KA1
Senior Member
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1103497--investors-fight-to-back-out-of-trump-tower?bn=1
Troubles at Trump Tower. Read all about it.
Troubles at Trump Tower. Read all about it.
|
|
|
Baby, we got a bubble!?
- Thread starter simuls
- Start date
andrewpmk
Senior Member
The thing that makes *absolutely no sense* about the downtown Toronto condo market is how you find ultra-luxury buildings and el-cheapo crappy student rentals almost right next to each other. Since the value of condos is in the land, not the building, this is crazy. Take 77 Charles St W where prices are over a million. Walk five minutes east (and you don't even have to cross Yonge St) and you get to 25 St. Mary St ("La Place Marie"), a crappy student rental where you can get a 1 bedroom for $1280/month and a tiny bachelor for $870/month. The same is true with Museum House where one block north you find a studio for $1250/month in 20 Prince Arthur, not nearly as cheap but way way lower than they are one block south. Even more amazing is the ultra-expensive 1 Bloor East where there is the "Brass Rail" strip club one block south, a crappy apartment building with a dollar store and the worst KFC franchise in the city to the west, and to the south at Gloucester/Yonge I have seen listings on MLS where you can *buy* a piece-of-s**t run down 2 bedroom condo for $300000 or so. Yorkville condo developers seem to act as if they can charge Manhattan prices, yet even a POS craphole south of 96th St will rent for AT LEAST $2000/month, which is way higher than Toronto.
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Also to me the suburban condo market seems a lot less speculative then the downtown market. The low end suburban condo market is basically just replacing the single family home market due to the greenbelt, it is mostly people who work in the suburbs who are buying these. In comparison the downtown condo market does not compete with single family houses in Ajax (totally different market). Also given that most jobs in the GTA are in the suburbs, how much demand is there for downtown condos? Of those who work downtown, how many people are in the demographic who want to live downtown (people without children), and of those how many can actually afford to buy downtown? Whereas in the suburbs, prices are lower, units are bigger and there tends not to be huge disparities between nearby areas the way there is downtown.
JayBee
Senior Member
I don't know the answer to this question but the Ritz has several things NOT going for it that the other buildings do.
1) No balconies (If I'm spending $1M for a condo, I better have balconies)
2) The finishes aren't that great. I expect more from Ritz
3) The area/street blech!
I think when the dust settles...ShangriLa and Four Seasons will be at the top of the luxury condo market.
CN Tower
Banned
interested
Senior Member
I am not at all surprised. $1200/sq.ft. to buy a hotel unit which will be rented out. If I am buying a unit in a "luxury condo" do I really want to see a different neighbour every day or 3 days. This makes it transient. Also, taxes etc are higher. Mortgages a problem. People buying this are investors I would think mainly who thought they could live in it a day or 2 a month as a bonus. If rents do not hold up (5 star hotels were supposedly going to ask $400-500 night), and costs to run were projected based on this; I think there will be a lot of people who cannot afford to run this. This is different than the model proposed for the other 3 condo/hotels where the condos are on different floors and separate from the hotel. 4S; Ritz and SL are not relying on investors to buy the hotel units.
In SL, on the condo floors, minimum rental is 1 year. I don't know about Ritz and SL but suspect it is the same. The hotel runs and manages their hotel suites and are not selling hotel units.
Is Trump not the same concept that Harry Stinson had for 1 King East. People can't rent them out for enough and costs are $1/sq.ft. condo fees; taxes high, and the prices of hotel units there have been a difficult sell at least in the past.
the interesting thing about the article was the successful argument in a court of law about 2 year delays voiding the contract. I am sure developers will fight a lot of these going forward. Perhaps those with million dollar condos will fight, but what about all the first time buyers and $400K condos. To hire a lawyer will be expensive.
However, should the condo market falter, I can virtually guarantee mass walk aways and class action or multiple buyer actions. In Florida when the market turned, this was exactly the strategy employed. To try and get out under any guise. The developer altered the number of units for example. I recall reading that in one building they altered from something like 300 to 308 units.... big deal but the buyers were trying to get out of the contract. Not because of 8 units, but the market bottomed and they were trying anything to get out. I can imagine exactly the same thing happening here. As the article pointed out: The cocky answer that we will sell the units for more money I suspect is bravado. Trump still has units I believe for sale and they are close to occupancy and we have seen already at Ritz that there are units asking $750-900 though a lot are over $1000/sq.ft. Not sure Trump when ready will be able to keep asking $1200 in present market. That said, if Trump executes better, and units are smaller therefore total cost is less, they may sell.
Eug
Senior Member
Has anyone here been inside these high end hotel condo units? I've never looked at any of these, so I don't have experience with them.
I'm curious as to what the quality of these buildings are. I've been in a few higher end luxury condo buildings on the Lakeshore (west) and these older (80s?) high end buildings were extremely well finished. Finishes not only looked good but as far as I could tell, they were of excellent quality.
Is the same true for the high end hotel condo units? Or are a lot of them more good looks than good quality, with the higher cost going more to the name recognition and the other amenities?
I have been in cheaper so-called entry-level luxury buildings and quite frankly I felt the workmanship and quality of materials was significantly worse than what I put in my basement. Granted, my basement reno was significantly more expensive than average basement renos, but most basement renos are actually quite cheap. It's just a basement after all.
I'm curious as to what the quality of these buildings are. I've been in a few higher end luxury condo buildings on the Lakeshore (west) and these older (80s?) high end buildings were extremely well finished. Finishes not only looked good but as far as I could tell, they were of excellent quality.
