[TOperson]

Hold on there. Single family dwellings on a mass scale in cities are a very new, 20th century idea. Large buildings with multiple residences (whether it's condo, rental, otherwise) have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's how most of the world's urban population lives and always has. There's nothing unproven about condos or high density living; it's mass detached housing that has no precedent. And its costs are still not fully known.

I suppose you could make an argument that living in skyscrapers is a relatively new idea, but not really any newer than detached houses for the masses.

The only reason that anyone is "anti condo" is because our society has convinced itself that detached housing is the good and natural way of living.

That's the ONLY reason to be anti-condo?

Your comment is all over the place, historically. Strata-title properties are an even more recent invention than mass suburbs, and the full implications of having so many of them are still being discovered. It's early days yet. So be careful defending condos.

Strictly speaking, living in cities is not the norm for human beings. Living in nature, in some form of hunter-gatherer tribe/clan, is the norm for human beings. We did that for far longer than anything else, and we have the same brains and bodies now as we did then. And there is a strong argument to be made that we & the biosphere would have been better off sticking to that way of life. So condos vs. suburbs v. row houses is a useless debate from that perspective.

 

[Conrad Black]

The sky is falling! CityPlace is the new St Jamestown. Priceless.

 

[Southcore]

Just finished watching it online. For those who missed the broadcast:

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/the-condo-game

Overall they raised some fair points that certainly need to be addressed (developers sales agreements with little consumer protection, revamp of condo legislation needed, family units) that many of us here discuss in the various sub forums, so nothing really new here. Unfortunately some reaching on behalf of the doc makers, such as CP turning into the next SJT, demonizing 'foreign buyers'

Also is CP still getting a school? The doc praised the Vancouver development for having one and alluded to CP being a 20-something wasteland because it doesn't but then at the end Keesmat was saying things will change when the school comes in.

 

[TheKingEast]

The sky is falling! CityPlace is the new St Jamestown. Priceless.

CP is a giant mess but I don't think it will turn into St. Jamestown. Still, this doc really hurt Concorde's reputation. They build crap... At least Cityplace has some nice looking buildings. But Park Place (so far) is junk.

Here's the blog that was featured on the show.

http://marinadelreylawsuits.blogspot.ca/

 

[NorthYorkEd]

Here's the blog that was featured on the show.

http://marinadelreylawsuits.blogspot.ca/

She seems...eccentric.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I found it was a typically well produced CBC doc. It came off as a cautionary tale, because that's what it is.

If you don't want to get burned, then don't gamble in the real estate speculation market...buy existing real estate!

 

[Tuscani01]

Just finished watching it online. For those who missed the broadcast:

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/the-condo-game

Overall they raised some fair points that certainly need to be addressed (developers sales agreements with little consumer protection, revamp of condo legislation needed, family units) that many of us here discuss in the various sub forums, so nothing really new here. Unfortunately some reaching on behalf of the doc makers, such as CP turning into the next SJT, demonizing 'foreign buyers'

Also is CP still getting a school? The doc praised the Vancouver development for having one and alluded to CP being a 20-something wasteland because it doesn't but then at the end Keesmat was saying things will change when the school comes in.

Sloppy journalism there. They did indeed say Vancouver's Concord development was better than Toronto's because it had a school, day care, library and community centre. They failed to note that Toronto's will have all of those too.

 

[MisterF]

That's the ONLY reason to be anti-condo?

Your comment is all over the place, historically. Strata-title properties are an even more recent invention than mass suburbs, and the full implications of having so many of them are still being discovered. It's early days yet. So be careful defending condos.

Strata title is simply, in the context of residential buildings, a way for people to own their apartments. I don't see how anyone could possibly be against that. They don't have any more issues than rental or co-op housing. If the Condo Act has flaws and needs to be updated, that's no reason to be against condos as a concept.

I found it was a typically well produced CBC doc. It came off as a cautionary tale, because that's what it is.

If you don't want to get burned, then don't gamble in the real estate speculation market...buy existing real estate!

While I largely agree, that applies to all residential real estate, not just condos. They could have called it "The House Game" and come to the same conclusion.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Sloppy journalism there. They did indeed say Vancouver's Concord development was better than Toronto's because it had a school, day care, library and community centre. They failed to note that Toronto's will have all of those too.

If I remember correctly, they said the difference was not due to the developer, but the different city planning departments involved. They may have made an example of Concord but also said any developer will do the same given the opportunity.

