IanO
Superstar
Those fees are not outrageous given the size of the unit and age. High, sure, but not crazy.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
northlands
Senior Member
$715/mo condo fees...that'd be easily 2/3 your mortgage payment on that place w/ 5% down
Stevey_G
Active Member
Seeing fees like this makes me thankful that my building and our board have aggressively tackled the issues with our building through assessments for a few years and didn't skimp out or ignore anything. Everything's been quiet recently and our only small fee increases in the past couple years have been related to inflation and increased security measures.
There''s always reasons for high fees, some are constructive reasons and will increase the value of the property long term, other times it's because things have been ignored and fees suppressed for far too long - thus the building is playing catch up with maintenance. One really has to look through the AGM meetings, minutes, etc to get an idea - and don't have a lawyer do it alone, double check after the lawyer is done yourself.
IanO
Superstar
Most 'quality' or amenity rich buildings are going to be $.40-.50/sqft or $400-500/1000sqft when new. Responsible boards should raise fees by inflation +1-2%/yr (rule of thumb) and that builds over each and every year and so a building from the 90s or early 2000s will have higher fees.
This also assumes near or full funding of their Reserve Fund based on their 5yr (mandated) study, but usually is underfunded and with deferred maintenance.
This also assumes near or full funding of their Reserve Fund based on their 5yr (mandated) study, but usually is underfunded and with deferred maintenance.
kcantor
Senior Member
it's an interesting philosophical difference isn't it?
in a single family home, most of us will work hard to be "ahead of the curve" when it comes to maintenance and replacement/repair recognizing that those expenditures result in a better living environment and enhance long-term values.
in a condo most boards are primarily concerned keeping monthly costs as low as possible and will postpone those same investments (and postpone building up and maintaining an adequate reserve fund for them) as long as possible even though that simply makes them more expensive when they finally can't be put off any longer. the underfunded reserve accounts then lead to special assessments and minimal rather than optimal amounts and quality of work even when it is done. the result is an erosion of value rather than an enhancement of value.
Stevey_G
Active Member
It is interesting for sure. My building wasn’t very well built to be honest, but the board has done a great job addressing issues and engineering around our problems. My fees are around $450/mth and covers everything minus electrical and our reserve fund is a bit ahead of the curve.
That is people with foresight at work and I’m happy to have the board we have and the manager we’ve got. That said, I do understand why some boards work to keep prices down. There’s some buildings filled with pensioners and people living off CPP and OAS. A board may simply sometimes have to accept an erosion of building and value because the owners cannot afford raises in fees or assessments.
IanO
Superstar
A moment in history: Feb. 1, 1982
Feb. 1, 2023 · The Pulse
By Scott Lilwall
On this day in 1982, the city was split on the future of one of Edmonton’s most storied downtown buildings.
When Robert Tegler started building his office block in 1911, it was a gamble. Edmonton was growing by thousands each year, and Tegler knew the swelling city would need more office space as more professionals and entrepreneurs made their way out west. But the plan for the seven-storey building on 102 Avenue and 101 Street — at that point two storeys taller than anything else in the city — was an ambitious one.
Tegler was able to secure an agreement with James Ramsey to house a department store on the first floor, which was enough to go forward with the plan. The square, brick-clad building was finished later in the year. It was a study block made out of reinforced concrete, a relatively new innovation at the time, making it the first “fireproof” building in the city.
https://edmonton.taproot.news/brief...EMAIL_ID]&mc_cid=e62efd1e60&mc_eid=b81cde227f
Feb. 1, 2023 · The Pulse
By Scott Lilwall
On this day in 1982, the city was split on the future of one of Edmonton’s most storied downtown buildings.
When Robert Tegler started building his office block in 1911, it was a gamble. Edmonton was growing by thousands each year, and Tegler knew the swelling city would need more office space as more professionals and entrepreneurs made their way out west. But the plan for the seven-storey building on 102 Avenue and 101 Street — at that point two storeys taller than anything else in the city — was an ambitious one.
Tegler was able to secure an agreement with James Ramsey to house a department store on the first floor, which was enough to go forward with the plan. The square, brick-clad building was finished later in the year. It was a study block made out of reinforced concrete, a relatively new innovation at the time, making it the first “fireproof” building in the city.
https://edmonton.taproot.news/brief...EMAIL_ID]&mc_cid=e62efd1e60&mc_eid=b81cde227f
IanO
Superstar
Attachments
Gronk!
