Apple threatens to pull out of Toronto shopping project

AppleInsider

Claiming that missed deadlines mean it can cancel its contract, Apple has reportedly told the developer of a Toronto mall and condo project that it may pull out of the deal.

The One under construction in Toronto (Source: Eduardo Lima, The Globe and Mail

Since 2016, Mizrahi Developments has been constructing what it calls a condominium, an 85-storey skyscraper that includes significant shopping areas at the corner of Yonge and Bloor. Then in 2018, Apple was revealed to be involved, with plans for a 9,000-square foot store in the complex. Now, however, it has reportedly told the developer that it may pull out of the downtown building known as The One.

According to The Globe and Mail, Apple has told Mizrahi Developments that it may exercise an option in its contract that would allow it to exit without penalties. The option comes into force if the project misses certain deadlines.

Reportedly, in December 2020, Mizrahi Developments told Apple that the project would be delayed to October 31, 2021. The delays were due to the coronavirus, plus a local plumbers' strike in 2019.

It was in response to this new October 2021 date that Apple said it would terminate its lease. Mizrahi Developments is now seeking a court order to prevent Apple leaving, and claims it has not missed these deadlines.

"[The One will] suffer irreparable harm from losing a world-class tenant that was intended to be an anchor tenant for a world-class property," says the developer in court documents seen by the publication, "which is a loss that cannot be compensated in damages."

Apple's lease was for over 15,000 square feet, which included in excess of 9,000 square feet for retail on the project's ground floor. As part of its deal with Apple, Mizrahi Developments agreed to pay Apple's design costs, estimated to be $6.24 million Canadian ($4.87 million US).

According to Mizrahi Developments' court filings as seen by The Globe and Mail, the developer says it was delayed waiting for Apple to choose a design for its storefront glass.

Apple's space in The One is surrounded by seven layers of glass with no breaks. It's built from 34 custom-fabricated panels costing over $300,000 each. The architect was Foster & Partners, which has designed many previous Apple Stores.

Read on AppleInsider

GeorgeBMac

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

crowley

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

goodbyeranch

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

goodbyeranch

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.

22july2013

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

<-- One World Trade Center Timelapse

<-- Empire State Building "Timelapse"

payeco

22july2013 said:

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

<-- One World Trade Center Timelapse

<-- Empire State Building "Timelapse"

To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work. 

22july2013

payeco said:

22july2013 said:

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work. 

I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?

iOS_Guy80

goodbyeranch said:

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.

Whenever I travel I always visit an Apple store I enjoy looking in awe at the pretty glass fronts.

chris_kalan

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have a point where form needs to follow function, however this form doesn't do anything to harm the function at all. The excessive cost is one thing, but that's not a form v function argument. And you could argue that the form is more beautiful without any effect on function since the whole point is to see through the glass.
Regarding the design of the building, part of "design" is function itself. For a massive project like this, $5 million is absolutely not unheard of. Designing accessibility that fits into the aesthetic without taking anything away, architectural engineering, electrical and networking for Apple's unique needs - $5 million isn't insane.

addison huy

In Canada we have so many restrictions when it comes to businesses especially with Covid-19. The government did not let you start new projects due ti Covid-19. It’s too bad Apple started this project before Covid-19. I believe Canada needs to allow businesses to get back to business in a safe and secure manner by making all get vaccines. 

I love Apple Stores whenever I travel I also like to see different stores. They are so easy to recognize and they are always so clean and the employees are very friendly and helpful. 

hammeroftruth

22july2013 said:

payeco said:

22july2013 said:

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work. 

I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?

I think both of these comments underscore how complex it is building these days. It’s not just a quick build. You will always have other interests trying to disrupt or shake down builders for one reason or another. 

That’s why Rodney Dangerfield’s Back To School movie was spot on when he had to attend Economics class and educate the professor what other costs go into building. 

Apple probably will stay but wants to renegotiate the terms in order to do so.
It’s not like commercial landlords are martyrs anyway. 

tommikele

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

What a completely uninformed comment. You have no idea what normal design fees are for a project of this magnitude and even less idea what specialized glass is in use and the cost of it.

"Apple needs to get fully over its design supersedes function obsession. "  Perhaps you could explain how that applies in this situation. Where in this is design compromising function? Nowhere.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how baseless it is. Some people just like to say things they think sound good regardless of a lack of substance. They think if they are reasonably articulate, what they said will sound good and if it sounds good it must be true. Sorry GeorgeBMac, but you fell into a pit on this one.

lorca2770

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

5 million designs?

Oh, please do not forget that Cathedrals and Megachurches for their beauty, romans columns and fountains are on need of the spiritual needs. Same thing, just a bit selective in your appreciation. Impressing Matters for Life, and for Afterlife, it goes in our genes LOL

lorca2770

iOS_Guy80 said:

goodbyeranch said:

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.

Whenever I travel I always visit an Apple store I enjoy looking in awe at the pretty glass fronts.

