[nrb]

Charging a membership fee for non-residents to use condo facilities that are underutlized is actually a brilliant idea imo. No different than any other gym. Membership levels can be controlled so the facilities are not overburdened.

I haven't really looked into it but I'd be very surprised if there aren't buildings that are already doing this.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Charging a membership fee for non-residents to use condo facilities that are underutlized is actually a brilliant idea imo. No different than any other gym. Membership levels can be controlled so the facilities are not overburdened.

I haven't really looked into it but I'd be very surprised if there aren't buildings that are already doing this.

It is a good idea, but who would administer it?

Also, as one of these "riff raff" barely paid enough to maintain and build said living spaces, I resent the riff raff talk without the addendum of 'scruffy'.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think the city should be prepared to expand public facilities like pools, parks and community centres rather than expecting developers to build everything. I don't think anyone would want to live in a condo whose amenities are open to the public when it's the owners paying to maintain them. Public facilities are better for building a sense of community and social cohesion. If people want private amenities for their condo, that's fine, but they shouldn't supersede public amenities. People from different socioeconomic backgrounds can meet and socialize with each other at public facilities, whereas the condo amenities are only for the similar people who live in the condo.

How much socializing beyond your own friends/teammates and socio-cultural tribe do you do at a community centre?

Do you think that large condos only cater to a single socioeconomic class? Large condo projects that have full service amenity centres feature a wide range of unit types, ranging from 400ft2 studios (often rented out to people who cannot afford home-ownership) up to multi-million dollar penthouses.

 

[js97]

I think the issue is cost of maintenance. Should a rental building pay for a community center that everyone has access to? And if so, how do you reconcile those costs? Tax breaks for the rental development?

This legislation doesn't really apply to condos, as it's private ownership and not intended for rental. Condos current have legislation to deal with setting aside a portion of dollars/space for betterment of community (a.k.a 'Section 37') although the implementation is horrible. It amounts to developers putting money in a slush fund that the councillor re-directs to privileged community groups that come back and fully back the councillor on election time. No different than shell corporations that donate to elections (that is now banned).

It should be a simply public space per square requirement.

 

[trnetdurand]

It is question of scale. my building pool is too small for residents, end up with the inverse: the public overburdening the private.

 

[TOareaFan]

New rule...if you are going to refer to other people as riff-raff you should know how to spell/type/say it .....near as I can tell, a rift raft would be sinking watercraft as any boat with a fissure in it would inevitably lose its' buoyancy....and I agree, if I lived in a condo I would not want useless boats cluttering up my common space/amenities.

 

[fedplanner]

It is question of scale. my building pool is too small for residents, end up with the inverse: the public overburdening the private.

Instead of having 5 new condo buildings, each with a pool that's too small, consider the developers pool their resources (no pun intended), take advantages of economies of scale, and build a much larger, pool as part of a new community centre. Instead of paying maintenance fees to maintain the private amenity space, you pay a user fee to the community centre, along with anyone else that wants to use it.