Well parking IS a little piece of real estate. Just like a locker or a bike rack they tend to keep their value with proper maintenance. Real estate tends to appreciate in my experience. I also wouldn't be spreading the price of the parking spot over 1 year as if it depreciates incredibly quickly, which is not the case here at all.

If you use a 25 or 30, or even a 40 year, time frame then that makes a lot more sense than $60k a year! Parking spots are typically good investments. Don't worry about the price of the car that goes in the spot!!!....it could be a high end car or a winter beater...that's meaningless to compare a small piece of real estate with a car; which actually does depreciate.
 
Last edited:
But by the time a condo is 15 years old it's a ghetto :)

I too attended a VIP preview just out of curiousity--had never seen this process believe it or not. What amused me was how little interest investors had in the architecture, the planning process (the fact this design is not approved), or even the neighbourhood. They just wanted a view of the lake--why?!!!

It was interesting to note all the interested buyers were investors--ie planning to rent out or flip their units. They were new Canadians from the 905.

They were intrigued that I--not a realtor, not connected to the industry financially--knew more about this project than anyone else they'd spoken to.:)
 
Last edited:
My comments on parking spots were reasonable. Your comment was absurd. I have no clue what you write about on here. A property has to be maintained, that's why condos have maintenance fees to maintain the buildings and parking spots and lockers lol.
 
Great Gulf priced this project very well and IMO a little too well.
They could not afford to risk launching a 3rd condo project in a row with poor sales... after Tux flopped and Monde sales were weak.
This one seems like a sure winner!
 
RiverCity1 said:
My comments on parking spots were reasonable. Your comment was absurd. I have no clue what you write about on here. A property has to be maintained, that's why condos have maintenance fees to maintain the buildings and parking spots and lockers lol.
Click to expand...

Relax, it's UD being sensationalist like he always is. Many of the earliest buildings of this boom are approaching 15 years now, and are completely fine. Looking dated architecturally, but certainly not a ghetto.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Relax, it's UD being sensationalist like he always is. Many of the earliest buildings of this boom are approaching 15 years now, and are completely fine. Looking dated architecturally, but certainly not a ghetto.
Click to expand...

105 Victoria is right across the street and is 16 years old. Yes it looks rather dated but nobody would say it looks like a ghetto. In fact about 70% of its residents are owners and a one bedroom rents for 1500 month and sells for about $320K. Does it sound like "ghetto"?
BTW, even after 16 years, the condo fee is something like 45 cents per sf.
 
I have a friend who lives at King Plaza (92 King East), and as others have said interior designs are a bit dated but the overall building is in decent quality. A good majority of older condos that have been around before this current construction boom have preserved well so far. Of course most people in those buildings are established residents , instead of newer developments that appear to become mainly transient rentals.
 
The number of investor owners in 99% of condos declines over time as owner occupants tend to buy units when they flip. With strict rules in the Condo Act to ensure condo boards have enough money to take care of state of good repair issues over time, it's highly unlikely that modern day condos are going to go ghetto. Urbandreamer's assertion is groundless.

42
 
Ha, what I meant by "ghetto" is that appreciation usually slows down after 15 years as maintenance fees soar, windows need replacing, lobbies and common areas get facelifts, blah blah blah. It's also rather bizarre that someone would pay $60k for parking when the building is literally a minute from TTC access, easy walking distance to biz district, SLM & King East, etc.
If you really really need access to a car--Car2GO is about your best and cheapest option. You could probably take that $60k and invest in a second unit.
And this is an aA building--as I mentioned to the investors I met, investing in an aA building is the best way to pick a winner. An aA building will never look like a ghetto, although it may become a rental-friendly project--not a bad outcome imo.

So buy buy buy here! I wanna see aAnother beaAuty built :D
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
But by the time a condo is 15 years old it's a ghetto :)

I too attended a VIP preview just out of curiousity--had never seen this process believe it or not. What amused me was how little interest investors had in the architecture, the planning process (the fact this design is not approved), or even the neighbourhood. They just wanted a view of the lake--why?!!!

It was interesting to note all the interested buyers were investors--ie planning to rent out or flip their units. They were new Canadians from the 905.

They were intrigued that I--not a realtor, not connected to the industry financially--knew more about this project than anyone else they'd spoken to.:)
Click to expand...

This basically sums up the pre con market. The lake comments are funny, I know a whack load of folks that bought at Eau Du Soleil for this reason alone (not caring about any other factors), and as UD said, not a single one has any intention of living in their units.

I too know what's its like to talk about these projects with people who buy pre con (and have no clue about anything) and they ask how I know so much, I tell them UT is where it's at.

Also on the issue of costly parking, it's not just the high price (in this case $60K) but also the monthly maintenance fee ($60/mo in this case - and that's on top of regular maint fee + independently metered hydro). I remember for E condos parking was $60K plus $150/mo in maint fee (again on top of everything else). The location of this building is superb, if there is one part of town where you don't need a car, this is it.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't this project have close to a million sf? They only show 4 elevators...

The floor plans are okay, but how they make a unit under 500 sf look so large? Must be scaling of the furniture?
 
The design somehow got even worse...

I feel bad to say that about an aA design, but yeah, this thing looks yuck to me.
 
Looks like a skyscraper adaptation of the Arecibo message.

But anyways, my main issue is the overwhelming clash of the design motifs. The increased height of the stacked balconies create a set of competing massing forms. It feels almost like sensory overload, with each component combining to form a complex and discordant relationship.
 
What happened to the landscaped terraces? I guess they are gone bye-bye. It was a tease to have seen them in the first place lol.
 
It looks pretty much the same, minus the terrace. The city ppl wanted that setback of the tower so this is how they sorted it. Blame the city I guess?

Anyhow the investors I spoke to couldn't have cared less about the amenities or the terraces--they just wanted a southern view to rent out to biz ppl & Ryerson students lol.

I felt kinda weird--realizing that everything I care about--architecture, materials, massing etc--means nothing to your average condo flipper. :( (An architect I know feels the same way--she spends many hours working out zoning regulations for buildings yet feels like the average punter simply doesn't care.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top