You are missing the gadgets

dewme

payeco said:

22july2013 said:

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

<-- One World Trade Center Timelapse

<-- Empire State Building "Timelapse"

To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work. 

The Empire State Building took 20 months to design and 410 days to erect, not 11 months, which is still a phenomenal achievement. They were still designing the upper portions of the building and structural members being fabricated in real time after the construction had already started, a just-in-time approach that would unlikely pass muster today.

Yes, the complexity of modern structures is much greater today than it was in the 1930s, and regulations abound, but the fundamental engineering, business process, and project management techniques were as well understood and practiced by those who constructed the Empire State Building as they are today, and they did it without the aid of computers and automated modeling and fabrication tools. Somehow they made it all happen without ever firing up MS Project, Artemis, or Scitor PS on a computer to plan and track how their project was moving along. Since the advent of sophisticated project management tools we can now figure out, in real time, just how far behind schedule we are at any given point in time, and generate copious colorful charts and graphs to document our lack of progress. Isn't technology grand?

I won't get into the reasons why most projects fall behind schedule nearly all of the time, because there are so many ways that it happens, and new causes crop up all the time. From my experience the worst offenders are projects that have a number of software deliverables and/or dependencies. The only saving grace over the past decade or two is that it's now totally acceptable to deliver software that's not really done and follow it up with several years' worth of updates and bug fixes. Maybe we were wrong to ever think that software was ever truly "done done." Our ability to push updates out after the fact is probably the reality that we should have assumed all along.

GeorgeBMac

goodbyeranch said:

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.

No, the "function" part comes in when stores are so expensive to build (because of extravagant design) that there are not enough to meet the needs of the customers.

The first goal of a retail marketplace should be to meet the needs of the customers.  That's the principle that Apple was built on from its earliest days.  If it can't do that then it doesn't matter how pretty it looks.

As I mentioned:  the functions of an Apple store are to:  educate the customer, provide a base to research products, support the customer and the products, and to sell product.  To do that they need to be available to the customer.   A handful of very expensive stores do not do that.

By the way, if you think Porsche design is chasing after some "culture", you do not understand Porsche. 

In truth, Porsche set such a standard that the "culture" is chasing after Porsche -- just as happened with Apple and its products.

GeorgeBMac

chris_kalan said:

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

You have a point where form needs to follow function, however this form doesn't do anything to harm the function at all. The excessive cost is one thing, but that's not a form v function argument. And you could argue that the form is more beautiful without any effect on function since the whole point is to see through the glass.
Regarding the design of the building, part of "design" is function itself. For a massive project like this, $5 million is absolutely not unheard of. Designing accessibility that fits into the aesthetic without taking anything away, architectural engineering, electrical and networking for Apple's unique needs - $5 million isn't insane.

It is if the cost of building stores is so high Apple can't build enough to meet the needs of its current and potential customers.  And, while I'm lucky enough to have one within a couple miles of my home, not many others can say that.

Again, if all Apple Stores did was sell product, that might be enough.  But the function of these stores has grown far beyond mere sales -- which Amazon could do.  They are an integral part of Apple's ecosystem -- which is what sets it apart from the Samsung's and Lenovo's of the world.

And, as I understand it, the $5Million was not for the building but for a little store inside of that building.

GeorgeBMac

hammeroftruth said:

22july2013 said:

payeco said:

22july2013 said:

goodbyeranch said:

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.

That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.

It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about 11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.

To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work. 

I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?

I think both of these comments underscore how complex it is building these days. It’s not just a quick build. You will always have other interests trying to disrupt or shake down builders for one reason or another. 

That’s why Rodney Dangerfield’s Back To School movie was spot on when he had to attend Economics class and educate the professor what other costs go into building. 

Apple probably will stay but wants to renegotiate the terms in order to do so.
It’s not like commercial landlords are martyrs anyway. 

Elon Musk built Tesla Giga Shanghai in less than a year.

His Giga factory in Germany is still waiting for permit approvals.

You can take it from there....

GeorgeBMac

tommikele said:

GeorgeBMac said:

$5Million for a design?   $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?

Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.  

It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality.  But it needs to do the same for its stores.  They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products.  But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.

Yes, image matters.  But, as Porsche has proven:   "Form [needs to] follow function"

What a completely uninformed comment. You have no idea what normal design fees are for a project of this magnitude and even less idea what specialized glass is in use and the cost of it.

"Apple needs to get fully over its design supersedes function obsession. "  Perhaps you could explain how that applies in this situation. Where in this is design compromising function? Nowhere.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how baseless it is. Some people just like to say things they think sound good regardless of a lack of substance. They think if they are reasonably articulate, what they said will sound good and if it sounds good it must be true. Sorry GeorgeBMac, but you fell into a pit on this one.

$5 million to design a small, simple store?   $300,000 for each pane of glass?

You must work for the defense department.

bloggerblog

crowley said:

Never enter a deal with Apple.  They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.

I are with almost everything, except the lawyers part. Apple has pushovers for lawyers