It's certainly ambitious!
That plan has been around for a few years now, has it not?
Wow. Very nice!
No surprise, same owner as the Cambridge and Ancaster Mills.
Is the webpage broken? None of the links seem to work - I wanted to look at their condo floorplans.
(01-10-2017, 07:50 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Is the webpage broken? None of the links seem to work - I wanted to look at their condo floorplans.
Links worked for me, although I didn't see anything for floorplans.
Very ambitious plan, but looks VERY nice the closer I look.
Oh, I see - it must be designed for tablets. What a horribly unintuitive webpage.
(01-10-2017, 09:30 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, I see - it must be designed for tablets. What a horribly unintuitive webpage.
It's the current trend ... no more separate pages.
That said, while it looks nice (if it really does come to fruition), it's not ideal for a condo location from my point of view. Elora itself is highly walkable, but it's also very small, so really you will be quite car-dependent for the most part.
ha!
Definitely designed for tablets. Not unusable on desktop, but it's not your classic point-and-click website. But wow does it not like a square viewing window.
[
attachment=3011]
I'm curious how the units in St. Jacobs above the Home Hardware have done. It's a similar example of a very walkable locale, but a small locale outside of which you're very car-dependent. Maybe they pitch for a community carshare? ;-)
Condo != Can't have a Car
No, but we do tend to associate condos with higher rates of non-car ownership, and associate urban core living with higher rates of non-car ownership, and the Mill fits both of these categories, that's all.
(01-10-2017, 01:30 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Condo != Can't have a Car
But I would like to think that
Condo == Don't
need to have a car
Not to say that the Elora Mill won't be able to sell their condos -- but they are not for me, as pretty as Elora is.