greenleaf
Senior Member
Why is it unfair?
I believe anything not occupied as rental prior to November 1, 1991 is subject to annual increases as mandated by the province.
See: http://www.ontariotenants.ca/law/law.phtml#Q12
Toronto The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | Arcadis
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
Why is it unfair?
I believe anything not occupied as rental prior to November 1, 1991 is subject to annual increases as mandated by the province.
See: http://www.ontariotenants.ca/law/law.phtml#Q12
CN Tower
Banned
These people are innocent bystanders. The RTA protects them. It's their right to remain as tenants as long as they like. Their rent is dictated by statute and regulations. If you want that changed to annual open market rental increases then I suggest you take it up with your Premier.
You bought a condo pre-construction for $300,000 with 5% down and now the developer is selling the same unit as yours for $400,000. You've got $100,000 in equity without doing anything. Unfair! Should the developer be able to terminate your contract and capture the increased profit?
This thing will get sorted out I'm sure. If the tenants are smart they can exteact some concessions and come out a little ahead for the incovenience of bring uprooted from their homes. A 'fair' trade.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Oh, I get it and understand. I was just pointing out that the renters there are not doing anything wrong. I think the current arrangement works as well as it can. I do not want open market rental increases.
Hopefully the tenants do receive proper compensation.
Hopefully the tenants do receive proper compensation.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Agreed, and they will, including relocation expenses as mandated under the Landlord Tenant Act under these circumstances.
CN Tower
Banned
You say that as though it's a done deal. Don't be surprised if this turns into a big battle.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
The only battle here is for the residents to file an application with the Landlord Tenant Board and it's a sure win, I'd expect the owners to back off and settle fairly before a Hearing would even be scheduled. Unless the new owners are not very smart. The only catch may be this isn't a standard rental apartment arrangement so it's possible that the Board doesn't cover rentals such as this, but they probably do.
I know little of the Sutton Place apartments and have never been in the apartments, only the the lobby, common areas & top floor back when TIFF used the hotel as their operations base. Intrigued, I did a quick search and came up with this link (if anyone is interested) which shows the services and amenities available for apartment rentals and even floorplans & photos. It looks like a very sweet place to live! - http://www.apartmentsonbay.com/default.htm
CN Tower
Banned
Precisely my point DT. It is a great spot and that's why it could be a battle.
Lanterrs isn't stupid. They know there's a huge rush to get these crappy future dorm rooms to market so i assume they will expedite this issue.
As an aside it's hard to imagine that the current cycle can survive the kind of ambitious top up project that they are proposing here. Look at 155 Cumberland. Thst took forever to complete.
ThomasJ
Active Member
great, great point re: the timing on the top-up....albeit cumberland was more difficult in terms of complexity. though this one may turn out to be tough in its own right given the height difference.
AlbertC
Superstar
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/searchPlanningAppSetup.do?action=init
951 BAY ST
OPA / Rezoning 12 133688 STE 27 OZ Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 7, 2012 Application Submitted Mar 7, 2012 Residential Apartments Knoeck, Kyle
(416) 392-7215
OPA and Rezoning to permit the addaptive reuse of Sutton Place Hotel to create a mixed-use condo with retail uses at grade and a total of 772 residential units(729 condo and 43 rental).
951 BAY ST
OPA / Rezoning 12 133688 STE 27 OZ Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 7, 2012 Application Submitted Mar 7, 2012 Residential Apartments Knoeck, Kyle
(416) 392-7215
OPA and Rezoning to permit the addaptive reuse of Sutton Place Hotel to create a mixed-use condo with retail uses at grade and a total of 772 residential units(729 condo and 43 rental).
marsh
Active Member
I think it is awful how the former workers and tenants have been treated, particularly as this isn't the case of a bankruptcy- money is obviously being made on this deal so you think there would be something available to fairly compensate workers and tenants. I think it is evidence of the arrongance and greed prelevant amounst most (not all) of the developers in the city. Lanterra has done a very poor job in managing this and now they have a major PR Issue. If they had offerred fair severance pacakages and fair compensation to the tenants, workers and tenants wouldn't be making a fuss. The Toronto Star also reported that the owner is Hong Kong Billionaire who was involved in a huge financial scandal in Hong Kong a few years ago - does make you wonder if something fishy is going on..
Atlantis
Active Member
Just saw this as I was walking by this evening. Development proposal on site!
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Awfull, shame on them for not even respecting a bit of the original design......total butchery,
street is kind of OK but those additional floors and mechanical box, yuck
street is kind of OK but those additional floors and mechanical box, yuck
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
Yes, "butchery" is a good word for this proposal. The Sutton Place Hotel is an interesting Modernist tower, but it's unrecognizable in that drawing. The redevelopment makes it look more generic.
urbandreamer
recession proof
It's P+S after all..
SP!RE
°°°°°°
1) Doesn't look like Sutton Place at all. WTF?
2) The podium is hideous if that line-drawing is at all accurate. (Yes, I know, it's a line drawing low on detail... but to me, the spacing of windows, proportions, etc., look wrong.
I'll have to wait to see the renderings to fully decide on part 2, but my first point is fairly obvious even from these simple elevation diagrams.
2) The podium is hideous if that line-drawing is at all accurate. (Yes, I know, it's a line drawing low on detail... but to me, the spacing of windows, proportions, etc., look wrong.
I'll have to wait to see the renderings to fully decide on part 2, but my first point is fairly obvious even from these simple elevation diagrams.