[Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26fl | Under Construction - Page 2

Innsertnamehere · #1 Posted **Aug 11, 2021, 5:04 PM**

relatively, yes, but the interior parking dimensions would still have to meet the standard dimensions (6m drive aisles, etc).

Having a parking spot on P7 would definitely be a gigantic pain though. My last apartment had parking on P3 and that was more than enough haha.

ScreamingViking · #2 Posted **Aug 11, 2021, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

relatively, yes, but the interior parking dimensions would still have to meet the standard dimensions (6m drive aisles, etc).

Having a parking spot on P7 would definitely be a gigantic pain though. My last apartment had parking on P3 and that was more than enough haha.

For a long time I lived in a building that opened in 1967. The underground parking was quite generous, and it only had one level so access was easy.

The last time I parked underground it was at the Homewood Suites downtown here. I don't know if it has more than one level, but there is much less wiggle room! I imagine standards have evolved as cars got smaller over the decades, but with so many large SUVs and pickup trucks around today there can be little space between vehicles.

Berklon · #3 Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 10:07 PM**

Looks like people who put down deposits 7 years ago are getting screwed over.

Apparently they have to find up to 300k more for the units they already agreed to buy due to increased costs, or get their deposit back with a 6% interest.

https://www.chch.com/buyers-are-bein...t-to-be-built/

Ridiculous. They waited this long for construction to start and it's not even at ground level and they're supposed to fork over a lot more money while waiting another 2+ years before they can even set foot in their unit.

TheRitsman · #4 Posted **Mar 24, 2022, 10:35 PM**

"We should be letting developers do whatever they want"

ScreamingViking · #5 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 1:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

"We should be letting developers do whatever they want"

Yep.

TheHonestMaple · #6 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 12:09 AM**

On one hand it's unethical and shitty of the developer, on the other hand these buyers signed the contract - no one forced them to. I'd be super pissed too though. It's a really shitty thing for them to do, a clear and obvious attempt to make even more money on these units.

ScreamingViking · #7 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 1:28 PM**

How is this legal?

Or is there standard fine print about such options when deposits are put down and initial paperwork is signed.

TheHonestMaple · #8 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

How is this legal?

Or is there standard fine print about such options when deposits are put down and initial paperwork is signed.

The buyers would have signed an agreement that stated if the costs of the project increase then the buyer would have to put down a larger deposit to make up for it. It's totally legal of course, and in some situations quite reasonable. What if the costs of materials or labour jump by huge amounts before constructions is complete? Or what if there is some sort of unforeseen cost increase, like they found some sort of underground condition that caused them to have to increase the size of the foundation, etc etc. What if some sort sort of building code or city council requirement changed between pre sales and construction that caused the design to change. There's loads of reasonable scenarios where a developer may legitimately have to charge buyers more down the line.

However, some developers use this to make more money on rising housing prices which it seems like the case here.

ScreamingViking · #9 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

However, some developers use this to make more money on rising housing prices which it seems like the case here.

Yes. The "What if we could get a whole lot more out of a new set of buyers?" reasoning.

It's shifting some cost-of-development risk to the buyers. For those purchasing strictly as an investment, maybe this kind of thing is more palatable (or at least "business"). For those buying for their future living space, it sucks. I wonder how often it happens.

This got held up a long time by the fighting over whether it should even be built. But that particular risk was all on the developer's shoulders. I don't know what kind of answer there is to this, but in this case it all seems quite unfair. I'm a believer in caveat emptor but there are still a lot of grey areas to that perspective.

I guess we know what kind of "Burlington developments" columns are coming soon to a newspaper site near us.

TheHonestMaple · #10 Posted **Mar 25, 2022, 2:59 PM**

I get a little bit annoyed with the Spectator's writing on housing. It just blames the developers constantly, but at the same time complains that there isn't enough housing. The developers do take on a huge risk with new projects, that should be acknowledged. The Spec is always arguing that the city/province needs to do more to build new housing. In my opinion that is absolutely not the role of government. The role of government is to create laws and conditions that keeps developers in check and allows a healthy amount of housing to be built. It's role is also to create conditions where developers can be confident that they will make a healthy profit. So in this situation, I do believe the government needs to step in an introduce legislation that prevents unreasonable increases based on basically nothing, like this one. But I don't think the government should be outright punishing developers for trying to build residential developments..... like so many Spec columnists believe.

Innsertnamehere · #11 Posted **Nov 14, 2022, 4:29 PM**

on the third floor.

thmx · #12 Posted **Mar 16, 2023, 12:29 PM**

3/12/2023 by Joe, on Flickr

Berklon · #13 Posted **Mar 16, 2023, 1:01 PM**

So those who put down a deposit 8 years ago and were essentially forced to pay up to an additional 300k last year to keep their unit must feel great that they're still at least 2+ years from being able to move in [/sarcasm].

After all this BS, you would figure this build would at least move faster than it is.

I hope the view of the lake is spectacular (for those who have a unit facing that side).

ScreamingViking · #14 Posted **Mar 19, 2023, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon

After all this BS, you would figure this build would at least move faster than it is.

I hope the view of the lake is spectacular (for those who have a unit facing that side).

It did have a deep pit, and it's a fairly confined site, so there's probably only so fast they can go. And the builder really has no incentive to speed things up unless this is stalling other projects for them.

Are the tall proposals on Old Lakeshore still in play? That view may not last long:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=251448
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=243185

There's also the one next door, which will block views for many west side units:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=237433

And these just down the road:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=211158

The people who paid big bucks for their units at 360 on Pearl must still be oh so happy.

Berklon · #15 Posted **Jul 15, 2023, 1:10 AM**

Seems to be moving a little bit faster, but this is still about 2+ years away.