Ha...yeah, I'm sure that happened.

I priced myself high so I didn't need to deal with it. I did concrete leveling on a house and it was a bitch..way easier to deal with low spots and add in, rather than a high spot and remove.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...psa7f21051.jpg


But something I've always been kind of curious about: What happens when a building has reached its lifespan? Like, a house, you can just tear it down and build a new one. But what happens with a Condo? Do people get a portion (relative to their total interest in the building) when the land gets sold to a new developer? Or is it just a game of hot potato, trying to hold on to it for as long as possible until its value suddenly disappears?

I dig the "hot potato" theory.

Well it depends on the building.. there are tons of apartment buildings in TO that are built in the 60s.. they refurb the pipes these days by injecting a layer of plastic inside old pipes. So a lot of the basic systems can be refurb these days, but the buildings are still ghetto! If a developer wants to buy the building, they can talk to people get bought out unit by unit?

Most apartment buildings that are being torn down these days are lease units..eg the buildings out on Beach Ave on the West End. There are still plenty of low hanging fruits in Vancouver.

Honestly if you are buying real estate as an investment there are more lucrative market than Vancouver or even TO.. SF, NYC, HK.. China (eg Shanghai).. heck where else can you get 30% appreciation / freaking quarter?!!

That works for Apartments, though I was thinking more about Condos. I mean, you OWN your suite. So then what? Apartments you just rent, and you hold no equity. You can't be forced out until the building needs to be condemned, and it's the owner's responsibility to keep it as habitable as possible as long as possible.

But what about Condos? There comes a time when the building is done. So what then?

Not really a matter of a building running out of life.

You can buy a house built in early 20th century quite easily...a little harder for late 19th, but they can be found. Hell, in europe people live in houses that are 300 years old.

The issue is, how has it been maintained?

As a building physically wears, it gets to the point that it becomes cheaper to tear down, then to fix.

I can tell you, as I've been in the guts of more than my fair share of apartment buildings that very few spend the money it takes to maintain a building. Eventually, you pull it and build a new one. One building in the West End, the owner dumped in about 1 million in rehab. Ours in New West, we went without the fresco on the ceiling(true story...$1000's in having cherubs painted on the ceiling, that no one noticed) and we're good for about 300k.

I would assume that if someone sees a building, that is in disrepair and does the math on buying out the owners and building a new tower on the site and it works, then you get a note under your door with an offer to buy. This doesn't seem to happen because a) condos are still a new development and we don't have a history on dealing with aging and b) they seem to just spend like crazy to rehab the building...its easy, 6 people on the board vote to spend 50k-100k+ of everyones money and re-build the building.

I imagine this would be the case.

I have wondered the same thing. I don't have a lot of experience with Vancouver buildings but there are a lot of 1970s buildings in New West that are privately owned. They usually sell for about $140-170k for a 1 bedroom. Cheap to buy but the stratas can be over $500\month because the maintenance is insane: new roofs, new windows, new plumbing, new electrical, new elevators, etc...

Like you said, what happens 20-30 years from now when there places are 70 years old? I know there are places in Montreal\New York\San Fran that are a 100 years old...but lets face it, 100 years ago these buildings were built WAY better. I imagine some of these condos that were built 10-20 years ago will never make it to 100.

ffs, do we always have to post the same shit?!

Love the meme, thank u!

I tell u what I think, I'd advice ppl Always do their own due diligence and learning, whatever I say should be a great starting point for learning... But if u follow some dude on the Internet and ur not fully in charge of what's going on and what ur doing (bc ur just following the words of some nameless person), and something goes wrong, what do u do? Chances are not be able to deal with it appropriately and thus, lose money

This is why I tell everyone to get as much education and experience as possible - preferably on someone else's dime!

Again, love the meme, feel honoured!

Anyone else noticed the article doesn't mention condo fees? Or did I miss it?

They will rarely, if ever, list the strata fees in a sales brochure\website\ad\etc.

In my experience, this is something that will be estimated (based on comps) when you inquire at the presentation centre. You will also find the name of the management company.

Strata fees are based on you square footage and will increase yearly...not by much, but over the same of 5-10 years you will notice the difference.

