urbanSTL

tandeman wrote:Three feet is not extremely shallow for a pool of that nature. Its the same as Wireworks and actually deeper than a few rooftop pools rumored in other condos downtown, one of which I heard was 1 ft. My closing is in 1-2 months depending on my change orders.

So one really can't call a 3 foot (or less) pool a "swimming pool". Hopefully they used the term "splash pool" or something similar, or they are going to have a lot of angry and/or litigious residents.

If you are feeling litigious, assuming you prove that you relied on the particular depth of the pool when you made your purchase (rather than say, the size of your loft, the view, the price, and other important things like that), you would still have to prove that your reliance was reasonable. To determine what is reasonable, you have to look to other pools of similar venues and how they are described. The problem there is that you are assuming it is uncommon for people to refer to pools that are 3 feet deep as something other than swimming pools. Is that the case? If the common usage includes those above ground swimming pools in suburbs that are only 3-4 feet deep, then you've got a problem right there. If it includes the other 2-4 feet deep rooftop pools that are under construction in downtown St. Louis or present in urban areas like New York, you've got a problem. I've already given an example of a swimming pool that's 3 feet deep, called a swimming pool and is in the area (Wireworks). Do you have an example of one that's 3 feet deep and is called a splash pool or something similar?



I'd hate to sit in front of a judge and ask for damages or restitution claiming that I was damaged in the purchase of my home because of 2-3 feet of pool depth.



If you are just angry, ask yourself this. Did McGowan Brothers tell you it would be 5-6 ft+ or did they just say swimming pool? If they just said swimming pool, did you take it upon yourself to ask how deep? If not, I would question if it was really central to your reason for buying at Westgate.

tandeman wrote:If you are feeling litigious, assuming you prove that you relied on the particular depth of the pool when you made your purchase (rather than say, the size of your loft, the view, the price, and other important things like that), you would still have to prove that your reliance was reasonable. To determine what is reasonable, you have to look to other pools of similar venues and how they are described. The problem there is that you are assuming it is uncommon for people to refer to pools that are 3 feet deep as something other than swimming pools. Is that the case? If the common usage includes those above ground swimming pools in suburbs that are only 3-4 feet deep, then you've got a problem right there. If it includes the other 2-4 feet deep rooftop pools that are under construction in downtown St. Louis or present in urban areas like New York, you've got a problem. I've already given an example of a swimming pool that's 3 feet deep, called a swimming pool and is in the area (Wireworks). Do you have an example of one that's 3 feet deep and is called a splash pool or something similar?



I'd hate to sit in front of a judge and ask for damages or restitution claiming that I was damaged in the purchase of my home because of 2-3 feet of pool depth.



If you are just angry, ask yourself this. Did McGowan Brothers tell you it would be 5-6 ft+ or did they just say swimming pool? If they just said swimming pool, did you take it upon yourself to ask how deep? If not, I would question if it was really central to your reason for buying at Westgate.

Thanks for the analysis! (I'm not buying in this building, so I really don't care about the outcome)



In a case like this however, is there any "standard" description of a "swimming pool"? Any sort of "reasonable person" standard? And the fact that this is an "inground" pool, wouldn't that standard exclude comparisons to "above ground" pools, aka "Hoosier hot tubs"? Because I certainly don't think any reasonable (or sane) person would describe a 3' deep tub of water as a "swimming pool". Because it would be rather difficult to actually swim in it. And if something 2-3' feet deep can be described as a "swimming pool", then my friend's water garden is a "swimming pool".



What about other things - How about if they said underground parking was included. Then when you went to close, you found out that the entrance was only 4 feet high. Nothing could fit in, except Miatas and Corvettes.



If I was the developer, I would instruct my people to be very clear about the dimensions of the pool.

tandeman wrote:
I'd hate to sit in front of a judge and ask for damages or restitution claiming that I was damaged in the purchase of my home because of 2-3 feet of pool depth.

I'd hate to be stuck paying for this thing year in, year out when its good for nothing eight months out of the year and is a kids pool for the other 4 months. I'd be interested in what this adds to residents' association fees?

[/quote] I'd hate to be stuck paying for this thing year in, year out when its good for nothing eight months out of the year and is a kids pool for the other 4 months. I'd be interested in what this adds to residents' association fees?[/quote]



My guess is that condo fees, at their core, are based on actual charges the building incurs like gas, landscaping, trash, plumbing, etc. If that's the case, then how could a dormant pool during winter cost the association one red cent? Its covered by a tarp (presumably) and not heated (guess). What expense could there be to it during winter months? Now you might pay the same amount each month because they could be pro rating summer months over the whole year, but its not as if 8 months each year of no use is really crimping your plans in the scenario I described.



And, if it meets exactly with the rendering which you no doubt saw in the ad and is not very long (certainly not long enough to swim what most people consider a lap), what were you expecting? Its not as if it looks (in the rendering) as though you can get a work out in it. And, yes, even in three feet, you can swim. One foot, like another complex downtown, no, three feet, yes.

