[daveto]

How long are these expected to stand? Any difference based upon height or type (glass/etc?)

I figure the various owners will have an answer to this.
I'd figure probably about 100 yrs on avg? But I'm just guessing

 

[BobBob]

This is an interesting question, to which I'd like to add another: has there been a case of a condominium being decommissioned in Toronto or elsewhere with a similar legal framework? How does that work exactly?

 

[Coltaine79]

From what i remember when reading my condo status cert and bylaw package... they seem to be assuming a useful life of 50 years?
We're 8 years in now... I wonder if there will be this massive exodus in about 40 years time?

Does anyone know what's the oldest condo in Toronto? Not a house converted to condo ownership structure, but a concrete highrise type building which was a condo from Day 1.

 

[Wooba]

An interesting question.. with proper maintenance, would they not be able to stand indefinitely?

 

[CityPainter]

An interesting question.. with proper maintenance, would they not be able to stand indefinitely?

So long as a building is maintained I would expect it to last a lot longer than 50 years unless it had a fatal design flaw. In Europe many buildings are still standing that are hundreds of years old, even though so many bits and pieces have been changed over the decades and centuries that only a small percentage of the original remains, say a few beams or a foundation. Some of the first high rise buildings in NY are now reaching 100 years of age and are still standing. Lots of apartment buildings in Toronto were built in the 1950s and 60s, and I don't see them collapsing around us. So long as there is someone willing to spend the money and effort on maintenance and refurbishment I think any building could stand virtually indefinitely. Cracked concrete can be chipped out, repaired and resealed; windows can be replaced, as can elevators, ventilation systems, wiring, plumbing, flooring, wall surfaces, etc. Only once nobody is willing or able to maintain a building will it be torn down and replaced or abandoned to crumble, depending on the circumstances.

 

[cdr108]

From what i remember when reading my condo status cert and bylaw package... they seem to be assuming a useful life of 50 years?...

i guess they don't make them like they used to.
with so many century homes and mid-century apt buildings still standing strong, our current building standards and materials would seem sub-standard.

 

[Johnzz]

A concrete structure, if kept dry and out of the elements, will last thousands of years. If left unprotected, likely won't last 300 years.

Here's an interesting video: (WARNING- may contain scenes of structural collapse, viewer discretion advised! )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPA3ocklQf4&feature=related

 

[Kevin86]

This is an interesting topic. I wonder what would happen to a building if at any given time in far future, it is not cost-effective anymore to fix the then-existing building.

Will they have to rebuild? If so, where will the resident condo owners stay during the time of construction? Who will pay for rebuilding and other temporary residential costs? Will the owners get the same condo unit after re-building? Does the newly built building has to be the same design as the original one? etc etc.

 

[UrbanVigor]

Seems that the market would dictate. I imagine the majority of owners living in a decrepid building that become too costly to maintain would move out well ahead of time. After all, their condo fees are supposed to cover it and they don't exactly decrease over time. As CityPainter said, unless there is a fatal design flaw they aren't going to come crumbling down. However, no matter how well designed or built a building is, lacklustre property management could lead to it's demise. The residents will have had enough, sold their units below market, and move into a newer and/or better maintained building.

What about the new residents who have adopted these buildings at below market prices? My argument would be that it wouldn't even get to that point. I bet they'd go unsold and the residents would be stuck with them. They then move into old age homes or pass on with an asset on their books that's not worth much. The only one who'd buy them would be a developer with the intentions of rebuilding.

 

[BobBob]

I suppose in that most extreme case, the residents would decide to sell the building for scrap (ie. land), and divide the revenue according to each owner's percentage.

 

[Coltaine79]

i guess they don't make them like they used to.
with so many century homes and mid-century apt buildings still standing strong, our current building standards and materials would seem sub-standard.

I misspoke. Read through my condo docs and I was remembering the section about the reserve fund study incorrectly. They attempted to predict payments into and out of the reserve fund for the next 50 years, that was all.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

From what i remember when reading my condo status cert and bylaw package... they seem to be assuming a useful life of 50 years?
We're 8 years in now... I wonder if there will be this massive exodus in about 40 years time?

Does anyone know what's the oldest condo in Toronto? Not a house converted to condo ownership structure, but a concrete highrise type building which was a condo from Day 1.

When I lived at 40 Homewood, I was told by neighbours that it was the oldest purpose-built condo in Canada. I have no concrete proof to backup that statement but no reason to believe it is false either. Can anyone else confirm or deny that for me?? The building dates from about 1971, and was originally an effort by the City to get the poor into owning their housing - it was only offered to those who qualified as low income. In today's condo market, it's just another building - but back then, only the poor would want to live in a box in the sky.

 

[Coltaine79]

When I lived at 40 Homewood, I was told by neighbours that it was the oldest purpose-built condo in Canada. I have no concrete proof to backup that statement but no reason to believe it is false either. Can anyone else confirm or deny that for me?? The building dates from about 1971, and was originally an effort by the City to get the poor into owning their housing - it was only offered to those who qualified as low income. In today's condo market, it's just another building - but back then, only the poor would want to live in a box in the sky.

Well I guess one thing we can do is find out when the first "Condominium Act" was passed. The one which existed before the 1998 one...

I found a neat link (irrelevant to Ontario but anyways)

http://www.condobiz.net/media/pdf/Hist.pdf

Condominiums are not a new concept.
The form of ownership which is
utilized for condominiums was used
by the Romans as early as the 6th
c e n t u ry B.C. In Europe, the concept
has been available for many centuries.
The concept has existed in South
American countries for at least two
centuries.

I guess I should have guessed that, since "condominium" sounds like a Latin word...

 

[junctionist]

A properly maintained building will last for centuries unless it has fatal design flaw. We build to high standards today; the fifty year figure posted earlier is ridiculous.