. Seems like regurgitation of what has been said elsewhere.
Then Gold goes on to mention he says it's going to be built as planned.

Also; not really important, just a lack of knowledge probably, they used an old rendering.

 

[The Condo Observer]

Have enough red flags been raised?

Are there any buyers on this forum that have requested their money back as yet? There must be a clause in the sales agreement that could be invoked - someone suggested a change in potential maintenance fees which can be argued as a significant change...(there is a legal term for this that slips me right now)

Buyers, have your lawyers review the agreement and try to get the hell out.

Deal with your disappointment, but be assured that there is something better out there for you.

 

[Johnzz]

Let's run through the Bazis list shall we:

(1) No Money

(2) No permit

(3) No experience at 30+ floors

Naw, I'm sure this thing'll get built...

 

[Mongo]

I don't understand the negativity being repeatedly posted here. It is clear from the first news item (from the Globe and Mail) that Bazis will in fact be going ahead and building 1BE to 68s, which will still be one of the tallest buildings in Toronto. I challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference between 68s and 81s looking up from street level.

Projects get downsized all the time, just look at 300 Front or Couture. Suppose that Aura does not get that 10 extra storeys they want, and stays at 75s instead of 85s. Will the people on this board be slagging Canderel for not building at 85s?

Bazis no doubt made a mistake in not forseeing the global economic recession when it announced 1BE at 81s (although nobody else did either), and subsequently losing their financing, but the same sort of thing could have happened at Aura if they had announced the extra 10 storeys before last fall. Instead they got away with quietly dropping their plans for the extra height (which I assume has happened), while Bazis was forced to announce their height reduction in the full glare of public expectations

Bill

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The article from The Star seems a bit fishy if you ask me. The part about it being reduced to 68 floors seems like it just pops up out of nowhere, and Gold isn't even quoted about that, or says anything regarding 68 floors. Seems like regurgitation of what has been said elsewhere.
Then Gold goes on to mention he says it's going to be built as planned.

From the Star article:

..."Buyers who entered into agreements for units from floor 68 to 80, were told this week they will get their money back. Gold's development team has decided to cut the size of the project to 67 floors to reduce construction costs estimated originally at $542 million. No construction has taken place, but the site has been cleared. The move-in date was to be sometime in 2011."

 

[DaninToronto]

But thats not fair. The people who bought the top floors probably did so because they wanted to be at the top. Now it's like too bad the people below you are now at the top.

 

[maestro]

The more I think about this, the more I really hope that someone at City Hall is held accountable for this. Between this debacle and the gray lump of a building down the street that now thankfully finds itself in receivership, two of the most significant projects of the past several decades on perhaps our city's most prominent street have been absolutely MANGLED. The politicians were all over this thing when things were moving along, to the point that they had Kyle Rae as one of their most vociferous supporters and I believe David Miller even showed up at the sales centre's grand opening. Now that things have gone to hell someone from the city needs to explain why a functioning neighborhood block (which, despite Kyle Rae's labeling of it as an "armpit", was a centre for employment for dozens of people and was a benefit to the people who live in the area) was allowed to be razed when there were ALWAYS so many questions about the viability of this ridiculous project.

Are you serious?!? There is no such thing as a guaranteed development so it's either we let no re-development of existing properties or accept the possibility of stalled sites. Bazis International (a subsidiary of Bazis A) was more than capable of pulling off One Bloor when it was first released to the market.

I don't know why everyone is so emotional about this one. It's just a tall proposal whose schick design leaves a lot to be desired. According to the article, others are already ready to step in with their own development so the loss of the square will be at most short lived.

I'm just sick of this 1000 foot nonsense not that One Bloor was even 1000 feet.

 

[Eastside]

Are you serious?!? There is no such thing as a guaranteed development so it's either we let no re-development of existing properties or accept the possibility of stalled sites. Bazis International (a subsidiary of Bazis A) was more than capable of pulling off One Bloor when it was first released to the market.

I don't know why everyone is so emotional about this one. It's just a tall proposal whose schick design leaves a lot to be desired. According to the article, others are already ready to step in with their own development so the loss of the square will be at most short lived.

I'm just sick of this 1000 foot nonsense not that One Bloor was even 1000 feet.

It's the second major Yonge St site that will now possibly languish for years because land and permits were given to developers who quite obviously did not have their ducks in a row. There's a long way between allowing "no redevelopment" and ensuring that when developers are allowed to evict long-time tenants and basically gut entire city blocks that the city has some sort of recourse in case things go wrong. They are 0 for 2 on this short stretch of Yonge in the past decade. Not only has city hall allowed this to happen, but our city's leaders line up to glad-hand the very people who leave enormous scars on our civic fabric. There were serious questions about this from the start but too many people, including those who should be looking out for the best interests of the city and its residents, were too busy buying into some overt-the-top marketing hype. I don't understand why people take this "it's okay, the building is just going to be smaller now" tripe at face value when there has been so little transparency and follow-through up to this point.

 

[Nebakenezer]

why don't they just build as planned? they should start building what they have the money for. by the time they start reaching the higher floors, either the economy will be in a better condition or people's confidence in the project will be alot greater and they will sell those units. that's say that by the time they build to the 60th floor, if they haven't sold enough units above that, they can always top off the tower there. but i doubt that by the time they get that high up they would not have sold everything that was left.

if you build it, they will come. tearing down roy's square gave people confidence to buy in, starting construction will probably give enough people confidence to allow the sell off all or most of the remaining units.

I agree with this whole heartidly. And also, is it baziz fault that Lehman Brothers went bankrupt? Then the sources of finance dried up around the world. And now other developers have bought the loan at a discount trying to force the purchase ownership to themselves.

I believe the project was completely sound financially. And I believe buyers genuinely want this project to go up. Look at Trump, Ritz, FourSeasons.. all higher priced buildings, in less fantastic locations are going up.

They should build the 80 floor building or something similar, nothing less is appealing enough anymore.

 

[Nebakenezer]

Not to mention Shangri-la.

Just put a top name brand on it like Waldorf Astoria, and watch it explode.

 

[khris]

From the Star article:

..."Buyers who entered into agreements for units from floor 68 to 80, were told this week they will get their money back. Gold's development team has decided to cut the size of the project to 67 floors to reduce construction costs estimated originally at $542 million. No construction has taken place, but the site has been cleared. The move-in date was to be sometime in 2011."

You didn't read what I wrote. Gold is not quoted as saying that it has been shrunk at all. They are simply stating what has been said by realtors already. This letter has not been seen by anyone here. Nothing official about a height decrease has been said anywhere besides these articles which don't quote anyone in particular about a height decrease.

 

[MisterF]

It's the second major Yonge St site that will now possibly languish for years because land and permits were given to developers who quite obviously did not have their ducks in a row. There's a long way between allowing "no redevelopment" and ensuring that when developers are allowed to evict long-time tenants and basically gut entire city blocks that the city has some sort of recourse in case things go wrong. They are 0 for 2 on this short stretch of Yonge in the past decade. Not only has city hall allowed this to happen, but our city's leaders line up to glad-hand the very people who leave enormous scars on our civic fabric. There were serious questions about this from the start but too many people, including those who should be looking out for the best interests of the city and its residents, were too busy buying into some overt-the-top marketing hype. I don't understand why people take this "it's okay, the building is just going to be smaller now" tripe at face value when there has been so little transparency and follow-through up to this point.

How didn't Bazis have their ducks in a row? They had financing and the building was mostly sold. They have another tower under construction practically across the street. There was no reason to believe that the development wouldn't go ahead.