The Condo Game [CBC Documentary]

[TOperson]

Speaking of reading comprehension, you didn't answer my question. But by your other post (the one that calls condos a nightmare) I'll infer that you believe that rental buildings and houses are better than condos when it comes to long term maintenance. You have yet to present any evidence of that.

Do you hear that "whooshing" sound? That's my point, going right over your head. For a second time.

Let's try this once more:

If things go wrong when you rent, you can always just up and leave.

When you own a house, you can just go ahead with whatever repairs are necessary - or not, if you're willing to live with the consquences.

With a condo, you have to dance with the management board, who may well be totally incompetent. This can effectively destroy the value of your investment, as has already happened with some owners in older condo buildings. Under current laws (and who knows if/when the laws will get better) a condo owner has little recourse. That's a hell of a risk to take with hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own money - especially when you plan to retire on that money, as many people do.

If you can't see that the ownership/control/risk issues are a major qualitative difference, with big long-term financial implications, you are probably just the sort of mark that a condo developer is looking for. Be careful out there.

 

[freshcutgrass]

If things go wrong when you rent, you can always just up and leave.

When you own a house, you can just go ahead with whatever repairs are necessary - or not, if you're willing to live with the consquences.

With a condo, you have to dance with the management board, who may well be totally incompetent. This can effectively destroy the value of your investment, as has already happened with some owners in older condo buildings.

Well, the proof is generally in the pudding. Condominiums have been around since 1968, so we should be able to compare the state of good repair between freehold houses, single-owner commercial apartment buildings, and highrise condo buildings.

If condos posed the biggest risk as you claim, the evidence should show a consistent level of poor state of good repair over the other two. I think the evidence shows the exact opposite. The best maintained buildings are condos. One can find an endless supply of dumpy houses and rental buildings, but you'd be hard pressed to find a dumpy condo building.

Under current laws (and who knows if/when the laws will get better) a condo owner has little recourse.

The Condominium Act has evolved, and is about to get even more changes to make it better. I think the flaw in your reasoning rests on your notion that individual condo owners are powerless. As mentioned, single-owner buildings seem to be the ones who choose to make poor choices, whereas multiple owner condo corps seem to make better choices, despite the fact that it is a collective of sometimes literally hundreds of individual owners.

 

[TOperson]

Well, the proof is generally in the pudding. Condominiums have been around since 1968, so we should be able to compare the state of good repair between freehold houses, single-owner commercial apartment buildings, and highrise condo buildings.

If condos posed the biggest risk as you claim, the evidence should show a consistent level of poor state of good repair over the other two. I think the evidence shows the exact opposite. The best maintained buildings are condos. One can find an endless supply of dumpy houses and rental buildings, but you'd be hard pressed to find a dumpy condo building.

The Condominium Act has evolved, and is about to get even more changes to make it better. I think the flaw in your reasoning rests on your notion that individual condo owners are powerless. As mentioned, single-owner buildings seem to be the ones who choose to make poor choices, whereas multiple owner condo corps seem to make better choices, despite the fact that it is a collective of sometimes literally hundreds of individual owners.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that "condos are the best maintained buildings"? When has such a survey ever been done? There aren't many condos from the 60s and 70s around to examine in the first place. We know we have lots of new condos that already have big issues.

The point you are missing is CONTROL. With a condo, you don't have it, but you deal with the consquences anyway.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that "condos are the best maintained buildings"? When has such a survey ever been done?

Are you honestly disputing that claim? I think it is quite apparent without the need for a survey to confirm it.

There aren't many condos from the 60s and 70s around to examine in the first place.

Well actually, there are. In fact many of the older condo corps are older converted rental buildings. There are very old condo buildings with incredibly cheap prices (less than 100k) that are still maintained just fine...certainly not the slummy conditions we find many freehold homes, rental buildings or public housing projects we see quite commonly.

As you have already mentioned, 20 years is plenty and there are lots of condo buildings from the 80's/90's.

We know we have lots of new condos that already have big issues.

Those issues relate to the developer and construction quality...not to management/board competency. This is as bad, if not worse with tract home developers (I've worked with both).