Strata fees are also based on building amenities: pools, gyms, number of elevators, size of gardens, courtyards, playgrounds, etc. along with insurance, utilities, etc. Condo fees are higher than townhomes and there is a lot more 'common' space (lobby, halls, parking garage, storage, etc).

My strata fee for a 1300 sq ft townhouse is about $150 (originally $127 4 years ago). My friend bought a condo down the street at the same time for about $20k less and his strata fee is almost $400. His building has a pool, hot tub, etc. I thought it was INSANE!

$250 per month makes a HUGE difference to your mortgage and I'd rather not throw it down the drain.

I know I started this thread and I do find these specific units intriguing, but it would have to be a SLAMMING deal to get me to buy a condo based on strata fees alone.

I would estimate that the fees for these unit would hover around $100...maybe $80. There appears to be a very small amenity room...no pool...and no real "garden" area.

So did anybody buy at this development today?
Posted via RS Mobile

are condos even worth money in investing in? Its not really like a house which has land value, or even a townhouse..

Not to mention the more units the less the fees, more people kicking into the pot. With little units like this you could fit a lot of units in a tiny area.

God, your parents, or whatever you believe in, gave you eyes and a brain to be able to read and comprehend. From this thread alone you should have a good starting point to be able to not ask that question. My posts alone in this thread provide a good starting point...

I wish I could thank this twice. I'm always reminded of that Seinfeld episode with the stock tip:


Even Jim Cramer, who makes a living giving hot stock tips, says do your homework before you invest. Everyone is looking for a free lunch, not looking to put in some elbow grease. Fuck, even I've been guilty of this.

The world needs more people like you.

FerrariEnzo, I personally wouldn't do it. Not only because prices in Vancouver are still astronomical, and I have $0 to my name, but condo construction quality is GODAWFUL, and many strata corporations ban rent-outs.

In the condo game, the only winners are the developers. They make bank because people want to live in the best city on Earth, and are able to they throw campaign dollars at Vision and NPA. The end result is, whoever's in power will gladly accept a developer's proposal for a glass condo instead of an office building or cultural venue such as a stadium, art gallery or public square.

End political rant.

I didn't want to start a new thread on a topic that was somewhat similar to this, so I'll thought I would post here...

Was flipping through the local paper today and say and advert for a new condo\townhouse development being built here in New West (one of many, actually). The advert claimed that if you buy on the unit, they will PAY your mortgage for 24 months.

They are priced from $159,900 (one bed) and go to over $400k.

Quick google search and found this: New West

Looked up the developer`s site but its only to register (which I did out of curiosity): Elliot Street | Collection | CENSORIO

How is it possible for them to pay the mortgage for 24 months? There was no other info...do you think they are going to rebate? I imagine to qualify the down payment would need to be huge.

How are they going to do this? Whats the loop-hole? Thoughts?

(note-i am not considering buying one....i`ve just never seen this sales pitch before)

Do you have a picture of the advertisement?

Well, not knowing the particulars of the fine print:

at 3.5% interest, with 15% down(which you know isn't happening at all) is $679 per month.

x 26 apartments is 17654 per month.

x 24 months is $424000

(assuming all 26 sold under this program is our bottom feeder 159k specials)

Their cost to blast out their apartments super quick is 1/2 a million. I haven't built any large towers recently, but while I don't think 1/2 a million is chump change, I think its something you can recoup on building with a lot of units-some probably priced quite nicely up high in the building.

Plus, who knows what the downpayment requirement is...every thousand dollars down, is $5 less for them per month in mortgage. Which in reality is $120 over the life of this offer(to them)

This is all super rough math.

Attachment 16766

Attachment 16767

Says numbers are based of 15% down payment and you need to visit the presentation centre for more details.

They probably just say 24 months of equivalent value based on 15% downpayment and a long mortgage... Since CMHC is backing all this, then they can probably repackage the whole thing and sell as a CDS etc. If you calculate it for the 400k apartment it is probably 20kish off.. it is not that much that's 5% discount? Most places give more discount than that.. it is just another negotiation tool.

I thought CMHC required a min. 20% down?