Torontovibe
Senior Member
Council does not have the legislative tools to implement some rather restrictive provisions you've suggested based on some peoples desire to have some water-colour painting / rendering equal exact reality.
Material changes are sometimes necessary; buildings aren't fully designed down to the last detail when projects open for sales and suppliers and manufactures change all the time – it takes many years to bring a site through the planning / sales / construction / occupancy / after-sales service stages . Building designs are based on blue-prints, architectural plans, electrical plans etc - not a drawing from a vantage point far away put together by an artist with no engineering/architectural training based on the general vision of what the tower will look like. When you last opened a beer did the Swedish bikini team drop out of the sky? Rendering = advertising.
If the province stepped in to significantly alter the regulatory landscape to require zero material changes and altering sales & marketing timelines to extend to overall development process timelines, risk would increase significantly and some business practices (i.e. ordering windows 3 years in advance of construction and storing them somewhere to ensure supply is available) seem pretty far fetched as being practical. All those associated costs would be passed onto consumers. So while as a benefit we'd all have perfect renderings, we'd reduce the level of competition with fewer developers in Toronto being able to take on additional risks and have even higher condo prices reducing affordability.
It is too bad no one has any blue-prints or landscaping plans to see how much the actual plans changed. I doubt the budget changed significantly throughout the project. So I question how significantly the project scope was actually altered or if the artist drawing the rendering was just given far more free range than was necessary. Sometime less is more with these drawings. I’m assuming it was just a really badly put together rendering that was entirely mis-leading rather than the budget being chopped at the last second (Concord had to live up to specific commitments based on parkland dedication requirements and sec 37 agreements).
If that's the case, at least give buyers the option of opting out. Why does everything have to be only in the developers interests? I don't buy what you're saying. I think it could be changed and should be changed as a matter of principle. People deserve to get what they paid for. I'm sure there are very good rea$ons for it, but it's too one sided the way it is now. I personally would never buy a new condo until it's built and I knew exactly what I was getting.