News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.3K     0 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
22,704
Reaction score
12,994
City:
Toronto
Then they put in marble tiles, granite counters, stainless steel appliances, thick hardwood floors, crown moldings, etc. and call the 500 sq. ft. condo "luxury"?

I'd rather live in the 1,500 sq. ft. condos at Eglinton & Jane and live with the ceramic tiles, laminated counters, white appliances, parquet flooring, no moldings, etc. and call that home.
 
Last edited:

JayBee

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
1
If done right, a 500sqft place could feel like a 650sqft place. A lot of the older condos have a lot of wasted space (ie: 15 ft long hallways)
 
J

Josef

Guest
I assumed a bedroom required a closet & source of light in order to be considered as one.
 

Team Me

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
200
Reaction score
1
Then they put in marble tiles, granite counters, stainless steel appliances, thick hardwood floors, crown moldings, etc. and call the 500 sq. ft. condo "luxury"?

I'd rather live in the 1,500 sq. ft. condos at Eglinton & Jane and live with the ceramic tiles, laminated counters, white appliances, parquet flooring, no moldings, etc. and call that home.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Finishes and a walkable urban location are far more important to me than square footage. And I assume that many others in the downtown core feel the same way based on what's selling.
 

UrbanVigor

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
428
Reaction score
0
I agree 100%. Different strokes for different folks. I currently live at Yonge & Eglinton and just bought a place at St. Lawrence Market. The walkability factors of these neighbourhoods are what I consider first and foremost.

I currently live in a 400 sq. ft. apartment and will be moving to a 620 sq. ft unit when my building is built. I wouldn't want to live at Eglinton and Jane no matter what the size of the place. However, a 1500 sq. ft. apartment there would be more beneficial for a family that goes to work and comes home to take care of the kids moreso than a neighbourhood bustling with cafes, bars, restaurants, and shopping.

Some people choose location over the unit and others choose the unit over location. It all depends on what makes an individual tick.
 

interested

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
2,740
Reaction score
12
Different strokes for different folks I guess. Finishes and a walkable urban location are far more important to me than square footage. And I assume that many others in the downtown core feel the same way based on what's selling.

Like many things, people learn to adapt. In Europe/Asia, spaces are much smaller and people do well. In North America, we have become accustomed to everything big. Big houses, big cars, long distance commutes. After the oil crisis in the 70's, big cars/muscle cars started to disappear only to reapper. Do people prefer more room. Yes. Will they settle for less for a better location? Answer: Yes. If they could get more for less: Of course yes. But just as we learned to live with smaller cars (recall those huge 1970's Cadillacs compared to smaller version luxury today), people will learn and adapt to smaller more functional places. That said, I do think things are getting a bit ridiculous when they show 570 sq. ft "2 bedroom" units. Yes it is doable but is it really realistic? Perhaps the price that ultimately those who want the urban walkable location will pay.
 

UrbanVigor

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
428
Reaction score
0
Very good point. Back in the 50's, people had more kids and lived in smaller houses and as time went on the houses got bigger and families have got smaller. What's happened is general society has become accustomed to excess being the norm.

However, I agree that 570 sq. ft. 2 bedrooms is pushing it. Of course, it depends on the value for money. At the right price, I'd love to have one of those suites... if I was the only one living in it and I made the second bedroom my office.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
22,704
Reaction score
12,994
City:
Toronto
In Europe, the washer and dryer are smaller. In most cases, the two machines are combined into one unit. As well, most of the washers were front loading for years.
Here, the machines are big and heavy.
 

iSlutsky

Chit-Chatter
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
260
Reaction score
0
I know that condo unit size is getting smaller and smaller, but I'm still amazed to see a two bedroom unit plan that is just merely 570 sqft. I mean, in my head, a one bedroom unit is currently somewhere between 500 - 580 sqft, a one bed plus den is somewhere between 580 - 720 sqft, and a two bedroom must be more than 800 sqft.

