Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sage Condominiums II | ?m | 25 fl | U/C
#46
Compare that to my much-changed move-in. When the42 got delayed, I was able to extend my rental a bunch. But when the two month notice was given, and another delay came, only a one-month rental extension was available.

I was put up in the motel with Angel's, but when it was closed. With just a microwave and bar fridge, it was a month of take-out, with no financial support.

Getting a walkable full kitchen place, while not ideal, at least won't kill your wallet.
Reply
#47
(08-21-2015, 10:58 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Compare that to my much-changed move-in. When the42 got delayed, I was able to extend my rental a bunch. But when the two month notice was given, and another delay came, only a one-month rental extension was available.

I was put up in the motel with Angel's, but when it was closed. With just a microwave and bar fridge, it was a month of take-out, with no financial support.

Getting a walkable full kitchen place, while not ideal, at least won't kill your wallet.

One key difference is that you were buying a property, whereas at Sage the people are renting the use of an apartment for a fixed period of time.  It gives them more clout when it comes to delays.
Reply
#48
(08-21-2015, 08:17 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: There are several other buildings with move in date September 1st that look like they are falling behind, such as 256 Phillip and the ones in Albert and University (any others?). What's your guess, will they make it in time?

So 256 Phillip St made it in time.

Sage II didn't.

How about the two in Albert and University?
Reply
#49
No delays mentioned online or on their website. Most likely passed occupancy inspection this week. I've been up and down University a lot this week and those sites were insanely busy.
Reply
#50
Well this isn't going to go over well.






Reply
#51
(10-02-2015, 08:15 AM)Brenden Wrote: Well this isn't going to go over well.







This needs to become viral. Has it been sent to The Record, Imprint, The Chord, etc yet?
Reply
#52
...and local builders keep on paying the price of their cavalier attitude to construction delays. I don't know when it became kosher in Waterloo to be really late with construction, but builders don't seem to even care anymore. Schembri lost big time, 144 went bankrupt and now it's Sage II turn.

Does anyone recall the delays in the Bauer, 42 and 144? they went far beyond any "oops we had some bad weather" problems.

Seriously what will it take before local developers get their act together?
Reply
#53
I think it is very normal for condo construction to go over-time.  This is not a 'waterloo issue'.

The unique problem with student housing is they promise them for September 1 - when the semester begins.  People then rely on them for their housing and are out of housing when the developer pushes back a month or two (or more).

In 'standard housing' (ie non-student) it is rarely as big of a deal when something pushes back a bit.

And for the record 144 Park is not about construction delays, it is a developer who went bankrupt.
Reply
#54
Either way. Attitudes like this one should never be acceptable. The guy is literally verbally and physically abusing a student who is (probably) just arguing for his rights. This should be exposed and escalated as much as possible.
Reply
#55
(10-02-2015, 09:30 AM)REnerd Wrote: I think it is very normal for condo construction to go over-time.  This is not a 'waterloo issue'.

And for the record 144 Park is not about construction delays, it is a developer who went bankrupt.

It is not standard to be this late, all the time, every time. But hey, keep on telling yourself that everything is fine.

....and for the record 144 Park went bankrupt because of construction delays.
Reply
#56
(10-02-2015, 09:52 AM)insider Wrote: Either way. Attitudes like this one should never be acceptable. The guy is literally verbally and physically abusing a student who is (probably) just arguing for his rights. This should be exposed and escalated as much as possible.

AGREE!  This will not end well for the individual in that video.  That is assault imo.  

I can't make out what he said about being Asain at the beginning.
Reply
#57
(10-02-2015, 08:45 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: ...and local builders keep on paying the price of their cavalier attitude to construction delays. I don't know when it became kosher in Waterloo to be really late with construction, but builders don't seem to even care anymore. Schembri lost big time, 144 went bankrupt and now it's Sage II turn.

CKCO is reporting that the building manager lost his job over this spat. Opening of the building had been scheduled for yesterday, but this has been further delayed.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=719143
Reply
#58
Also the Record:
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5943...o-manager/

Interestingly, their interview with the cops reports that the manager did no wrong ("by the letter of the law").
Reply
#59
This guy is at least as obstreperous as a NIMBY. I guess you could call him a NIMFB.
Reply
#60
(10-02-2015, 10:07 AM)REnerd Wrote:
(10-02-2015, 09:52 AM)insider Wrote: Either way. Attitudes like this one should never be acceptable. The guy is literally verbally and physically abusing a student who is (probably) just arguing for his rights. This should be exposed and escalated as much as possible.

AGREE!  This will not end well for the individual in that video.  That is assault imo.  

I can't make out what he said about being Asain at the beginning.

I don't think I've heard an opinion from an actual lawyer yet, but the police's position seems to support the opinion that sounded most correct to me: a property owner has the right to use reasonable force to remove someone who has been asked and refused to leave the owner's property that they have no right to occupy. (Criminal Code s. 35)

However, while the staff's actions may have been legally okay, the company clearly did not think it was okay for an employee to take such action. There's also nothing preventing the "victim" from claiming in civil court that the guy's force was excessive and caused injury (emotional or physical). Common sense also says that you should let the police be the ones to exercise physical force when you have the opportunity to do so.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)