Park Hyatt (1128 W Georgia) | 197m | 62 fl | Completed - Page 147

whatnext · #**2921** Posted **May 20, 2020, 6:55 PM**

I read with interest the problems with the Toronto Shangri-la (also built by Westbank) between the condo board and hotel operators. I hope the Vancouver property has been able to avoid this kind of acrimony? This is why I've never been a fan of these mixed-use buildings.

Toronto’s Shangri-La wracked by infighting as hotel and condo board butt heads
SHANE DINGMANREAL ESTATE REPORTER
TORONTO
PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO

The Shangri-La hotel and condominium in Toronto, one of the city’s premier luxury buildings, has been riven by disputes over shared costs and the condo corporation’s management of its $7-million budget.

In recent months, Toronto police and city inspectors have been called to the building to deal with altercations over common elements, and lawyers have sent letters demanding payment for hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs.

“I was trying to buy more property here," said Zahur Ahmed, who owns three units in the building that he says are worth close to $12-million. "I dropped the idea. I don’t feel confident now. I thought it would be a good investment. I have lot of concerns for my property here now, because of bad management. All the politics … this five-star building is going to the dogs.”

One source of long-standing friction is the reciprocal agreement that governs the relationship between the Shangri-La Hotel, which manages 202 guest rooms and suites in the building, and the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation (TSCC) 2258, which manages 393 privately owned units in the building’s upper floors. Previous boards have feuded with the hotel over costs for shared amenities and rising condo fees needed to match the hotel’s increased spending. In 2012, the monthly fees were 55 cents per square foot, after several hikes beginning in 2015 they are now 95 cents per square foot....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...-by-infighting-as-hotel-and-condo-board/

jollyburger · #**2922** Posted **May 20, 2020, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

I read with interest the problems with the Toronto Shangri-la (also built by Westbank) between the condo board and hotel operators. I hope the Vancouver property has been able to avoid this kind of acrimony? This is why I've never been a fan of these mixed-use buildings.

[/I]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...-by-infighting-as-hotel-and-condo-board/

It's not a problem of mixed-used buildings. Seems like it's more of the usual with the guys in control of the strata.

Coldrsx · #**2923** Posted **May 20, 2020, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

I read with interest the problems with the Toronto Shangri-la (also built by Westbank) between the condo board and hotel operators. I hope the Vancouver property has been able to avoid this kind of acrimony? This is why I've never been a fan of these mixed-use buildings.

Toronto’s Shangri-La wracked by infighting as hotel and condo board butt heads
SHANE DINGMANREAL ESTATE REPORTER
TORONTO
PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGO

The Shangri-La hotel and condominium in Toronto, one of the city’s premier luxury buildings, has been riven by disputes over shared costs and the condo corporation’s management of its $7-million budget.

In recent months, Toronto police and city inspectors have been called to the building to deal with altercations over common elements, and lawyers have sent letters demanding payment for hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs.

“I was trying to buy more property here," said Zahur Ahmed, who owns three units in the building that he says are worth close to $12-million. "I dropped the idea. I don’t feel confident now. I thought it would be a good investment. I have lot of concerns for my property here now, because of bad management. All the politics … this five-star building is going to the dogs.”

One source of long-standing friction is the reciprocal agreement that governs the relationship between the Shangri-La Hotel, which manages 202 guest rooms and suites in the building, and the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation (TSCC) 2258, which manages 393 privately owned units in the building’s upper floors. Previous boards have feuded with the hotel over costs for shared amenities and rising condo fees needed to match the hotel’s increased spending. In 2012, the monthly fees were 55 cents per square foot, after several hikes beginning in 2015 they are now 95 cents per square foot....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...-by-infighting-as-hotel-and-condo-board/

.95/ft - F that.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**2924** Posted **May 21, 2020, 2:03 AM**

jeez, in a few years it has almost doubled. that's crazy. and a perfect example why i have and always will avoid strata living. eek.

officedweller · #**2925** Posted **May 21, 2020, 4:36 AM**

There was a lawsuit in 2013:

Quote:

Anyone have the inside scoop?
Are maintenance fees sky-high? or is it the opposite - that the services are not exclusive enough?