The point you are missing is CONTROL. With a condo, you don't have it, but you deal with the consquences anyway.

I'm not missing anything. First of all, it's a moot point, as anyone who buys into a condo realizes they don't personally have control of the building. Secondly, this only matters if you as an individual choose to be incompetent, which you may choose to do when you are the sole owner. Having professional management and a collective of usually many people democratically making decisions ensure that the average level of competency of condo management/state of good repair will be higher than that of the average single-owner residential property. Again, this bares out in the evidence (that you suspect I am just yanking out of my ass).

 

[TOperson]

Are you honestly disputing that claim? I think it is quite apparent without the need for a survey to confirm it.

>>So you have no evidence.

Well actually, there are. In fact many of the older condo corps are older converted rental buildings. There are very old condo buildings with incredibly cheap prices (less than 100k) that are still maintained just fine...certainly not the slummy conditions we find many freehold homes, rental buildings or public housing projects we see quite commonly.

>>Again, no evidence.

As you have already mentioned, 20 years is plenty and there are lots of condo buildings from the 80's/90's.

>>20 years is plenty for what??

Those issues relate to the developer and construction quality...not to management/board competency. This is as bad, if not worse with tract home developers (I've worked with both).

>>But the management board has to deal with it, and there are no guarantees that they are competent to do so.

I'm not missing anything. First of all, it's a moot point, as anyone who buys into a condo realizes they don't personally have control of the building.

>>You are missing a BIG point. Ownership is not moot if your investment is destroyed by someone else's incompetence.

Secondly, this only matters if you as an individual choose to be incompetent, which you may choose to do when you are the sole owner.

>>But the incompetent sole owner only hurts themselves. Not so in condo building.

Having professional management and a collective of usually many people democratically making decisions ensure that the average level of competency
of condo management/state of good repair will be higher than that of the average single-owner residential property.

>>Yeah, condo boards are known for their democratic processes! "Average level of competency" is meaningless when YOUR condo is in a building run by idiots. That's like saying the average parent doesn't beat their children, but that's irrelevant to the children of parents who DO beat them.

Again, this bares out in the evidence (that you suspect I am just yanking out of my ass).

>>You haven't backed it up with anything.

 

[DtTO]

The mere thought that the average house is better maintained than the average condo building is laughable. You only need your eyes to confirm that; no survey required.

 

[TOperson]

The mere thought that the average house is better maintained than the average condo building is laughable. You only need your eyes to confirm that; no survey required.

Right, because there is no way confirmation bias would influence what you see.

 

[MisterF]

Do you hear that "whooshing" sound? That's my point, going right over your head. For a second time.

Let's try this once more:

If things go wrong when you rent, you can always just up and leave.

When you own a house, you can just go ahead with whatever repairs are necessary - or not, if you're willing to live with the consquences.

With a condo, you have to dance with the management board, who may well be totally incompetent. This can effectively destroy the value of your investment, as has already happened with some owners in older condo buildings. Under current laws (and who knows if/when the laws will get better) a condo owner has little recourse. That's a hell of a risk to take with hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own money - especially when you plan to retire on that money, as many people do.

If you can't see that the ownership/control/risk issues are a major qualitative difference, with big long-term financial implications, you are probably just the sort of mark that a condo developer is looking for. Be careful out there.

The only one missing the point here is you. Look, nobody here is disputing your point about losing a measure of control when you buy a condo unit. That's just something you accept when you decide on that type of home ownership. There's no debate there. But the real question is: so what? What specifically are the consequences of that? How common are these problems you keep alluding to? Do these problems of the condominium model of ownership outweigh the benefits vis a vis freehold home ownership or renting? If so, let's see some evidence.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that "condos are the best maintained buildings"? When has such a survey ever been done?

You're the one talking about the consequences of condo ownership but you don't actually show what they are. The implication is clearly that issues with condos are a bigger problem than with other housing types and that no amount of amending the Condo Act can fix that. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Well, how about this then?

I rent a bachelor unit in a new (3 years) building. Moved in two months ago. Two of my windows are broken. One was cracked when I moved in; one never had weatherstripping on the interior side. I have cold air coming in.

