Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM
She does have a point. With a condo, you don't have to worry about mowing the lawn or upkeep of the house, all you have to do is pay the condo fees. No hiring anyone yourself, and it's easier and mostly cheaper when there's less of that stuff and you're buying with every other owner. Also, security is less of an issue, what with not having your own front door and it being less obvious to a burglar whether or not someone lives there. Since they're small they're also cheaper, so it's easier to make a small investment of money then a big investment on a more expensive house.
|
I don't think she made any of those points.
Her point was that cookie-cutter units are somehow more attractive to speculators because they are somehow more liquid than unique designs that are harder to sell. Her quote: "They are completely interchangeable, one suite is like another suite. This is the kind of thing that drives easy trading. It’s not completely liquid, but it is a lot more liquid than say a house on a lot."
This is, of course, utter nonsense. Liquidity isn't a function of the architecture of a unit and its similarity to others, but by how desirable it is to the market and how quickly it can be converted into cash. If you have a building with 1000 identical units with a terrible design that no one wants, that's not liquid. Meanwhile if you had a house in Point Grey in the last few years you could turn it into cash almost instantly.
She goes on: "So, from a policy standpoint, what we should be doing is looking at the kind of housing that speculators don’t like". Again, this is nonsense. We should be building the type of housing that people want to live in. Put policies in place to curb rapid turnover, if you want, but don't force undesirable crap on us just as a way to slow down the market.
Prev
Linear Mode
