COVID and the housing market | Page 215 | GTAMotorcycle.com

COVID and the housing market

GreyGhost said:
Funny guy. Most student ghettos ran away on pricing decades ago. I think you need to start with overall budget and then look for places that's work. Loc will be 150 to 200 but what price are you looking at for the dwelling?
Click to expand...
That depends on what my broker tells me tomorrow. I can buy a condo in Poland for 100k all in...but not sure I want to be investing in European market considering I'm here.

However, I've got other family in the area and someone there would deal with the renting / upkeep as it's all family.

@Evoex Yup...originally wanted to do that years ago...went with the 6-plex and now wish I had a duplex/triplex. But I don't think those are easy to find nowadays in any popular market.
 
GreyGhost said:
90s subdivisions were terrible with rows of identical dwellings. Now they have come back to a similar situation but they put in lefts and rights to make some variation (but not much). Sometimes architectural control throws on a box out or some other useless ugly feature to try to break it up. How about different designs for every house instead of an entire subdivision made of a half dozen different models? At this point, the architects have a full war chest and could easily pull out 100+ models ready for construction.
Click to expand...
It is way cheaper for the developer to have a limited number of combinations and to build the houses like an assembly line. Framers mostly but also other trades need to do little thinking, just slap them up like the last one. Very little need to be constantly looking at the plans etc. rinse and repeat.

Throw in more combinations and it requires more competence to follow the plans etc.

My hood (Kingsway) was one of the early subdivision concepts. Most of the houses are different from each other as they were not built by a developer and instead the plans for each house needed to be approved by the developer Robert Home Smith or his staff. In the older sections east of RY this is mostly true, on the west side there are pockets of track housing as these were developed later. For our house there is one other in the entire area that is the same but reversed, many blocks away. The area was built up over many decades, not in a few years like today.
 
Last edited:
backmarkerducati said:
It is way cheaper for the developer to have a limited number of combinations and to build the houses like an assembly line. Framers mostly but also other trades need to do little thinking, just slap them up like the last one. Very little need to be constantly looking at the plans etc. rinse and repeat.

Throw in more combinations and it requires more competence to follow the plans etc.

My hood (Kingsway) was one of the early subdivision concepts. Most of the houses are different from each other as they were not built by a developer and the plans for each house needed to be approved by the developer Robert Home Smith or his staff. In the older sections east of RY this is mostly true, on the west side there are pockets of track housing as these were developed later. For our house there is one other in the entire area that is the same but reversed, many blocks away. The area was built up over many decades, not in a few years like today.
Click to expand...
Agreed but there are ways to make it better without screwing up the whole system. For instance, for non-condo developments over 100 dwellings, require a single builder to do 20% or less of the houses and they need to be spread out. Doesn't grossly change costs but does provide some decent variation through the development. Also avoids the "ninth identical house on the right". Many developers already do something similar. It would require a big change for some like Mattamy. I haven't driven through a Mattamy subdivision in a long time so I don't know what they look like now.
 
GreyGhost said:
Agreed but there are ways to make it better without screwing up the whole system. For instance, for non-condo developments over 100 dwellings, require a single builder to do 20% or less of the houses and they need to be spread out. Doesn't grossly change costs but does provide some decent variation through the development. Also avoids the "ninth identical house on the right". Many developers already do something similar. It would require a big change for some like Mattamy. I haven't driven through a Mattamy subdivision in a long time so I don't know what they look like now.
Click to expand...
It's funny because our street/neighbourhood also has repeats of designs. You can see the same design every 4-5 houses with very minor variations.

Obviously it's not 100% cookie cutter, but once you notice it...it's very hard not to see it all the time. We go for walks and see houses almost the same as ours all over the place.

We're just not within 3ft of a neighbour.
 
GreyGhost said:
Agreed but there are ways to make it better without screwing up the whole system. For instance, for non-condo developments over 100 dwellings, require a single builder to do 20% or less of the houses and they need to be spread out. Doesn't grossly change costs but does provide some decent variation through the development. Also avoids the "ninth identical house on the right". Many developers already do something similar. It would require a big change for some like Mattamy. I haven't driven through a Mattamy subdivision in a long time so I don't know what they look like now.
Click to expand...
Sadly, most buyers won't pay any more for that so it costs the main developer more with no or little extra return.
 
backmarkerducati said:
Sadly, most buyers won't pay any more for that so it costs the main developer more with no or little extra return.
Click to expand...
At this point, you could sell 600 identical houses in an hour for whatever they asked. I'm actually a little surprised that new home builders haven't shot for the moon on pricing (pick a price that takes weeks to sell out instead of minutes).
 
mimico_polak said:
It's funny because our street/neighbourhood also has repeats of designs. You can see the same design every 4-5 houses with very minor variations.

Obviously it's not 100% cookie cutter, but once you notice it...it's very hard not to see it all the time. We go for walks and see houses almost the same as ours all over the place.

We're just not within 3ft of a neighbour.
Click to expand...
Hey, most houses aren't within three feet. They are five feet apart. I get your point. New subdivisions near barrie are doing the same thing with minimum possible setback and maximum possible house. I would prefer older designs with a normal size house and more setback but obviously the market has spoken and it disagrees with me.
 
mimico_polak said:
Anyone know how assignment sales work on prebuilds? Are they always allowed or there has to be a specific clause in the contract to allow it prior to project completion?