Three feet is all you need.



Go lay out, take in some rays (with SPF in hand, stay safe ), and then cool off with a quick dip in the pool.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:


Thanks for the analysis! (I'm not buying in this building, so I really don't care about the outcome)



In a case like this however, is there any "standard" description of a "swimming pool"? Any sort of "reasonable person" standard? And the fact that this is an "inground" pool, wouldn't that standard exclude comparisons to "above ground" pools, aka "Hoosier hot tubs"? Because I certainly don't think any reasonable (or sane) person would describe a 3' deep tub of water as a "swimming pool". Because it would be rather difficult to actually swim in it. And if something 2-3' feet deep can be described as a "swimming pool", then my friend's water garden is a "swimming pool".



What about other things - How about if they said underground parking was included. Then when you went to close, you found out that the entrance was only 4 feet high. Nothing could fit in, except Miatas and Corvettes.



If I was the developer, I would instruct my people to be very clear about the dimensions of the pool.

As far as a standard, yes, I think its like the reasonable person in torts. But, in determining reasonableness, you have to look to common trade practice in the relevant area. If the word "swimming" has lost its signficance (and I think it has) as a modifier of the word "pool" and K-Mart is selling those inflatable kiddie pools as "swimming pools" then it probably hurts the argument that "swimming" can be as narrowly construed as you described. Yes, those hoosier hot tubs are different in some respects, but my point is if the word "swimming" is used so often it loses its value as a modifier of the word pool, then management can easily say they were justified in using it instead of "wading," "splash," etc. I agree that no person would say a three foot tub of water is a swimming pool, but that's not the case here. Its much bigger than your average tub as far as width and length. It certainly appears more like a pool than a tub in the rendering. Yes, in your example, 4 foot high ceilings would be unreasonable. One important reason is because it is not the industry standard to install such low entrances. If there were other entrances like that, maybe the management would have a better argument. But, in this situation, obviously, that's not the standard. Thus, its a little inopposite.



Perhaps on your last point. But, I was told long ago by my attorney (father) that I need to ask questions about everything and assume nothing. Is that completely practical? No, but anyone who assumed the answer with regard to the pool depth must look in the mirror about one of the root causes of his or her anxiety on this issue.

tandeman wrote: One foot, like another complex downtown, no, three feet, yes.

Who is this one foot culprit? I heard Ventana's pool was 42"(I think) and Lucas' pool is 3ft. Has someone changed their plans?



Also, pool mainenance is pricey, but the insurance is even pricier, even pro-rated it'll cost you a bit each month.

http://www.swimmingpools101.com/swimmin ... costs.aspx

Tax Guru wrote:I just finished reading this thread and let me offer my condolences for the delay. The good news is. it seems is that nobody seems to be complaining about their individual units. The Loft lady mentioned that she didn't want to hear anymore complaints in order to protect her resale value but I think that point is moot since the majority of complaints seemed to focus on the delay and nothing more, which wouldn't affect a new purchaser. The pool, however, if it really turns out to be a foot pool sounds absurd. To the average person, pool means pool, not hole with water to look at. I may only be a tax attorney, but from what I remember in law school, if they represented as a pool, the common use of that term would suggest something I can jump into and swim around in. As someone who is about to move into the Park East Tower later this year, I too have been fretting about delays and keep waiting for that first email or letter saying they are behind schedule but nothing has come. Being from New York, I just thought it was commonplace for new developments to go months past the due date--although this particular development seems to have taken delays to a whole new level. I thank all of you for posting because these discussions are an invaluable service to us first time purchasers. Thanks again and good luck. And don't forget to invite me to your first pool party.

Good luck to you. Are you IRS side or private side?



I will differ with you on some points. I missed the class where we talked about the common use of the word "pool" in law school. What class was that in? Haha, just yanking your chain. I think that if you argue "pool" is something you can swim around in, you have an even worse case than those arguing that "swimming" means more than 3 feet deep. I've seen many a "pool" that is 1 foot deep. But, you are right, the common usage is the key, but where the argument tends to lie is with regard to determining common usage.

tandeman wrote:
Well, both of those examples support my position that the use of "swimming pool" for a 3ft deep pool is not unreasonable in this area.



I can't tell you. I promised those in charge.

