144 Park | 67 m | 19 fl | Complete

[sportsfreak]

With all the drama around this project, I wonder if any of the residents have used this situation to bail on their unit? Would the deposit and other monies be refunded if Mady terminated the agreement?

Deposits yes. Upgrades no. Equity no.

[sportsfreak]

What a schmozzle.  It would seem to me, depending on how many owners purchased two parking spots, they could end up with too many parking spaces in the garage.  If I were affected, and inclined to amend my agreement of purchase and sale, I'd want to be sure I'd have dibs on purchasing any second spots that become available and at the original price.  I wonder if the notification when to all owners with two parking spots or only to some?

Won't be any extra spots.

Parking spot taken back at original price (2010? 2011?...) $30000 + HST

Purchaser's who need second spots cut loose to make own arrangements in surrounding neighbourhood.

No dibs: if 155 adds parking for 144, you buy at the going rate at the time.

[tomh009]

With all the drama around this project, I wonder if any of the residents have used this situation to bail on their unit? Would the deposit and other monies be refunded if Mady terminated the agreement?

Deposits yes. Upgrades no. Equity no.

If upgrades were part of the contract, you should get your full amount back should the contract get unwound.  If they say otherwise you should get your own lawyer involved.

Equity?  What do you mean?

Won't be any extra spots.

Parking spot taken back at original price (2010? 2011?...) $30000 + HST

Purchaser's who need second spots cut loose to make own arrangements in surrounding neighbourhood.

No dibs: if 155 adds parking for 144, you buy at the going rate at the time.

Where are the current "extra spots" parking?  In the garage?  Or in the surface lot (also used by Vincenzo's etc)?

[sportsfreak]

To various posters…

The upgrades were all paid for 18 months ago when they were chosen. Different contract. Plus anything you added on your own like blinds.

Equity: they cancel agreement of purchase and sale from 2010 and sell it at today's market value, give your money to creditors

There never were extra spots. Mady's blunder was being hidden by plans to build 155 and create more parking. 20 unsold units don't have parking. Others have 2 spots under contract for many years. Trustee threatening to break contracts to get parking spots to help sell unsold units to get creditors like Marshall Zehr their money back now, rather than force them to wait for 155 or sell units without parking. Building is close to LRT.

Any thoughts on business ethics in this matter?

[panamaniac]

To various posters…

The upgrades were all paid for 18 months ago when they were chosen. Different contract. Plus anything you added on your own like blinds.

Equity: they cancel agreement of purchase and sale from 2010 and sell it at today's market value, give your money to creditors

There never were extra spots. Mady's blunder was being hidden by plans to build 155 and create more parking. 20 unsold units don't have parking. Others have 2 spots under contract for many years. Trustee threatening to break contracts to get parking spots to help sell unsold units to get creditors like Marshall Zehr their money back now, rather than force them to wait for 155 or sell units without parking. Building is close to LRT.

Any thoughts on business ethics in this matter?                                                                                               

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That would likely be negative equity, for that building in the current market.

Re business ethics, do you mean Mady's or the trustee's?  The trustee strikes me as desperate rather than unethical.  Mady probably found that many prospective purchasers would proceed only if a second parking spot were part of the package, so more of a "seemed like a good idea at the time" rather than an ethical question.

[tomh009]

Mady probably found that many prospective purchasers would proceed only if a second parking spot were part of the package, so more of a "seemed like a good idea at the time" rather than an ethical question.

Mady surely knew that extra spots would be needed. First mistake was not to plan for those in 144 itself.  The next mistake, after they locked down the design, was to bury the problem by selling other units' spots, delaying the pain.

They could have negotiated for extra spots at an external facility, with rights for future inside spots when 155 would be built -- not as desirable, but it would have kept them out of trouble.

Or they could have offered a significant discount to people willing to buy a unit without parking.  They surely would have found some takers for those, too.

[TMKM94]

I'm confused was 144 Park sold out at one point or is the sign facing Caroline/Allan lying?

[Coke6pk]

I'm confused was 144 Park sold out at one point or is the sign facing Caroline/Allan lying?

Maybe that only refers to the parking lot!

Coke

[kwliving]

Good news IMO.

Mady’s 155 Uptown condo project may be sold

It's not sold, despite the headline.

Maybe a new developer will axe the realignment of the Iron Horse Trail. That is unlikely though as the city of Waterloo still wants parking provided to owners at 144 Park.

[Spokes]

So would it be the land that gets sold and the new developer can do whatever they want? or is the new owner supposed to continue the existing project?

[kwliving]

The new owner is okay to build the currently approved building but would have to start from scratch (new permits, site plan, etc) if they intend otherwise.

[tomh009]

Maybe a new developer will axe the realignment of the Iron Horse Trail. That is unlikely though as the city of Waterloo still wants parking provided to owners at 144 Park.

Basically they can't just change itvb, unless they want to apply for a new site plan (which will reopen the whole can of worms once again).  An approved site plan is a valuable part of the property at 155.

[Drake]

Maybe a new developer will axe the realignment of the Iron Horse Trail. That is unlikely though as the city of Waterloo still wants parking provided to owners at 144 Park.

Basically they can't just change itvb, unless they want to apply for a new site plan (which will reopen the whole can of worms once again).  An approved site plan is a valuable part of the property at 155.

It is unfortunate that when the city negotiates something like this, they do not have deadlines built into their approvals. EG. The Iron Horse realignment is allowed providing that some kind of meaningful work has begun on the project before January 1 20XX.