Quote:

Shangri-La homebuyers sue developers
Strata corporation representing buyers claims developers of city’s tallest building falsely promised costs would be shared with hotel

By Glen Korstrom
Tue May 21, 2013 12:01am PST

The strata corporation representing homebuyers at the Shangri-La Hotel Vancouver is suing developers, marketers and lawyers for alleged “misrepresentations” that devalue home values and involve unexpected costs at Vancouver’s tallest building.

The strata corporation’s biggest concerns relate to the fact that it shares the high-end development with a hotel.

The strata corporation claims the developers:

•falsely made representations in disclosure statements to lead homebuyers to believe that, among other things, they would be buying into a strata corporation that “would have its own entrance lobby located on the ground floor with a concierge-security officer 24 hours a day”;

•promised in legal documents that the building would have three passenger elevators that would be for its members’ exclusive use.

•promised its members that they would have a number of amenities including a fitness centre, function rooms and foyer, library, games room, underground parking.

•promised buyers that costs related to these amenities would be “shared substantially” with the hotel and that the hotel’s valet service could be used by the project’s strata corporation members on a pay-per-use rather than a cost-sharing allocation basis.

The strata’s lawsuit also alleges that its members never “contemplated that rules and regulations would be unilaterally imposed by the hotel component.”

As a result of the alleged misrepresentations and failure to disclose all material facts, the strata corporation claims the developer has filed “void, invalid and unenforceable easements, leases, licences and cost-sharing agreements.”

...

http://www.biv.com/article/20130521/BIV0111/305219931/0/BIV/shangri-la-homebuyers-sue-developers

Fairmont Pacific Rim also had a lawsuit about cost-sharing.

officedweller · #**2926** Posted **May 21, 2020, 4:39 AM**

And there was a lawsuit about the windows a few years later.

Links are dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Lawsuit of the week: Lawsuits take Shangri-La developers to task over allegedly defective windows

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/1/lawsuit-week-lawsuits-take-shangri-la-developers-t/

jollyburger · #**2927** Posted **May 21, 2020, 5:32 AM**

James KM Cheng Architects' insurance company (?) sued for the curtain wall too.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/05/2019BCSC0565cor1.htm

And it seems like the developer got $1 million from the strata in 2015:

Quote:

The Supreme Court of British Columbia in The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3165 v. KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd., 2014 BCSC 2276 recently upheld an award of more than $1 million for shared building costs against the Strata Corporation known as the Shangri-La in favor of its developer, KBK No.11 Ventures Ltd.

https://lmlaw.ca/2015/01/buyer-beware-perils-cost-sharing-hotel-mixed-use-strata-developments/

officedweller · #**2928** Posted **May 21, 2020, 5:58 AM**

Sounds familiar to the dispute at the Fairmont Pacific Rim - a challenge to the developer's right to enter into cost sharing agreements on behalf of the future strata.

cairnstone · #**2929** Posted **May 21, 2020, 2:39 PM**

Its a common thing with mixed use. Especially when the structure of the building is own by more than one body. From small wood frame to big mixed development there is friction gets worse the more stratas and parties involved

rofina · #**2930** Posted **May 21, 2020, 3:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cairnstone

Its a common thing with mixed use. Especially when the structure of the building is own by more than one body. From small wood frame to big mixed development there is friction gets worse the more stratas and parties involved

I will never own in a highrise in Vancouver for this reason. 7 years experience dealing with multi-million strata budgets and very conflicting interests. Lawsuits, arguing, inaction, name it, it happens.

I cannot even begin to imagine the future headaches for owners in the new mega developments like TAB, Oakridge and Lougheed. The complexity to figure out who owns what, and how, and when to fix. Its the worst type of nightmare in the making.

jollyburger · #**2931** Posted **May 21, 2020, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

I will never own in a highrise in Vancouver for this reason. 7 years experience dealing with multi-million strata budgets and very conflicting interests. Lawsuits, arguing, inaction, name it, it happens.

I cannot even begin to imagine the future headaches for owners in the new mega developments like TAB, Oakridge and Lougheed. The complexity to figure out who owns what, and how, and when to fix. Its the worst type of nightmare in the making.

Any other cities have a better model for these kinds of developments?

rofina · #**2932** Posted **May 21, 2020, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Any other cities have a better model for these kinds of developments?

Ill be honest - I don't have enough experience in property ownership outside of BC.