Actually I agree with your argument about 3ft pools being normal in the area(loft district), they are. But 1 ft is absurd, if the builder is hiding this from tennants, it will only backfire supremely later on when the buyers find out. Ventana and Lucas already have their pools framed up I believe, I had heard that Lucas' pool was "smaller than expexcted" but not 1 ft deep. There is only one other new building that I can think of installing a pool, Motor Lofts. Are they scamming people woith this 1 ft pool bit?

tandeman wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:


Thanks for the analysis! (I'm not buying in this building, so I really don't care about the outcome)



In a case like this however, is there any "standard" description of a "swimming pool"? Any sort of "reasonable person" standard? And the fact that this is an "inground" pool, wouldn't that standard exclude comparisons to "above ground" pools, aka "Hoosier hot tubs"? Because I certainly don't think any reasonable (or sane) person would describe a 3' deep tub of water as a "swimming pool". Because it would be rather difficult to actually swim in it. And if something 2-3' feet deep can be described as a "swimming pool", then my friend's water garden is a "swimming pool".



What about other things - How about if they said underground parking was included. Then when you went to close, you found out that the entrance was only 4 feet high. Nothing could fit in, except Miatas and Corvettes.



If I was the developer, I would instruct my people to be very clear about the dimensions of the pool.

As far as a standard, yes, I think its like the reasonable person in torts. But, in determining reasonableness, you have to look to common trade practice in the relevant area. If the word "swimming" has lost its signficance (and I think it has) as a modifier of the word "pool" and K-Mart is selling those inflatable kiddie pools as "swimming pools" then it probably hurts the argument that "swimming" can be as narrowly construed as you described. Yes, those hoosier hot tubs are different in some respects, but my point is if the word "swimming" is used so often it loses its value as a modifier of the word pool, then management can easily say they were justified in using it instead of "wading," "splash," etc. I agree that no person would say a three foot tub of water is a swimming pool, but that's not the case here. Its much bigger than your average tub as far as width and length. It certainly appears more like a pool than a tub in the rendering. Yes, in your example, 4 foot high ceilings would be unreasonable. One important reason is because it is not the industry standard to install such low entrances. If there were other entrances like that, maybe the management would have a better argument. But, in this situation, obviously, that's not the standard. Thus, its a little inopposite.



Perhaps on your last point. But, I was told long ago by my attorney (father) that I need to ask questions about everything and assume nothing. Is that completely practical? No, but anyone who assumed the answer with regard to the pool depth must look in the mirror about one of the root causes of his or her anxiety on this issue.

Again, thank you for your analysis. The law has always fascinated me.

tandeman wrote:If you are feeling litigious, assuming you prove that you relied on the particular depth of the pool when you made your purchase (rather than say, the size of your loft, the view, the price, and other important things like that), you would still have to prove that your reliance was reasonable. To determine what is reasonable, you have to look to other pools of similar venues and how they are described. The problem there is that you are assuming it is uncommon for people to refer to pools that are 3 feet deep as something other than swimming pools. Is that the case? If the common usage includes those above ground swimming pools in suburbs that are only 3-4 feet deep, then you've got a problem right there. If it includes the other 2-4 feet deep rooftop pools that are under construction in downtown St. Louis or present in urban areas like New York, you've got a problem. I've already given an example of a swimming pool that's 3 feet deep, called a swimming pool and is in the area (Wireworks). Do you have an example of one that's 3 feet deep and is called a splash pool or something similar?



I'd hate to sit in front of a judge and ask for damages or restitution claiming that I was damaged in the purchase of my home because of 2-3 feet of pool depth.



If you are just angry, ask yourself this. Did McGowan Brothers tell you it would be 5-6 ft+ or did they just say swimming pool? If they just said swimming pool, did you take it upon yourself to ask how deep? If not, I would question if it was really central to your reason for buying at Westgate.

I'm not certain anyone purchased based soley on a pool or is anyone overly angry...just discussion involving the future of the building.

I have seen the rooftop, and it looks like it is going to be great. I was recently up on the roof....the view up there is awesome The deck is even raised higher than the party room and the pool looks to be about 3 to 3 1/2 feet deep. This is really going to be a great place to relax.

I can't wait until the building is turned over to the association.

With all the Lofts values going up this would of been a good place to have a contract a year ago. A friend of mine flipped one with out living day one in it and made an easy $50k. Can you just imagine what downtown will look like in 5 or so years?

Taegis wrote:With all the Lofts values going up this would of been a good place to have a contract a year ago. A friend of mine flipped one with out living day one in it and made an easy $50k. Can you just imagine what downtown will look like in 5 or so years?

Flipped one at Westgate or somewhere else? And curious to what the timeframe was from reserve to resale?

50k? Wow! I have been in since mid to late '04. I'm sure I could make a dollar or two, but no that much. Was the unit on the 2nd or 5th floor?

I cant be totally sure but I suspect that Pups 3 and Taegis are the managment company posting on here trying to snow us. Look under the Terrace Lofts postings and you'll see what I mean. Hey Dwain, where is everything you promised I'd be getting?????? Have you done any type of property management before or did you just bulls*&^t your way into this job?

cschlafly is legit. i think a lot of us involved @ westgate are doing our best to focus on the good things. numerous things have put a damper on our excitement, but the pool seems to be a something to look forward to.

Involved meaning you live there or involved meaning you are part of the current "management"