$750K would you buy a condo or a house?

[doug]

Basement leaks can cost a min 10k.

Condos can leak as well, and even if it doesn't affect you, you'll have to pay for the repairs anyway.

Then there is cost of water, garbage disposal/sewer connection, home insurnace - all that is currently covered under condo fees

No necessarily, Home insurance and hydro aren't covered by condo fees. Garbage collection is, but condo owners also pay property tax...so thay pay twice for garbage collection.

Condos have the benefit of concierge receiving your packages if you do a lot of online shopping...

Only condos that have a concierge have this benefit, not all do, and the owners have to pay for it.

You do need to have a little more 'reserve' if owning a house, for those capital projects that can come at once.

You need this in a condo as well, in case they slap a special assessment on you to pay for a leaking basement.

 

[jeff316]

I think the answer depends on the money. The higher the budget, the more attractive house-living becomes. At 750 000$, I'd buy a house because 750 000$ can get you a very nice house in many very nice parts of Toronto. Particularly with no kids, you could get a fancier albeit smaller semi in a really convenient spot. I also think, possibly wrongly, that more 750 000$ houses would have a better chance of losing less of their value over time than 750 000$ condos.

I'm also wary of the condo board/shared ownership issue with condos, and having a say over your primary residence while sharing repsonsibility with all other unit owners. For 750 000$ you can do without that potential worry/hassle. The cost of maintaining underground parking worries me, as does longevity associated with current builds.

That being said, there are some older condos in nice parts of the city where housing is totally unaffordable and the lifestyle could be attractive enough to forego the benefits a house. Forest Hill Village is a really nice pocket with close subway access...Rosedale-Summerhill, not sure if they have condos...but I could go for a condo in those spots.

At anything under 450 000$, however, I'd definitely go for a condo contigent on no kids.

Personally, I think the condo fees vs house maintenance ends up equal, because what you may potentially save in dollars with the house you make up with fewer headaches with the condo maintenance being largely taken care for you.

Also depends if you have pets. A house isn't a must, but it helps. It's nice to have a backyard for them to get some fresh air, and also a basement for when you just need them out of the way.

 

[Urban Shocker]

From the How tall Is Too Tall? panel discussion a few months ago at Harbourfront, as quoted in the Globe:

"Peter Clewes, an architect with architectsAlliance, lives in a 20th-century Beaches home, but longs for a downtown condo in one of the sleekly modern buildings that he likes to design.

“The problem,†he says, “is that the downtown core, where a lot of tall buildings are being constructed, is not an area I would want to live in. It is not an issue of height and density, but of neighbourhood quality.â€

 

[urbandreamer]

^Ha!

But what he says is very true--I have always felt builders take mediocre lots and build condos on them, mostly because the land is cheaper or for some bizarre reason an easy sell to investors.

 

[drewp]

I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is time to maintain a house. On the weekends or evenings the last thing I want to do is yard maintenance, or maintenance in general. I think that is also another appeal for a condo (well for me). I would rather pay the maintenance fees knowing that I would never have to worry about yard work, roof repairs, gardening...etc.

There are pros and cons to both, and it really depends how you live your life after work.

 

[kkgg7]

From the How tall Is Too Tall? panel discussion a few months ago at Harbourfront, as quoted in the Globe:

"Peter Clewes, an architect with architectsAlliance, lives in a 20th-century Beaches home, but longs for a downtown condo in one of the sleekly modern buildings that he likes to design.

“The problem,†he says, “is that the downtown core, where a lot of tall buildings are being constructed, is not an area I would want to live in. It is not an issue of height and density, but of neighbourhood quality.â€

the same argument can go against houses. Is monotone rows of single family houses with nothing within walking distance necessarily of higher "neighbourhood quality? that depends on one's preference. I will choose the neighbourhood quality of St Lawrence Market over Cabbagetown or East York any time.

Additionally, people seem to have forgotten the lost time in longer commuting associated with house living. Multiple that total lost commuting time and your hourly salary, plus gas expenses etc, and then we have a better idea. Some may prefer spending 2 more hours with loved ones or just relax to bigger spaces.

 

[Urban Shocker]

^Ha!

But what he says is very true--I have always felt builders take mediocre lots and build condos on them, mostly because the land is cheaper or for some bizarre reason an easy sell to investors.

What else could you build on a site such as Ten York but a condo tower? For the reasons Clewes gives, living there in a little house would be hellish.