Toronto U Condominiums | 183.79m | 56s | Pemberton | a—A

condoboy said:
People in the city of Toronto should get used to master bedrooms that are 9ft X 9ft! Europeans in densly populated cities have been doing it for years....gone are the days of 16 x 10 bedrooms. Personally I would rather live in a smaller space, it's much more urban and it allows people to be more creative with their spaces.
Click to expand...

Look, to argue that because something is being done in Europe automatically mean that it is good is facile. Selling small units with tiny bedrooms has nothing to to with available space; it has to do with maximizing the profit by way of jamming as many units as possible into a building.

If you like small units for your money, you're are in luck. There are tons around.
 
Hydrogen said:
Look, to argue that because something is being done in Europe automatically mean that it is good is facile. Selling small units with tiny bedrooms has nothing to to with available space; it has to do with maximizing the profit by way of jamming as many units as possible into a building.

If you like small units for your money, you're are in luck. There are tons around.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Some thoughtful space planning, shifting a partition or structural wall six inches or so would have vastly improved some of the plans. If you are expecting to sell a 1000 sq ft two bedroom unit for over 600K, then I think that market will demand certain things - and a Master bedroom at 9'9" does not cut it. The smaller units at U are fine, typical toronto one bedooms and one bedrooms plus dens, but the two bedroom suites are not impressive.
 
CGM said:
90% of how many units available?
Click to expand...

my guess is 90% sold what ever they released, i don't think they released the whole building yet. just a gues...
 
Hydrogen said:
Look, to argue that because something is being done in Europe automatically mean that it is good is facile. Selling small units with tiny bedrooms has nothing to to with available space; it has to do with maximizing the profit by way of jamming as many units as possible into a building.

If you like small units for your money, you're are in luck. There are tons around.
Click to expand...

Okay...you tell that to the thousands of people in Toronto and the surrounding area that are paying 7, 8, 9 hundred dollars in monthly maintenance fees. Having smaller units available to many buyers in my mind is much better than having fewer bigger units available to only a select few that would be able to afford these types of units. Everyone should have a chance to buy a condo in the city, not just those with deep pockets.
 
Hydrogen said:
Selling small units with tiny bedrooms has nothing to to with available space; it has to do with maximizing the profit by way of jamming as many units as possible into a building.
Click to expand...

Not correct - the prices for the small units or big units are generally the same in terms of price per square foot - the developer will generally receive the same amount of income regardless of unit size - it's about having the right mix of unit sizes to be absorbed by the market.

For example:
1. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 12 small units of 583 square feet selling at $600psf = $349,800 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.
2. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 6 large units of 1,167 square feet selling at $600psf = $700,200 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.

The builder doesn't necessarily 'maximize' profit by jamming as many units in the building - they are attempting to read the market correctly by allocating a mix of unit sizes that will be absorbed quickly, therefore reducing risk, and having the ability to move towards construction quicker - that's where the 'profitability' comes in. Pemberton having conducted local market studies has determined that they are likely to do better by having a large mix of smaller more affordable units, rather then larger more expensive units - the actual 'profitability' of small vs large units is negligible if the psf is similar.
 
^ in fact, smaller units have more overhead because they still require the same number of appliances, front doors, etc, as a larger unit.
 
Wouldn't that be more capital costs as opposed to overhead costs? You're right though, it would be marginally higher. However, the more $/psf, the smaller the % of capital required for appliances becomes smaller. Even though downtown condos may sell for 20% more than 2 years ago, it doesn't mean the appliances cost 20% more

I also never really understand the argument that developers are greedy if they pack in as many units as they can. I kind of look at it like the starbucks argument: If people choose to pay $4.00 for a coffee, or choose to live in a tiny condo downtown instead of a larger one outside the city, it has nothing to do with developers/merchants. They're simply responding to a need.
 
Mike in TO said:
Not correct - the prices for the small units or big units are generally the same in terms of price per square foot - the developer will generally receive the same amount of income regardless of unit size - it's about having the right mix of unit sizes to be absorbed by the market.

For example:
1. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 12 small units of 583 square feet selling at $600psf = $349,800 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.
2. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 6 large units of 1,167 square feet selling at $600psf = $700,200 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.

The builder doesn't necessarily 'maximize' profit by jamming as many units in the building - they are attempting to read the market correctly by allocating a mix of unit sizes that will be absorbed quickly, therefore reducing risk, and having the ability to move towards construction quicker - that's where the 'profitability' comes in. Pemberton having conducted local market studies has determined that they are likely to do better by having a large mix of smaller more affordable units, rather then larger more expensive units - the actual 'profitability' of small vs large units is negligible if the psf is similar.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike...it's more about demographics than anything else.
 
I would add that they chose to add more small units likely because of the proximity to U of T and Yorkville. There are many people who buy these units and rent them out. So I would have to agree with the person above who said that the developer is just responding to the market in terms other than $$.
 
just wondering....do you think it is possible to rent these places out 5 years down the road (or whenever it's built) and be on par with the monthly expense?
 
condoboy said:
Okay...you tell that to the thousands of people in Toronto and the surrounding area that are paying 7, 8, 9 hundred dollars in monthly maintenance fees. Having smaller units available to many buyers in my mind is much better than having fewer bigger units available to only a select few that would be able to afford these types of units. Everyone should have a chance to buy a condo in the city, not just those with deep pockets.
Click to expand...

The point is that unit sizes are shrinking. There are two bedroom units in 675 square feet - and with poor layouts.

I'm not opposed to smaller units; I'm opposed to an overwhelming number of small, poorly designed units flooding the market.

There are many reasons why people would be paying $900 a month in maintenance fees. It is not an exclusive by-product of unit size alone.

Mike in TO said:
Not correct - the prices for the small units or big units are generally the same in terms of price per square foot - the developer will generally receive the same amount of income regardless of unit size - it's about having the right mix of unit sizes to be absorbed by the market.

For example:
1. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 12 small units of 583 square feet selling at $600psf = $349,800 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.
2. building with a 7,000 square foot floor plate with 6 large units of 1,167 square feet selling at $600psf = $700,200 per unit or ~$4.2 million per floor.

The builder doesn't necessarily 'maximize' profit by jamming as many units in the building - they are attempting to read the market correctly by allocating a mix of unit sizes that will be absorbed quickly, therefore reducing risk, and having the ability to move towards construction quicker - that's where the 'profitability' comes in. Pemberton having conducted local market studies has determined that they are likely to do better by having a large mix of smaller more affordable units, rather then larger more expensive units - the actual 'profitability' of small vs large units is negligible if the psf is similar.
Click to expand...

I was not talking about building costs, but selling numbers of units. There's a difference, otherwise you would not have been so tentative when suggesting that builders do not necessarily maximize profit by jamming as many units into a building. Some do.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top