Senior Member
What are the odds that The Keg or another high-profile restauranteur is taking a long hard look at this Rice Howard Way location?
MisterSartorial
New Member
I'd suspect not good. This spot has been very troubled for more or less the last decade. The only thing materially changing now is Five Oaks is trying to sell the spot instead of just leasing it. I talked to a rep from Five Oaks about six weeks ago and he said there was a deal pending but I'm guessing at the very least it hasn't closed yet, or worse fell apart.
David A
Senior Member
So if I read these assorted charts and figures correctly, it seems like the downtown population has increased from around 5,000 in 1986 to around 18,000 now.
Yet I hear so much whining about how our downtown population is stagnant. An increase of over 300% does not seem stagnant to me. Maybe the future will not be as good, but that is hard to predict and many predictions end up being wrong. Anyways, it seems like it is not as bad as the current general mood of doom and gloom would seem to indicate.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
They show, however, that it has decreased from 2014 to now, and is projected to hover around 20k for decades ahead of us, if we don't do something. Clearly 20k is not enough to support a vibrant and healthy downtown, especially with the arise of WFH in such a large scale, post pandemic. I suspect, judging by the current state of affairs, that somewhere around 1.5 to 2x the current population, over time, would be what we need to finally have the downtown most of us here would love to see.
David A
Senior Member
Yet I was here in 1986, when only 5,000 people lived downtown and it seemed fairly vibrant, certainly with a lot more retail businesses than now.
If increasing population was the key to vibrancy, then logically we should be more vibrant now than than in 2009 and in 1986, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
I don't think some arbitrary population number above what we currently have is the magic solution to everything, nor should the possibility it may not happen (although the future is hard to predict) cause us to fall into total despair.
If increasing population was the key to vibrancy, then logically we should be more vibrant now than than in 2009 and in 1986, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
I don't think some arbitrary population number above what we currently have is the magic solution to everything, nor should the possibility it may not happen (although the future is hard to predict) cause us to fall into total despair.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I mean, someone in mid life (40) at the time would be close to the average life expectancy at this point… (late 70s).
Seems like a weird timeframe to use. Things don’t change in 4 years. But in 40 years you’d hope to see our city not city struggling mightily to get a vibrant downtown.
From 2016-2021 downtown Toronto grew by 38k. We are a region of 1.5mil. Toronto is 6.5. So if we even got a proportional amount, that’d be about 9k new residents in the same period.
Obviously we aren’t Toronto. But every other downtown is growing waaaay faster than ours.
“Based on the latest census, downtown Vancouver’s population increased by 7.4% from 113,516 in 2016 to 121,932 in 2021, while downtown Montreal increased by 24.2% from 88,169 in 2016 to 109,509 in 2021, downtown Calgary increased by 21% from 38,663 in 2016 to 46,763 in 2021, and downtown Toronto increased by 16.1% from 237,698 in 2016 to 275,931 in 2021. With 55,387 residents in 2021, Edmonton’s downtown population is larger than that of Calgary, but this represents a five-year decline of 1.1%.” https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/downtown-vancouver-population-density-canada-city-centres-statistics
This is using the weird federal census boundaries, but still gives a sense of scale and size. Ours declining by 1% while everyone else sees double digit % growth is tough.
I don’t want to wait another 37 years for the next 20k people.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
You missed the part where I mentioned the rise of WFH in large scale, meaning a SEVERE reduction on the working population commuting to downtown every day. Not to mention other things, like the insane growth in popularity of the WEM or the rapid growth of areas like Windermere, for example. The downfall of the big department stores also dealt a massive blow, as those stores were a huge draw for food traffic, especially to the ECC. We also tore down a bunch of older buildings that had small, established businesses that couldn't afford to wait for the replacements to be built, or to come back there with the higher lease rates...
Right now, our downtown has two ways to become more vibrant and sustainable, in the long term: grow resident population or working population. If you have any ideas of how to make it vibrant, with successful businesses. It's not a matter of arbitrary number, just simple math: without people to shop, daily, it will simply not work, especially with how much spread out the city has become, and the terrible perception that the area has, right now, pushing visitors away.