gabe said:
Some of the unit layouts remind me of hotel rooms. I'm single and go out a lot, but at the end of the day i want to come home to something that actually looks like a "home" and not a temporary accommodation. Other than layouts i do love the look of this tower!
Click to expand...

Nobody will want to "live" in these units. They are transient places - people will live there short term but will never want to stay.

Imagine having thousands of short term units in one place. How will they hold up over time?
 
Johnzz said:
With the exception of one (or maybe two) suites, all are very well designed.

To say this building is “run-of the-mill†is ridiculous. Let’s see, 4 BILD awards including the coveted “Project of the Year†award and “High-Rise Building Design†award.

City Place is average. Massey Tower? I don’t think so…
Click to expand...
Winning awards does not mean anything. Well it does, it means that a certain group of people like your project. Does not mean everyone will or that I will or you will. Just some people did, and it won.
 
SP!RE said:
I know lots of single people who work downtown and go out a LOT and none of them live in spaces like that. When you factor in the cost, it starts to feel like a rip-off. Developers...
Click to expand...
This is the future for big city living. This is how lots of people in Manhattan live, and pay a lot more to do so.
 
SP!RE said:
Naw. This is simply the future of capitalism run wild.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? These units are selling because there is a clear demand for them. Whether that demand currently comes from investors or end users is totally irrelevant. Nobody is being forced to rent out these units, so people are making these choices voluntarily. Ultimately if end users become unhappy with these kinds of units, there will be less of a demand for them, resulting in lower rents and less profit for investors. This will cause investors to stop purchasing there kinds of units. That's just econ 101... the invisible hand at work.

People like to paint capitalism as some big, bad monster because it can, in certain circumstances where it is unregulated, fail, but for the most part it's still an incredibly efficient system.
 
Ramako said:
Care to elaborate? These units are selling because there is a clear demand for them. Whether that demand currently comes from investors or end users is totally irrelevant. Nobody is being forced to rent out these units, so people are making these choices voluntarily. Ultimately if end users become unhappy with these kinds of units, there will be less of a demand for them, resulting in lower rents and less profit for investors. This will cause investors to stop purchasing there kinds of units. That's just econ 101... the invisible hand at work.

People like to paint capitalism as some big, bad monster because it can, in certain circumstances where it is unregulated, fail, but for the most part it's still an incredibly efficient system.
Click to expand...


I'm not getting your point - so after thousands of these units are built and there is no more demand for them, what happens to those that are built? Does Econ 101 have an answer for that? What typically happens is the poor shmucks (investors) who bought them have to rent them out for less and less rent, maintenance declines.....
 
Big Daddy said:
I'm not getting your point - so after thousands of these units are built and there is no more demand for them, what happens to those that are built? Does Econ 101 have an answer for that? What typically happens is the poor shmucks (investors) who bought them have to rent them out for less and less rent, maintenance declines.....
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting? That these units will sit empty and the buildings will fall apart? Unless the population of the city starts to shrink, in absolute terms there will always be enough of a demand out there for these kinds of units to keep the building fully occupied and profitable. The question is merely whether it's more or less profitable to build smaller units versus larger units, because that's what dictates what gets built next. When the demand for larger units outpaces the demand for smaller units (presumably as the new generation of condo-kids accustomed to living downtown start having children), you'll start to see more larger units being constructed. That doesn't mean that the demand for smaller units, in absolute terms, will vanish but merely that it won't be growing relative to the demand for larger units. And once there are enough larger units on the market to satisfy the demand for such large units, it may well be the case that the market for smaller units will have become under-served, and suddenly those kinds of units will be in high demand again. The market moves in cycles.
 
What typically happens is the poor shmucks (investors) who bought them have to rent them out for less and less rent, maintenance declines.....
Click to expand...

Oh the poor investors. Pity them. They are taking a chance that they may lose in the future (which I doubt very much) for the chance to make lots (which I think they will). No one is forcing them to buy here.
 
Ramako said:
People like to paint capitalism as some big, bad monster because it can, in certain circumstances where it is unregulated, fail, but for the most part it's still an incredibly efficient system.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly efficient at forcing all but the wealthy out of downtown cores when they become desirable. HOWEVER, if it is not left to run amock, and there are policies that keep housing affordable or provide a healthy dose of affordable housing (sorely lacking in Toronto), then I find the capitalist approach to be much more palatable.

Capitalism is efficient in many ways, but one of its efficiencies is that it treats you better the wealthier you are. There are many people that will never be able to live in the core because they cannot afford it-- look at the prices of the units in this building for example-- for such a tiny space! And in the end, a socially homogeneous core and segregated city is bad for everyone.

I'm not paranoid. I've studied my fair share of this stuff and read some alarming studies. Things change over time and I wonder what will happen to Toronto without necessary interventions.
 
Big Daddy said:
Nobody will want to "live" in these units. They are transient places - people will live there short term but will never want to stay.

Imagine having thousands of short term units in one place. How will they hold up over time?
Click to expand...

Most downtown projects have small suites, but it would be misleading to characterize Massey Tower as all studios. Some of the most popular suites have been the larger suites, which are very "liveable".

Louis-Armstrong-643-Massey-Condos.jpg
Glenn-Gould-800-Massey-Condos.jpg
Maria-Callas-882-Massey-Condos.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Louis-Armstrong-643-Massey-Condos.jpg
    Louis-Armstrong-643-Massey-Condos.jpg
    10.5 KB · Views: 574
  • Glenn-Gould-800-Massey-Condos.jpg
    Glenn-Gould-800-Massey-Condos.jpg
    11.2 KB · Views: 570
  • Maria-Callas-882-Massey-Condos.jpg
    Maria-Callas-882-Massey-Condos.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 554
Last edited:
150 of the 700-ish units are studios
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top