Is the same true for the high end hotel condo units? Or are a lot of them more good looks than good quality, with the higher cost going more to the name recognition and the other amenities?
I have been in cheaper so-called entry-level luxury buildings and quite frankly I felt the workmanship and quality of materials was significantly worse than what I put in my basement. Granted, my basement reno was significantly more expensive than average basement renos, but most basement renos are actually quite cheap. It's just a basement after all.
Eug
Senior Member
$1.65 million, in Vancouver.
interested
Senior Member
^^^^
Probably land value and a tear down. The 2 houses on either side look nice. A bit ridiculous in my view but then if someone wants to live there and has the money, who am I to judge
Probably land value and a tear down. The 2 houses on either side look nice. A bit ridiculous in my view but then if someone wants to live there and has the money, who am I to judge
urbandreamer
recession proof
I disagree. The house in the middle is the nice house. The other two are tasteless pos homes that don't have the classic Vancouver aesthetic.
This is like those smaller homes in the Bathurst-Lawrence area that are being torn down for awful mcmansions featuring acres of gaudy copper, faux stone and home depot proportions.
This is like those smaller homes in the Bathurst-Lawrence area that are being torn down for awful mcmansions featuring acres of gaudy copper, faux stone and home depot proportions.
interested
Senior Member
Urbandreamer, What I should have said is that the 2 houses on either side look like they have been constructed in the past 5 years or so. My comment was intended to state that while the house in the middle is actually quite nice, it probably is being sold at little over or at land value and will ultimately be torn down. Unfortunately if the 2 houses on either side are indicative of the street, the whole street is probably in transition and this house too will end up being a McMansion.
I believe you and I would both agree based on the outward appearance and granted I have no idea what it looks like inside or how large it is or how it is finished, $1.6 million is a lot of money for what the home appears to be.
I believe you and I would both agree based on the outward appearance and granted I have no idea what it looks like inside or how large it is or how it is finished, $1.6 million is a lot of money for what the home appears to be.
Last edited:
cdr108
Senior Member
i'd have to agree with UD here . it looks like this house has a narrower lot than others on the street.
the houses on both sides look like stucco monstrosities.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=2862+1...code_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ8gEwAA
Eug
Senior Member
The house has a 35 foot frontage (which is apparently similar to many on the street) and will likely be either torn down or heavily renovated, according to the article.
BTW, I understand the dislike for McMansions, but a lot of the post-war bungalows and other older homes are really major headaches. I hate the oft-used statement that some these buildings "have good bones", because often it's not the strength of the "bones" that matters, but everything else.
eg. Knob and tube wiring. Lath and plaster uninsulated walls. Non-waterproofed foundations. Basements with 6 foot ceilings. Uber skinny hallways. Tiny bedrooms. Unnecessary rooms like never-used formal dining rooms. Small kitchens. Lack of bathrooms. Squeaky worn out floors. Mold. Oil heating. Etc. All of these are big problems in Toronto.
A lot of the time it just makes a lot more sense to tear it down and build something new, or at least gut it and start fresh, with a serious interior layout redesign. To meticulously restore an existing house with expensive finishes is impractical a lot of the time, because you're still stuck with a lot of the same design limitations (small kitchen, unnecessary dining room, small bedrooms, lack of bathrooms), but it can cost a lot of money. IMHO often the truly restored houses that work best are the ones that are really expensive in the first place, like those old-time upper class homes, not these little cramped ones.
BTW, I understand the dislike for McMansions, but a lot of the post-war bungalows and other older homes are really major headaches. I hate the oft-used statement that some these buildings "have good bones", because often it's not the strength of the "bones" that matters, but everything else.
eg. Knob and tube wiring. Lath and plaster uninsulated walls. Non-waterproofed foundations. Basements with 6 foot ceilings. Uber skinny hallways. Tiny bedrooms. Unnecessary rooms like never-used formal dining rooms. Small kitchens. Lack of bathrooms. Squeaky worn out floors. Mold. Oil heating. Etc. All of these are big problems in Toronto.
A lot of the time it just makes a lot more sense to tear it down and build something new, or at least gut it and start fresh, with a serious interior layout redesign. To meticulously restore an existing house with expensive finishes is impractical a lot of the time, because you're still stuck with a lot of the same design limitations (small kitchen, unnecessary dining room, small bedrooms, lack of bathrooms), but it can cost a lot of money. IMHO often the truly restored houses that work best are the ones that are really expensive in the first place, like those old-time upper class homes, not these little cramped ones.
Last edited:
Wooba
Active Member
Because they look stupid. I live in a neighbourhood with a scattering of these that I see when walking my dog. They do not fit into the neighbourhood at all. I get what you're saying about sometimes you need to replace the old stuff for a variety of reasons, but I don't think people should be allowed to build such enormous houses that don't look anything like the rest of a neighbourhood and are build right up to the edge of the property line. They stick out like a sore thumb and even surrounded by a bunch of older unkept houses, THEY are the ugly houses.
Eug
Senior Member
Well, there are already specific rules in place that cover this. As for building stuff that doesn't look anything like the rest of the neighbourhood, I disagree with you there. I personally like variation. The classic McMansion often does look stupid, but new modern architecture in a sea of old buildings will stand out in a good way. I hate the attitude that an entire neighbourhood should look old, stodgy, and dated, just because everything else in the neighbourhood looks old, stodgy, and dated. Progress and evolution in design is good.
Last edited: