Urbia-Suburbia
New Member
For good or bad, this article is not the first to be saying that regarding the height change. But the two things I gleamed off of said article that maybe at play here: First that there was an indication of significant numbers of buyers who got spooked and bailed over this, so they don't have as much of the monied clientele in the pocket as they did before the insolvency shite hit the fan with Mizrahi. And secondly, the extra floors may have fell upon an extended contract that hasn't fully been sussed out or agreed upon yet. Meaning, it could be subject to cutting with little on no penalties on the road to recuperation and "let's get it done with!", or something like that...
This is not to say any this is true or factual here, rather how I am reading it and for what that's worth. As well as to say, I hope this all incorrect and they still going with the 91 in the end floors. But I guess we shall see.
Truncates is also a poor term here, as the crown will remain unaffected regardless of what height the building is decided upon in the end. You can safely go with a tad shorter, but stubby or truncated it will most certainly not be.
Prospective buyers may have been able to bail out, but I doubt that pre-construction buyers who signed a contract can just back out of their contracts unless they're either prepared to lose their deposits or the counterparty actually breached the conditions of the contract. The Princess in the Toronto Star article must have been an exception - she got the royal treatment.
I think you make a good point about their pressure to get this project done asap and not having the buyers for the top floors. These are the most expensive floors, of course, and were already difficult to sell before the full extent of this mess was made public.