scarberiankhatru said:
I strongly disagree. Compared to stuff like suite layout, price, etc., the size of the party room is pretty trivial, although I do agree that its 'importance' is really played up by the sales and marketing machine. While there are occasional buyers who heavily factor amenity space into their decision, most buyers would love the option of buildings or complexes with fewer - or sometimes no - amenities. They eat up all kinds of ground floor space, preventing meaningful/successful retail from going in, they drive up maintenance fees, etc.
Click to expand...

Most people say they don't want amenities because of the maintenance fee and the fact that they don't use too often. But would they actually buy a unit without any amenities? I doubt it. I believe having good amenities are great features to market your property. Just from thinking future value of their unit, they'll prefer their building to have some decent amenities.

Also, having no amenities dosen't always result lower maintenance fee. Menkes buildings at Harrison Garden is a perfect example. I think it all comes down to how well the building is designed, and the board that runs it.
 
Given a choice between a pool and a virtual golf room on the ground floor or a leasable space big enough to fit a grocery store or a few great restaurants, I'd vote for the latter. Obviously, though, this is really only an issue on main streets...I agree that a respite from retail chaos can be nice, especially if the lobby and other common areas are nice (many hallways and other common areas are inexcusably putrid).

Yes, some people would buy a unit with no amenities, and, yes, in general, units will be cheaper initially and cost less over time if there's no virtual golf room (feel free to quibble about the meaning of 'amenities' or find an endless string of exceptions). I agree that we've been conditioned to see bountiful amenities as useful even if we don't use them, if only because of our nebulous old friend, "resale value."
 
Most people say they don't want amenities because of the maintenance fee and the fact that they don't use too often. But would they actually buy a unit without any amenities? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

A good point, but as a purchaser in a small building, I looked for a place without the usual games rooms, party facilities or gym. Nevertheless, I am certainly not against those things. Had I found a unit I really liked in a building that had such facilities, I would have bought it. Friends of mine owned in the Merchandise Building, which has great amenities. Their move up was to a house - with none.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
I strongly disagree. Compared to stuff like suite layout, price, etc., the size of the party room is pretty trivial, although I do agree that its 'importance' is really played up by the sales and marketing machine. While there are occasional buyers who heavily factor amenity space into their decision, most buyers would love the option of buildings or complexes with fewer - or sometimes no - amenities. They eat up all kinds of ground floor space, preventing meaningful/successful retail from going in, they drive up maintenance fees, etc.
Click to expand...

Well a small niche building can avoid the amenities, but with a project such as RoCP with 900+ units, the builder needs to appeal to the widest variety of potential purchasers they possibly can so the amenities are top notch (plus as discussed there are requirements mandated by the city), retail was also mandated - so it is possible to have amenities + retail. The amenities can often go in areas that would be difficult to situate retail or units - such as above the garage entrance or by the garbage disposal.

In my old apartment I didn't use the amenities all the time, but it was nice to have a pool and gym for occasional use. Also as far as condo fees go - it is a small proportion that goes to amenities - most go to utilities, 24hr security/concierge can be very expensive + maintenance and upkeep.
 
Mike in TO said:
Well a small niche building can avoid the amenities, but with a project such as RoCP with 900+ units, the builder needs to appeal to the widest variety of potential purchasers they possibly can so the amenities are top notch (plus as discussed there are requirements mandated by the city), retail was also mandated - so it is possible to have amenities + retail. The amenities can often go in areas that would be difficult to situate retail or units - such as above the garage entrance or by the garbage disposal.

In my old apartment I didn't use the amenities all the time, but it was nice to have a pool and gym for occasional use. Also as far as condo fees go - it is a small proportion that goes to amenities - most go to utilities, 24hr security/concierge can be very expensive + maintenance and upkeep.
Click to expand...

A decent management company to manage the building or complex (Property Manager, Administrative Assistants etc.) doesn't come cheap either.
 
Hydrogen said:
A good point, but as a purchaser in a small building, I looked for a place without the usual games rooms, party facilities or gym. Nevertheless, I am certainly not against those things. Had I found a unit I really liked in a building that had such facilities, I would have bought it.
Click to expand...

Exactly...most people just don't really care either way.
 
1198498470_7ae608444b_o.jpg



1197674373_ccae7b2e03_o.jpg

​
 
Andrew3D, thank you for those pics! I don't think I've ever seen the downtown core from this particular angle. It really puts everything in perspective. I love how you've made RoCP stand out so brilliantly!
 
They do fit in well, don't they?

Awesome that Metropolis is taking a bit of shape. I'll share your cropped picture around Andrew.

hope you don't mind too much.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top