The biggest reason to me that the Vancouver Concord development appears to be more "successful" than the Toronto one, is based on the single fact that the Vancouver one involves a much larger tract of super-prime waterfront property, whereas Cityplace was a rather small, nasty little bit of nowhere land.

While I largely agree, that applies to all residential real estate, not just condos.

That's probably why I used the term "real estate", and not "condos". Yea?

 

[MisterF]

That's probably why I used the term "real estate", and not "condos". Yea?

Yeah I know but I was addressing the documentary more than just your post.

 

[Bass gtr]

She seems...eccentric.

I know something about this case, she basically turned down the repairs of her condo because she felt that she should be compensated for more than the declaration specifies and then tried to sue for 15 million, the condo corp's insurance company has obviously not caved in and it is working its way through the courts. She will no doubt lose, as she has refused to settle out of court. The MDR condo is one of the better built in Toronto and has a healthy reserve fund. She is lying about the special assessment on the condo and the update to the lobby she is speaking about was already budgeted for.

It's too bad that the film producer was so hard up for subjects for this doc that they included this person. It really hurts their credibility.

 

[TOperson]

Strata title is simply, in the context of residential buildings, a way for people to own their apartments. I don't see how anyone could possibly be against that. They don't have any more issues than rental or co-op housing. If the Condo Act has flaws and needs to be updated, that's no reason to be against condos as a concept.

Nope, we already know that's not true. The documentary covered one of the major issues: maintenance. A house or rental property has one owner who has the right to do whatever maintenance is necessary. Condo boards are notoriously bad at taking care of maintenance and handling the finances necessary to do them. And there isn't much a single condo owner can do about that, and yet poor maintenance can affect their quality of life and the value of their investment. This can become a nightmare when a condo building is 20+years old, needs major work, and there isn't enough money to do it. So in 20 years time, we could have a lot of housing stock around the city that is in terrible shape. What then?

 

[TheKingEast]

I know something about this case, she basically turned down the repairs of her condo because she felt that she should be compensated for more than the declaration specifies and then tried to sue for 15 million, the condo corp's insurance company has obviously not caved in and it is working its way through the courts. She will no doubt lose, as she has refused to settle out of court. The MDR condo is one of the better built in Toronto and has a healthy reserve fund. She is lying about the special assessment on the condo and the update to the lobby she is speaking about was already budgeted for.

It's too bad that the film producer was so hard up for subjects for this doc that they included this person. It really hurts their credibility.

Are you blaming her?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Nope, we already know that's not true. The documentary covered one of the major issues: maintenance. A house or rental property has one owner who has the right to do whatever maintenance is necessary. Condo boards are notoriously bad at taking care of maintenance and handling the finances necessary to do them. And there isn't much a single condo owner can do about that, and yet poor maintenance can affect their quality of life and the value of their investment. This can become a nightmare when a condo building is 20+years old, needs major work, and there isn't enough money to do it. So in 20 years time, we could have a lot of housing stock around the city that is in terrible shape. What then?

Under the Condo Act the Board is charged with keeping a healthy Reserve Fund for unexpected repairs, ongoing repairs as the building ages and expensive repairs that arise as the roof, elevators, mechanics and such near the end of their life expectancy. Every owner gets a copy of the financial report every year, if they are unhappy with how the Board is managing the finances, or concerned, they have to voice their concerns at the AGM. Failing that, owners have to organize, order a special meeting and throw the Board out.

 

[freshcutgrass]

This can become a nightmare when a condo building is 20+years old, needs major work, and there isn't enough money to do it.

If the reserve fund isn't adequate to handle the cost of certain repairs, then a special one-time assessment is charged to every unit. Not doing the work will simply affect the value of your unit.

So in 20 years time, we could have a lot of housing stock around the city that is in terrible shape. What then?

Between the bylaws, management, the board and individual owners, it's not likely the "nightmares" will be allowed to happen. You'll just end up with less valuable condo units.

My mother owns a condo in an 80's condo complex (The Summit at King & Bathurst). They've pretty much replaced everything that needs replacing (including the entire facade) and have even done common area updates to keep up with the slicker new developments in the nabe. The monthly fees are reasonable, the reserve is healthy, they've already had a one-time assessment of $3600 I believe.

Condos are far less likely to fall into serious disrepair. It's commercial rental buildings that seem to have that risk...plenty of examples out there...both private and public rental housing.