Sure, but no one is buying a one-bedroom condo unit over concerns about the school their kids will attend.
I understand that people will pay a premium for location, as well as a premium for an all-new building with new appliances, etc, that they expect will go a few years before maintenance is needed. And I understand that some people want a condo, not a house.
But these kinds of discrepancies seem pretty huge nonetheless: On Wellington we have a 600 sq. ft one-bedroom unit selling for more than 400k, after parking is included. A dozen blocks away, just north of Quinpool, you can buy a
detached, three-bedroom house with double the square footage, plus a backyard, for 40k less. I don't get that at all.
Comparing condos to houses is tricky, but is it totally apples to oranges? I know that in my price range, I was strongly considering a condo, but a peninsula rowhouse was a better decision, cost-wise. My taxes are a bit higher and the maintenance and renovation costs are more significant, but it also cost a lot less per square foot than any new-build condo I could have bought. Yeah, my kitchen is crappy and dated and I have to fix a basement leak, among other things. But even if I go no-expenses spared on fixing things up, I'll still be spending a lot less money than I would've for this one-bedroom Wellington apartment, and I have a lot more living pace, some nice historic character, and probably an asset less vulnerable to shocks in the real estate market.
Obviously that's just my preference, but how many people really
need to be right there in the heart of the deep South End? Perhaps Urban Capital is going for the no-fuss, no-expenses-spared, downsizing South End retiree crowd, but I wonder how big that market really is.