Considering this thread started in March 2020, this project went up quite quickly, as with other CentreCourt projects. Here is a photo from the northeast corner of Church and Richmond today:

20240912_163601.jpeg

To me, the perspective of this photo resembles the cover art for this song I have been listening to for the past week:
genius.com

David Guetta & Alesso (Ft. Madison Love) – Never Going Home Tonight

[Verse 1] / Heatwave state of mind / Said DJ play that sad song one more time / After afterparty high / I keep searching for the signs in the neon light / [Pre-Chorus] / We're
genius.com genius.com
 
Raymond123 said:
Look up what "FOMO" is. Basically, Peak market euphoria/ a bubble which many failed to realize or see in hindsight. Any of the top builders could have pulled off what CentreCourt did. But they weren't dumb enough to try. They know that you can't price pre-con way above re-sale in case of potential market corrections. Also reputation risk among other issues like defaults/legal costs with ppl walking away from deposits. Both buyers & builders alike got FOMO at the same time. Psychologically, I don't blame them. Learning Lessons for all
Click to expand...
Is FOMO a legal term? To be clear, you're certainly on the right track here, but you've lost the plot. As @innsertnamehere has correctly stated: nobody forced anyone to sign the contract. Purchasers, dumb as they might be, did that of their own volition and when (not if, when) CentreCourt takes them to court, they will be made to pay.
Collingwoodbuildinglover said:
So question as I'm not in the know on the pre-condo market if you walk away from your deposit does that mean the developer keeps the deposit and you basically take a bath?
Click to expand...
We will sue you. CentreCourt is in proceedings with like a quarter of the 'buyers' in this building.
Raymond123 said:
For the record, there are better resources for this type of detailed info like reddit. But basically, if a buyer walks away after placing a deposit, they forfeit that deposit & risk facing litigation for price differential when the builder re-sells the same unit at market value to a new buyer. Original buyers may consider bankruptcy if the losses are severe and they can't pay up. Similar to a resale market transaction where buyer firms up and slips out of a purchase transaction. I have heard of massive losses on Exburb freehold properties ($200k-500K) type drops in appraisal value compared to pre-con: so those are the real massive losses. Generally these condo losses are "small" except for one-offs like 252 CHURCH.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, dude. Again, you're right on most of the facts, but that's quite an opening sentence there...
karledice said:
If you buy under a company, you walk away from deposit and can declare bankruptcy to the company.
Click to expand...
Then we sue the company and its directors. The system isn't set up to enable purchasers to do this kind of thing.
 
As to the investment-related discussion above...........while most of statements are substantially or entirely correct as far as they go.....

It really brings me back to the idea that I don't like pre-con financing at all; in part because its gone from primarily end-user (resident) buyers to majority investors who intend to rent, short-term rent, and/or flip.
This drives the situation we find ourselves in with inordinate numbers of studios as well as nominally larger apartments that have the ft2 of a studio from 20 years ago.

I realize it would turn the market upside down, but I"d like to see buildings of multi-res forced to sell a completed product to the end customer.

Aside from kiboshing the current sales regime, I would eliminate the primary residence capital gains exemption, and/or cap it, such that flipping was not profitable for most people.
I also maintain a strong desire to see minimum unit sizes mandates.

****

Once we've addressed the above, we have to address the not unique to Kingsett who have it down to an art zone and flip that spikes real estate values irrationally that then have to be baked into end price.

While many would groan, I'd like to just abolish the OLT entirely; or failing that reform it so that it serves it originally intended purpose (as the OMB et al.) which was to be check against corruption/extraction of bribes/kickbacks, or decisions/indecisions of Council(s) that are inconsistent with due process of law.

****

Finally, I'd like to see investors better protected from themselves by not allowing the kind of leverage we see in the market today.
Instead of forcing you to buy mortgage insurance if you have less than 20% down payment, I would simply require every purchaser to have a 20% down payment.
I'd also like to see variable rate mortgages outlawed, and terms can only be under 10 years if the debt will be fully paid within that period.
You must also have sufficient resources that a 10-year mortgage will pay off no less than 50% of the principle. This more or less prevents people from ending up 'under water', since
they would be a 60% owner (minimum) when their mortgage comes up for renewal.
 
You must be wealthy to propose 20% down payments and eliminating capital gains on primary residences.Most people looking for a home and not an investment can't afford a 20% down payment. Primary residences are retirement plans if you manage to be a home. To be fair, there's so many tax exemptions with funds held by the rich which is just spare money. Basically, what you are saying is that home ownership will morph into corporate/rich trust/equity funds ownership with everyone else renting.

Let's not hit the middle class with more taxation and impossible thresholds for home ownership. What can make a huge difference with simply easy changes is stopping snow-washing. Being number 1 in the world for money laundering is not a source of pride.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top