But here they are - two bed units that are 570, 580, and 590 sqft respectively, from Westside Gallery Lofts (phase II):
http://www.westsidelofts.ca/570sqft-L02.pdf
http://www.westsidelofts.ca/580sqft-L11.pdf
http://www.westsidelofts.ca/590sqft-L06.pdf

So can it be such a norm now that builders can just get away with selling a 570 sqft unit as a two bedroom, despite the fact that a guest must walk into one of the two bedrooms to get to the washroom or the balcony? Can it get even worse than this in the coming years?

I strongly believe in small-suites and downtown living (here are some blog postings on the subject, here, here, here, here, here).

However, I do not consider the layouts above to be "2-bedrooms". 1bd+d would be more appropriate. There is no closet in the second-bedoom, and with the sliding door, there is no room for a wardrobe-dresser if there is a bed in the room.

Nice try at marketing, but not a second bedroom and not livable.

NEVERTHELESS, it is possible to have small and livable 2-bedroom units. Tridel has an amazing 3-bedroom at 822SF. Of course, not for everyone... but, for a downtown family on a budget, it is great.
 

interested

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
2,740
Reaction score
12
Agree with you that the 3 bedroom design is probably the best small place 3 bedroom I have seen. It might work for a younger family but I can't imagine teenagers living with 1 common living area(imagine when friends come over). that said, I think that design is about the smallest room sizes but feasible 3 bedroom doable. Correspondingly, I think a 2 bedroom could shring by about 90 sq. ft total because the living room/dining room, kitchen and bathrooms could not be further reduced. also, there is virtually no lost space and closet space is at a minimum but given overall footage, a very good usage of space.
 

interested

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
2,740
Reaction score
12
I guess. The parents probably shouldn't consider a queen bed though.

a smaller bed will make for good bonding between the parents. I guess if you have a dilemma, you have to exit the condo to change your mind.
 

cdr108

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
4,724
Reaction score
59
What wrong with it? do you think that a first time bachelor buyer has the money to buy one bedroom 800, 700 or 600 sq ft at $500 sq ft in downtown? you should go to New York and see the size of the small units in Manhatan. That is not crazy and ridiculous, that is what the market is asking for.... blame builders and buyers for what? for building affordable and nice living spaces for first time buyers, bachelors or young couples?

Our condo was built in 1990, and it's well under 400 square feet, so condos of this size are not a new phenomenon. My wife bought it a few years before I came along and it was a great chance for her to finally stop paying rent and own her own place. Granted now it's a bit cramped for two, but we make do, and small space living keeps the condo fees low and limits any temptation to buy crap we don't need. In a few years we'll pay down the mortgage, sell to another young person looking to break into the market, and then move up to a bigger place. No big deal.

If you don't want a small condo, don't buy one! But I see no need to start "blaming" buyers and developers for encouraging small units. If all units were 800 or 900 square feet, these days that would mean that a large percentage of people couldn't afford to buy in the core; not everyone has 400-500K to spend, especially when they're younger, and renting into your 30s or 40s is downright depressing.


wow, i seem to have hit a nerve.

the main topic of this thread was the labelling of 570 SF as 2 bedrooms, where an 8 FT x 8 FT space without any closet is called a 'bedroom'; and the progressive down-sizing of SF / up-size labelling.

if one wants to buy 400 SF, that's fine; but the main problem i have is developers are getting away with calling that a '1 bedroom unit' when the same space only 5 years ago was considered a 'bachelor'.

with prices reaching $500 PSF, it's been a creative strategy by builders that has allowed them to market this as
"1 bedroom from $199,900" and
"2 bedrooms from $280,900"


it plays on a buyers' sense of value making one think you're getting more for your money when there isn't ...
honestly, don't you think one would have more sense of pride/ownership in saying they own a 2 bedroom condo vs. 1 bedroom condo in the same 570 SF space ?!?

it's happening all over ...

the down-size labelling of women's clothing by couple of sizes to make the buyer feel better/slimmer so they will buy that item ... size 6 becomes 4

a few years ago, a bag of chips was 200g, reduced to 180g, then 150g, now 135g ... they keep the bag similar size but fill it with air.

box of tissues was 200 count, then 180, 150, now 132 ... the container is similar size but the tissues aren't packed in as much.
 
Last edited:

Top