Xenosblitz
Active Member
Well, you have a different experience than I did at Parade then. I owned an unit in this building until earlier this year. I bought the unit originally from the builder in 2007. I paid $3,500 for a locker. Come July 2011 (registration), posters went up next to all elevators saying lockers are available at $2,500. There was a Concord Adex logo on the top of it. I immediately cursed myself for buying earlier.
From my observation of 2 of the locker rooms, about 1/4 of them are empty. Unless owners/tenants are not using them, my best guess is that they are still owned by the builder.
I've also heard through management that Concord still owns parking spots in the building. Driving through the garage, there are empty spaces scattered. There are also numerous signs up on the bulletin boards of tenants/owners trying to rent out their spots, ranging from $90-$150/month. Break even for these spots for owners assuming a 3% interest rate on funds borrowed is about $130/month. People aren't making money off the parking.
On the selling front, I was not able to recover my parking/locker costs from a comparable unit without. People are not willing to pay $35k for parking and $3k for locker in this building (when adjusting a similar unit). If my calculations are correct, I got about $25k for both on an adjusted basis. This is after getting 6 bids over a couple months. Units without parking/locker also sold much more quickly than units with.
This is just one building in many though. I cannot say its consistently true for all buildings. But I can tell you right now that its not an isolated incident. i live in the Bay/College area now, and I see parking spots going for $85/month in an under 5 year old building. Lockers look healthy at $40/month on average.
Also note that parking/locker rents is separate from condo rental rates. Condo rental rates are very healthy in most buildings I've seen (in terms of occupancy). They don't seem to sit like parking/lockers and don't need price drops. Of course, it could mean the prices were reasonable in the first place, namely, okay for renter incomes, but too low to cover current market prices for the owners. As a tangent, I don't know why owners are using their original cost as a basis of their return. They should be using the current market values. I could drop the money for a condo into a savings account and earn a better return than owning and renting out condos right now.
From my observation of 2 of the locker rooms, about 1/4 of them are empty. Unless owners/tenants are not using them, my best guess is that they are still owned by the builder.
I've also heard through management that Concord still owns parking spots in the building. Driving through the garage, there are empty spaces scattered. There are also numerous signs up on the bulletin boards of tenants/owners trying to rent out their spots, ranging from $90-$150/month. Break even for these spots for owners assuming a 3% interest rate on funds borrowed is about $130/month. People aren't making money off the parking.
On the selling front, I was not able to recover my parking/locker costs from a comparable unit without. People are not willing to pay $35k for parking and $3k for locker in this building (when adjusting a similar unit). If my calculations are correct, I got about $25k for both on an adjusted basis. This is after getting 6 bids over a couple months. Units without parking/locker also sold much more quickly than units with.
This is just one building in many though. I cannot say its consistently true for all buildings. But I can tell you right now that its not an isolated incident. i live in the Bay/College area now, and I see parking spots going for $85/month in an under 5 year old building. Lockers look healthy at $40/month on average.
Also note that parking/locker rents is separate from condo rental rates. Condo rental rates are very healthy in most buildings I've seen (in terms of occupancy). They don't seem to sit like parking/lockers and don't need price drops. Of course, it could mean the prices were reasonable in the first place, namely, okay for renter incomes, but too low to cover current market prices for the owners. As a tangent, I don't know why owners are using their original cost as a basis of their return. They should be using the current market values. I could drop the money for a condo into a savings account and earn a better return than owning and renting out condos right now.