I can speak to the fact that Strata's are generally dramatically underfunded here. I understand why - people don't want to pay maintenance fees, and unless all buildings go up 3X or 4X the building with high maintenance fees is less likely to sell. Who wants to be buying a 1 bedroom with a $600 maintenance fee?

As a result you have chronic under funding and general disrepair.

Look at the constant amount of work commercial property managers do on office property. Painting, washing, cleaning, re-caulking, re-glazing, etc, etc. Its non stop and year round.

Were in a tough climate, wet, hot, can be cold. Its hard to catch up after a new building gets neglected for the first 10 years. Then takes 5 years to properly fund, by that stage you're on year 15 and building systems are nearing end of life. Not only have you not kept up with maintenance but your also likely to be up against significant renewal projects.

s211 · #**2933** Posted **May 21, 2020, 6:30 PM**

Multi-use buildings are notorious for conflicting issues. Commercial strata owners are notorious for resisting needed work, and whether they should be on the hook for any of it.

And within residential stratas, there's the constant push/pull between owner-occupied units and investor-held units. Investors rarely want to spend a dime extra on strata fees.

My preference would be to buy into a strata that's at least 15-20 years old and sufficient investors have been weaned off, leaving a solid majority of owner-occupants left in charge.

cairnstone · #**2934** Posted **May 21, 2020, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Multi-use buildings are notorious for conflicting issues. Commercial strata owners are notorious for resisting needed work, and whether they should be on the hook for any of it.

And within residential stratas, there's the constant push/pull between owner-occupied units and investor-held units. Investors rarely want to spend a dime extra on strata fees.

My preference would be to buy into a strata that's at least 15-20 years old and sufficient investors have been weaned off, leaving a solid majority of owner-occupants left in charge.

That is the worst kind to invest in as you are facing larger capital costs due to deferred maintenance. Also chances are a larger majority are rental. Original owners buy another unit or upgrade to a large property and keep the existing for rental income and also leverage for line of credits.

officedweller · #**2935** Posted **May 21, 2020, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

...
My preference would be to buy into a strata that's at least 15-20 years old and sufficient investors have been weaned off, leaving a solid majority of owner-occupants left in charge.

Add in ... with a healthy contingency fund.

The unit sizes will also be larger, and there will be more vision glass vs spandrel. However, that glass may be up for repair or replacement.

s211 · #**2936** Posted **May 21, 2020, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The unit sizes will also be larger

Could NEVER over-state that point. That was a major selling point for areas like Citygate back in the day. I'd laugh at what constitutes an apartment size these days, if only it wasn't such an un-laughable situation.

officedweller · #**2937** Posted **May 21, 2020, 11:07 PM**

I remember the 1000 sq ft one bedroom suites at CityGate when I was looking in the mid 90s - but that neighbourhood (not just DTES, but the awkward too far to walk, costly / silly to SkyTrain 2 stops scenarios).

whatnext · #**2938** Posted **May 22, 2020, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Multi-use buildings are notorious for conflicting issues. Commercial strata owners are notorious for resisting needed work, and whether they should be on the hook for any of it.

And within residential stratas, there's the constant push/pull between owner-occupied units and investor-held units. Investors rarely want to spend a dime extra on strata fees.

My preference would be to buy into a strata that's at least 15-20 years old and sufficient investors have been weaned off, leaving a solid majority of owner-occupants left in charge.

Yes usually , though in the Shangri-la Toronto case it sounds more like the commercial tenant (hotel) wanted to spend more money upgrading common facilities than the owners did.

rofina · #**2939** Posted **May 22, 2020, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Could NEVER over-state that point. That was a major selling point for areas like Citygate back in the day. I'd laugh at what constitutes an apartment size these days, if only it wasn't such an un-laughable situation.

Amen to that.

My first apartment was a nearly 800sq/ft one bedroom/1 bath. Coming from my parents suburban house it felt rather restrictive.

Today 800 sq/ft is a "generously sized" 2bed 2 bath. Crazy.

Zepfancouver · #**2940** Posted **Sep 22, 2020, 11:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

And there was a lawsuit about the windows a few years later.

Links are dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

James KM Cheng Architects' insurance company (?) sued for the curtain wall too.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/05/2019BCSC0565cor1.htm

And it seems like the developer got $1 million from the strata in 2015

I noticed it a couple of weeks ago. Don't know how it was damaged. If I witness the panel replacement, I'll post.