My landlord has been trying to get the property manager to fix both since May. The landlord isn't allowed to fix them himself like he wants to because they are exterior common element. Property manager told us the board had to approve repairs. Since May. It's November. Tick, fucking, tock.
Meanwhile I'm paying 1300 a month plus hydro for a walk in closet with cold air from outside streaming in and the landlord isn't allowed to fix it.


I'm sure it's exactly rubbish like my situation that TOperson has in mind.

 

[doug]

A friends condo:
Board passed an amendment stating that owners on the top floor are responsible for any roof repairs above their suites.....this is typically a common element, and was when most purchased their suites.
Baseboards were ripped out of the hallways, over a year ago, to install flooring. Flooring was troweled on, baseboards didn't need to be ripped out, but still haven't been replaced.
Hydro is not included in maintenance fees.
Request to the board to repair common elements are ignored.
Fluid leaks form adjacent suites seep under the dividing walls. No action is taken by the board to have damage repaired, or stop the leaks.
Brick facade on the front of the building has a crack that extends from the ground to the roof line, it's ignored, yet grows bigger every year with freeze/thaw cycles.
...etc.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Wow, that roof repair amendment is serious bollocks.

That's why I rent, I can walk away if things get hectic. (That and my aversion to debt).

For example, if these windows aren't fixed by Christmas, I'm leaving. I'm lucky though, I'm a bit of a hobo and single so picking up and leaving at any time is a viable option for me.

 

[TOperson]

Well, how about this then?

I rent a bachelor unit in a new (3 years) building. Moved in two months ago. Two of my windows are broken. One was cracked when I moved in; one never had weatherstripping on the interior side. I have cold air coming in.

My landlord has been trying to get the property manager to fix both since May. The landlord isn't allowed to fix them himself like he wants to because they are exterior common element. Property manager told us the board had to approve repairs. Since May. It's November. Tick, fucking, tock.
Meanwhile I'm paying 1300 a month plus hydro for a walk in closet with cold air from outside streaming in and the landlord isn't allowed to fix it.


I'm sure it's exactly rubbish like my situation that TOperson has in mind.

I take it you are renting a condo unit? Oh and yes, that's exactly the sort of problem I had in mind. You've also raised the issue of tenants in condos. Many condos are purchased as investments, with the intent to rent them out. You end up with a bunch of tenants who have different landlords, maybe dozens of different landlords. How can those tenants join together, if need be, to take their landlords to the rental board? The legalities are really messy.

 

[TheKingEast]

The only one missing the point here is you. Look, nobody here is disputing your point about losing a measure of control when you buy a condo unit. That's just something you accept when you decide on that type of home ownership. There's no debate there. But the real question is: so what? What specifically are the consequences of that? How common are these problems you keep alluding to? Do these problems of the condominium model of ownership outweigh the benefits vis a vis freehold home ownership or renting? If so, let's see some evidence.


You're the one talking about the consequences of condo ownership but you don't actually show what they are. The implication is clearly that issues with condos are a bigger problem than with other housing types and that no amount of amending the Condo Act can fix that. The burden of proof is on you.

He's right, though. Do you know what it's like to have to go through the board to get things done in a condo? It's hell! With a house, no matter how crummy it is, there are no restrictions with regards to what you can or can't do.

 

[Johnny Au]

There are many condos that have empty units (but not vacant). Those who purchase condo units solely as an investment generally do minimal maintenance.

 

[TheKingEast]

A friends condo:
Board passed an amendment stating that owners on the top floor are responsible for any roof repairs above their suites.....this is typically a common element, and was when most purchased their suites.
Baseboards were ripped out of the hallways, over a year ago, to install flooring. Flooring was troweled on, baseboards didn't need to be ripped out, but still haven't been replaced.
Hydro is not included in maintenance fees.
Request to the board to repair common elements are ignored.
Fluid leaks form adjacent suites seep under the dividing walls. No action is taken by the board to have damage repaired, or stop the leaks.
Brick facade on the front of the building has a crack that extends from the ground to the roof line, it's ignored, yet grows bigger every year with freeze/thaw cycles.
...etc.

Which building?