Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

LMVDR said:
It’s not terrible at all but it’s not high end which is what they want
Click to expand...
Yes, but then they would have made that call originally and wouldn't have signed the contracts with Sam. I'm no insider, but as far as I can tell, this isn't how development works. Deals fall through, yes, but one can't just pull out whenever the mood strikes. Lawsuits are an ordinary part of doing business and likely just Apple putting the screws to Sam to extract some concessions as mentioned upthread.
 
alklay said:
Apple is in Fairview Mall for goodness sakes (no disrespect to Fairview, but....). The idea that this location is surrounded by "low end tenants" is laughable.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I do think that argument can be applied to many of its neighbours immediately south of The One, specifically along Yonge Street. Not to mention, Brass Rails is quite literally a stones throw away and even closer than the high-end retail west toward Bay or Avenue Road is.

Like this one, Apple’s 5th Avenue (cube) store is also located at the end of a major retail strip rather than somewhere in the middle of it.

CC427407-CEC5-4170-B0A5-95CDF29A56EE.jpeg


What Apple’s really getting here is incredible exposure and unmatched foot traffic, along with a grandiose space that they’ve been involved with design input, seemingly from day one. This was a unique opportunity that presented itself to all parties involved.

What‘s interesting is that Apple has been known to be very particular on its retail sites, and is willing to wait months, or even years on some locations. Rumours have been circulating of a Bloor store for at least a decade. And now this controversy…
 
LMVDR said:
You can when they’re years behind schedule as purported in the story.
Click to expand...
...but if that was part of the agreement and understanding they signed too, they just can't pull out. As Apple would be acting in bad faith otherwise. /shrug
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...but if that was part of the agreement and understanding they signed too, they just can't pull out. As Apple would be acting in bad faith otherwise. /shrug
Click to expand...
They can if there’s a clause in the agreement which there appears to be based in the article.

Ignorance never ceases with this crowd.

it may exercise an option in the lease agreement that allegedly allows the retailer to exit without penalties if the developer misses certain deadlines,
Click to expand...
 
What Apple’s really getting here is incredible exposure and unmatched foot traffic
Click to expand...

You won’t get any exposure if the building doesn’t get built; just a massive unwanted headache.

If Apple has an out as purported they will likely grab it and go west where the real action and prestige resides.

This is a tremendous spot for a flagship Tim Horton’s/Harvey’s combo.
 
LMVDR said:
They can if there’s a clause in the agreement which there appears to be based in the article.

Ignorance never ceases with this crowd.
Click to expand...
But Mizrahi claims no deadline has been missed from the same article. So I don't think they can just pull out if deadlines are perceived or imagined to be missed. Non?

Ignorance never ceases with trolls either, bub.
 
Last edited:
LMVDR said:
It’s shocking how naive this crowd is. Apple doesn’t want low end tenants as neighbors not to mention the seedy crowd that lurks around the intersection. They will pick up their gear and head west (maybe Manulife has space or the empty spots on the north side?) where they can get better space and parking and likely less rent and aggravation.
Click to expand...
I think you're mistaking Apple for a Pagani dealership.

Apple has stores in hundreds of malls around the world. While they're picky, they're not elitist. And you are naïve if you think Apple somehow didn't investigate the bloody crap out of this location in the first place.

LMVDR said:
This project looks doomed based all the obvious factors but I guess we’ll see how it manages the headwinds.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be a month in a year, if someone didn't sh!tpost Mizrahi.
 
zang said:
I think you're mistaking Apple for a Pagani dealership.

Apple has stores in hundreds of malls around the world. While they're picky, they're not elitist. And you are naïve if you think Apple somehow didn't investigate the bloody crap out of this location in the first place.


Wouldn't be a month in a year, if someone didn't sh!tpost Mizrahi.
Click to expand...
When the biggest and most powerful company and brand in the world finally puts the nail in this dreary coffin of a project which of you ignorant fanboys is going to be the first to apologize to me?
 
There is a lot of unhelpful speculation here based upon what in turn was a speculative Globe and Mail article based upon stale legal documents they just now uncovered (or were tipped off about).

It is not clear from the G&M article if this lawsuit is an action for damages, or an application to enforce part of the contract. It is not clear which party started the litigation. It is not clear if this was just to preserve rights to litigate that could expire while the real action is in negotiation between the parties, or if the relationship has already truly broken down and this is the start of the aftermath.

A lot more could be gleaned by looking at the actual legal documents (hint UT staff journalists, this is now public record and you could retrieve them from the court).

But nearly as much can be gleaned by the casual observers on this site if there is diligence in taking photos. If, when doors are cracked open to the flagship space, workers are furiously working on fit-up, negotiations are ongoing and Apple will likely take the space. If it's crickets in there, then the litigation is likely to be pursued as the genuine course of action, which will be very protracted, and likely means no Apple store, just money exchanging hands later to settle the suit (or in judgment).
 
Ottawan said:
There is a lot of unhelpful speculation here based upon what in turn was a speculative Globe and Mail article based upon stale legal documents they just now uncovered (or were tipped off about).

It is not clear from the G&M article if this lawsuit is an action for damages, or an application to enforce part of the contract. It is not clear which party started the litigation. It is not clear if this was just to preserve rights to litigate that could expire while the real action is in negotiation between the parties, or if the relationship has already truly broken down and this is the start of the aftermath.

A lot more could be gleaned by looking at the actual legal documents (hint UT staff journalists, this is now public record and you could retrieve them from the court).

But nearly as much can be gleaned by the casual observers on this site if there is diligence in taking photos. If, when doors are cracked open to the flagship space, workers are furiously working on fit-up, negotiations are ongoing and Apple will likely take the space. If it's crickets in there, then the litigation is likely to be pursued as the genuine course of action, which will be very protracted, and likely means no Apple store, just money exchanging hands later to settle the suit (or in judgment).
Click to expand...

The Globe employs real accomplished journalists with an army of fact checkers. This place is the equivalent of a high school newspaper, funded heavily by the developers it loves to promote.

The facts speak for themselves. I hope the buyers here don’t get the short end of the stick but I suppose we will see soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top