IIRC someone around here was doing it but it’s been a while since that discussion happened.
Click to expand...

Not always allowed. Always check before you buy any pre-con if assignments are allowed if that's something you'd want to do. A few nowadays are not allowing to avoid easy investor flips. If you sell an assignment, you can avoid a lot of hassle.
Some allow assignment between family members but find these out before you sign if they matter.
 
killvino said:
Not always allowed. Always check before you buy any pre-con if assignments are allowed if that's something you'd want to do. A few nowadays are not allowing to avoid easy investor flips. If you sell an assignment, you can avoid a lot of hassle.
Some allow assignment between family members but find these out before you sign if they matter.
Click to expand...
The other thing I would investigate is buying the dwelling with a corporation and then selling the corporation. As far as the builder is concerned, the sale never happened as the owner on the paperwork remained constant. No idea on tax implications.
 
GreyGhost said:
The other thing I would investigate is buying the dwelling with a corporation and then selling the corporation. As far as the builder is concerned, the sale never happened as the owner on the paperwork remained constant. No idea on tax implications.
Click to expand...
The next buyer's bank may not like the buying of a corporation for a loan like this.
 
backmarkerducati said:
The next buyer's bank may not like the buying of a corporation for a loan like this.
Click to expand...
I assume the banks will hate corps holding paper but no real assets and trying to get loans and then transfer them. If the next buyer is cash though, they just need title, they don't need the loan. Hell, if they never planning on closing, I'm not sure what the requirements are for having financing in place.
 
TK4 said:
www.thebeaverton.com

Economists worry sanctions on Russian Oligarchs may depress housing market to point where Canadians can afford to buy homes again

TORONTO - As Canada continues to impose sanctions on the Russian Oligarchs who prop up both the Putin regime and our overinflated housing market, economists warn this may cause a real estate crash so bad that Canadians are once again able to buy homes in Canada.
www.thebeaverton.com www.thebeaverton.com
Click to expand...
I don't know whether to laugh or be angry.

EDIT:
Oh, it's the beaverton. Sadly, that wasn't immediately obvious from the headline.
 
GreyGhost said:
I assume the banks will hate corps holding paper but no real assets and trying to get loans and then transfer them. If the next buyer is cash though, they just need title, they don't need the loan. Hell, if they never planning on closing, I'm not sure what the requirements are for having financing in place.
Click to expand...
that narrows your prospective buyers significantly for the assignment.

Last place I bought did not allow assignment or corporations to purchase because they wanted it to go to real buyers not investors/flippers. Asked for job letters and proof of income as well (so no students with rich parents). Minto Group for those wondering.
 
GreyGhost said:
90s subdivisions were terrible with rows of identical dwellings. Now they have come back to a similar situation but they put in lefts and rights to make some variation (but not much). Sometimes architectural control throws on a box out or some other useless ugly feature to try to break it up. How about different designs for every house instead of an entire subdivision made of a half dozen different models? At this point, the architects have a full war chest and could easily pull out 100+ models ready for construction.
Click to expand...
With CAD I can't see why subtle changes couldn't be made to add some variation. It's not like a pencil on paper fresh start.
 
Real estate but not housing. A friend has a rental unit in an industrial complex and the complex has been sold. There were clauses in the lease that allowed a new owner to bump up rents and that's what they did. They are also terminating leases and since the property is not residential there is no landlord tenant act, pure hardball.

Now he has to scramble for new space at substantially higher rates.
 
nobbie48 said:
With CAD I can't see why subtle changes couldn't be made to add some variation. It's not like a pencil on paper fresh start.
Click to expand...
They do that. Most of the changes are maintenance intensive and look like crap. Lots of painted boxouts or bay windows with unvented shingles, etc.
 
nobbie48 said:
With CAD I can't see why subtle changes couldn't be made to add some variation. It's not like a pencil on paper fresh start.
Click to expand...
Not a design problem, they have piles of computer files of different homes already. IMO it is a build issue and cookie cutter reduces costs and likely also reduces errors. Even supply chain, each house has the same material counts give or take vs a bunch of different qtys for each home.
 
nobbie48 said:
Real estate but not housing. A friend has a rental unit in an industrial complex and the complex has been sold. There were clauses in the lease that allowed a new owner to bump up rents and that's what they did. They are also terminating leases and since the property is not residential there is no landlord tenant act, pure hardball.

Now he has to scramble for new space at substantially higher rates.
Click to expand...
While All for protections for residential tenants. There should be something to protect commercial tenants also.

Rates going up ridiculously with literally zero protection for commercial landlords. And friends like yours get screwed unless they own their building.
 
mimico_polak said:
While All for protections for residential tenants. There should be something to protect commercial tenants also.

Rates going up ridiculously with literally zero protection for commercial landlords. And friends like yours get screwed unless they own their building.
Click to expand...
Sadly "protection" doesnt work. The further rents diverge from market rent, the more likely landlords will use a loophole to kick them out. Tenants can also become trapped as they cant afford to move to a location/space that would be more suitable. I dont have a good solution but I am convinced that long-term price protection doesnt work. Shorter term protection may be reasonable (eg. Rent increase over x% requires 12 months notice).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom