Great Canadian Suburban Skyline Thread!

[J.OT13]

I don't find condos much more affordable than single family homes. And when you add condo fees that go up by a fair amount each year, the condo will end up significantly more expensive; after 25 years, the house is paid down, while your condo fees are now as expensive as a mortgage and the condo itself is lost significant value.

[Metro-One]

Condos are definitely overpriced these days.

As for skylines, there is something very dystopian about Mississauga’s skyline and built form. While individual towers, such as Absolute World, are better than any current towers in Metrotown, I find Metrotown and even Brentwood now far more appealing as a whole. (Not saying they are perfect, okay, so don’t go down that argument).

Not sure if it is because of the topography (perched on the crest of hills) or the fact that they have largely grown around Skytrain as their backbones, or because of other factors all together.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Ahem. There's a single row of stacked townhouses between "downtown" and "suburbia"

Mississauga may be building more condo apartments than the number of people it takes in every year so this is generations for now. This subdivision will be redeveloped unless it's protected.

Perhaps at some point but not in the foreseeable future I'd say.

The houses are relatively large and recent enough to be in pretty good shape. You're also dealing with a multitude of individual owners. Given their location they're worth a lot so none of the owners will be willing to sell at prices that collectively would likely make it worth the cost and hassle to a high-rise developer. Plus there is still available land that is either vacant, underused or more suitable for high-rise redevelopment (think sucky semi-struggling strip malls) in central Mississauga.

That in itself will "protect" it from high-rise speculation for quite some time. No need for a heritage designation of any kind.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps at some point but not in the foreseeable future I'd say.

The houses are relatively large and recent enough to be in pretty good shape. You're also dealing with a multitude of individual owners. Given their location they're worth a lot so none of the owners will be willing to sell at prices that collectively would likely make it worth the cost and hassle to a high-rise developer. Plus there is still available land that is either vacant, underused or more suitable for high-rise redevelopment (think sucky semi-struggling strip malls) in central Mississauga.

More importantly, that would also go against the North American planning rule that holds the permanence of single family homes neighbourhoods in sacrosanct!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

More importantly, that would also go against the North American planning rule that holds the permanence of single family homes neighbourhoods in sacrosanct!

Indeed.

You do see land formerly occupied by SFHs redeveloped into high-rises (as in parts of central Toronto) but this usually happens due to a perfect alignment of the conditions required for that to happen (dereliction of most of the houses, one or two SFHs being the "last men standing", etc.).

And even so, if you look at high-rise development in a place like central Toronto, it is still leaving a lot of SFH zones intact close to the centre, and is more focused on easily redevelopable zones (like Yonge St. going north where there used to be 1-2 storey commercial uses and strip malls) instead of radiating outwards fairly equally.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't find condos much more affordable than single family homes. And when you add condo fees that go up by a fair amount each year, the condo will end up significantly more expensive; after 25 years, the house is paid down, while your condo fees are now as expensive as a mortgage and the condo itself is lost significant value.

Not more affordable to buy (it baffles me that anyone would ever buy rather than rent a condo, a terrible deal), but that's mainly down to there not being enough units built city wide than because of inherent expensiveness of highrises.

I doubt they're cheap to build either, which is why you mainly only find them in areas which already are at least moderately expensive. Then the extra cost to build outweighs the savings in land cost, so it makes sense. They just need to build more of them to keep house prices moderated - as soon as people in cities start pushing back against luxury condos they're already screwed.

[niwell]

You'll see SFHs redeveloped into highrises in certain areas, but what you won't see is a gradual increase in density by replacement with smaller walk-up multi-unit structures.
That subdivision in Mississauga may eventually be replaced but it won't be by townhouses or midrises. This is mostly policy driven and a direct result of the sacrosanctity of SFHs mentioned above. Hell, most traditional "SFHs" in central Toronto that contain between 3 and 5 separate apartments (such as the one I live in) couldn't be built today!!! While not a panacea for affordability, allowing for this in neighbourhoods a bit further out would be huge.

And yeah, building a highrise condo ain't cheap. Reinforced concrete midrises aren't much better, and can actually be more expensive per unit in certain situations, dependent on amenities. Whereas a cross laminated timber walkup would be significantly cheaper than in terms of construction costs. Not taking land values and policy considerations into account, of course.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by logan5

Building almost exclusively high rise condos, like Mississauga is doing, only adds to the affordability issue. For a 2 bedroom unit in a high rise unit, you are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more compared to a ground based unit.

Thats right, not to mention the egregious condo fees.

The key to affordability is drastially increasing the supply of SFH, freehold townhomes, midrise, and basement units.

The worst deal is probably condominium townhomes where you pay condo fees yet a huge portion of the space is generally taken up by the staircase.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps at some point but not in the foreseeable future I'd say.

The houses are relatively large and recent enough to be in pretty good shape. You're also dealing with a multitude of individual owners. Given their location they're worth a lot so none of the owners will be willing to sell at prices that collectively would likely make it worth the cost and hassle to a high-rise developer. Plus there is still available land that is either vacant, underused or more suitable for high-rise redevelopment (think sucky semi-struggling strip malls) in central Mississauga.

That in itself will "protect" it from high-rise speculation for quite some time. No need for a heritage designation of any kind.

I meant in the distant future. Mississauga is growing by 2000 people a year. IMO, the current amount of construction exceeds this. The subdivision is surrounded on three sides by towers (or future towers) It's primed to be upzoning. It's pretty common in Toronto to assemble single family homes into a larger development site. Small condominiums are now being assembled too. That's not really a roadblock.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Thats right, not to mention the egregious condo fees.

The key to affordability is drastially increasing the supply of SFH, freehold townhomes, midrise, and basement units.

The worst deal is probably condominium townhomes where you pay condo fees yet a huge portion of the space is generally taken up by the staircase.

Couldn't have said it better. The monthly condo fees in Toronto are egregiously high. I hate they are based on square footage too. It makes family sized units completely unaffordable. I don't think a flat rate is crazy right now. I don't know enough but, in my limited experience, most of the reserve and maintenance is used for common amenities. For example, I don't quite get the logic in a family owner paying a higher percentage of the costs for the doorman than a single owner or a lobby renovation (as they all age so poorly because they are built so trendy) You do or you don't.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by niwell

Hell, most traditional "SFHs" in central Toronto that contain between 3 and 5 separate apartments (such as the one I live in) couldn't be built today!!!

It's not true. The Place to Grow Act can be used to supersede all planning policy. There are SFHs in SFH neighbourhoods registered as condo apartments every year. It's just very niche as it's not economical. The range between a tear down and a new or fully renovated home is just too narrow.

Not the best example. It the first that came to mind

single family
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6522...2!8i6656?hl=en

3 unit condo
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6522...2!8i6656?hl=en

[niwell]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's not true. The Place to Grow Act can be used to supersede all planning policy. There are SFHs in SFH neighbourhoods registered as condo apartments every year. It's just very niche as it's not economical. The range between a tear down and a new or fully renovated home is just too narrow.

I was being a bit facetious, but yeah I know it is in fact happening, though in many cases its very difficult or economically impossible. A lot of this does stem from previous policy decisions.

I can think of a few better examples than what you posted, but none of them are truly replacing a single family home with a small multi-unit apartment. The fact we are seeing it a bit more now is because land values have become absurdly high. Most neighbourhood oriented pre-war apartments (more than 6 units) would be impossible to build today.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't find condos much more affordable than single family homes. And when you add condo fees that go up by a fair amount each year, the condo will end up significantly more expensive; after 25 years, the house is paid down, while your condo fees are now as expensive as a mortgage and the condo itself is lost significant value.

By that standard a house is never paid down. Mortgage or not, houses come with huge costs for maintenance, renovations, buying things like barbecues and gym memberships, time, and labour. These are things that condo fees pay for. My friends who own houses spend ungodly amounts of time and money just keeping their homes from falling apart. Those costs add up to being at least the equivalent of condo fees, likely more.

Why would a condo apartment lose value after 25 years? If it does then the whole real estate market is in trouble and houses would lose value too.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Mister F

By that standard a house is never paid down. Mortgage or not, houses come with huge costs for maintenance, renovations, buying things like barbecues and gym memberships, time, and labour. These are things that condo fees pay for. My friends who own houses spend ungodly amounts of time and money just keeping their homes from falling apart. Those costs add up to being at least the equivalent of condo fees, likely more.

Why would a condo apartment lose value after 25 years? If it does then the whole real estate market is in trouble and houses would lose value too.

With a condo, you can be paying $500 to $1000 per month, and once all the windows or balconies need to be replaced, you're forced to fork out an extra $10,000 in one shot. With a house, once the mortgage is paid, you get to save that money for those repairs.

When I was shopping for a condo a few years back, a brand new bachelor was $180,000 with condo fees around $200. A 30 years old 2 bedroom condo a stone's throw away was $200,000 with condo fees of over $800. The owners of those condos had to lower the price to compensate for the high condo fees. If they bought the condo for $100,000 30 years ago, then that's still a good return, but if they bought it 5 years ago for $170,000; well not so much.

What I don't understand is why in a rental building, lease prices go down with the age of a building, even for those that are well maintained or fully renovated. Someone could be paying $1500 for a two bedroom apartment, while the guy across the street in the condo building is paying $1300 on his mortgage and $600 in condo fees.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Couldn't have said it better. The monthly condo fees in Toronto are egregiously high. I hate they are based on square footage too. It makes family sized units completely unaffordable. I don't think a flat rate is crazy right now. I don't know enough but, in my limited experience, most of the reserve and maintenance is used for common amenities. For example, I don't quite get the logic in a family owner paying a higher percentage of the costs for the doorman than a single owner or a lobby renovation (as they all age so poorly because they are built so trendy) You do or you don't.

Though I understand your point, it would not be realistic. The person buying a $250,000 bachelor won't be able to afford the same condo fees as the couple who bought a $1.5 million penthouse. You could argue that the penthouse has a huge terrace, more windows. If the condo fees include heating, electricity and/or water, the penthouse will be consuming more.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

With a condo, you can be paying $500 to $1000 per month, and once all the windows or balconies need to be replaced, you're forced to fork out an extra $10,000 in one shot. With a house, once the mortgage is paid, you get to save that money for those repairs.

When I was shopping for a condo a few years back, a brand new bachelor was $180,000 with condo fees around $200. A 30 years old 2 bedroom condo a stone's throw away was $200,000 with condo fees of over $800. The owners of those condos had to lower the price to compensate for the high condo fees. If they bought the condo for $100,000 30 years ago, then that's still a good return, but if they bought it 5 years ago for $170,000; well not so much.

What I don't understand is why in a rental building, lease prices go down with the age of a building, even for those that are well maintained or fully renovated. Someone could be paying $1500 for a two bedroom apartment, while the guy across the street in the condo building is paying $1300 on his mortgage and $600 in condo fees.

You're complaining about a 2 bedroom unit costing $200,000? That's adorable. Yes, I get your point but units in older buildings have their values go up when the real estate market goes up just like in houses.

Special assessments are no different from unforeseen repair costs in a house. And the latter happens more often. Repairing a chimney, replacing a furnace or AC unit, fixing a leaky roof or plumbing, sealing the driveway, replacing windows...major costs like these happen every year in a house. Lawn mowers, showblowers, gardening equipment, power tools, etc. cost thousands of dollars. Plus stand alone buildings like a house are inherently less efficient, so even monthly costs like power and insurance are higher too. And it's not just maintenance, it's amenities. I don't need a gym membership, pool table, swimming pool, hot tub, large hosting space, or barbecue because all those things are included in the condo fees/rent. Some buildings have a lot more than that, and some less. And let's not forget the amount of time that it takes to maintain a house. Time is, after all, money.

I assume that you own a house with no condo element, and that's fine. Your decision makes sense for you. People who buy a townhouse in a development with common elements have made decisions that make sense for them. Same with people who buy an apartment in a high rise building. Your home is no more financially responsible than other types of homes.

[Doady]

There's no reason to replace SFHs with towers in Mississauga because the city is full of low-rise commercial structures and huge parking lots on large lots. Why build a tower on multiple residential lots and demolish multiple structures when you can build it on a single commercial lot and demolish a single structure? The commercial lots are closer to the arterial roads and major intersection and transit corridors, and conflict less with nearby houses. The residential lots are further away from transit and are closer to other houses.

Dundas Street East is solidly lined with commercial properties, easy place for high-rise development, no need to replace SFHs with high rises along Burnhamthorpe. Dundas in Etobicoke already has subway, while the service level of the 26/86 Burnhamthorpe/Express already stirred so much anger from Torontonians back in the day and Mississauga Transit was forced to reroute buses off Burnhamthorpe and cut the service to its current level due to the protests. So the transit ridership along Burnhamthorpe cannot grow anymore. It is already as high as it can be, and therefore the density of the corridor is already as high as it can be. Dundas is the much better option.

Lakeshore East is also commercial, another excellent corridor for intensification and higher order transit (extension of Queen streetcar). And of course there is Hurontario. I don't see what is the point of looking anywhere else until the potential of these corridors even start to become realized. And to realize their potential, Mississauga needs to reduce the demand for parking on commercial lots in these corridors, and that means continuing to increase transit ridership and promoting cycling further.

The ridership of the Hurontario and Dundas corridors have almost doubled in the past 20 years, 25,000-30,000 boardings per weekday each now which is great, but still not quite at TTC level, like 40,000 each along Eglinton West and Finch West. Overall ridership a few years ago surpassed Hamilton (45 riders per capita), but it's still significantly behind Winnipeg and Quebec City (60-70 riders per capita). When Mississauga starts to have a transit system like a real city, maybe then it can start to redeveloping into a real city.

[someone123]

Rockingham South area of Halifax's mainland suburbs:


Source

It's not really suburban but I might as well lump in North End Halifax too:

Source

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Mister F

You're complaining about a 2 bedroom unit costing $200,000? That's adorable. Yes, I get your point but units in older buildings have their values go up when the real estate market goes up just like in houses.

Special assessments are no different from unforeseen repair costs in a house. And the latter happens more often. Repairing a chimney, replacing a furnace or AC unit, fixing a leaky roof or plumbing, sealing the driveway, replacing windows...major costs like these happen every year in a house. Lawn mowers, showblowers, gardening equipment, power tools, etc. cost thousands of dollars. Plus stand alone buildings like a house are inherently less efficient, so even monthly costs like power and insurance are higher too. And it's not just maintenance, it's amenities. I don't need a gym membership, pool table, swimming pool, hot tub, large hosting space, or barbecue because all those things are included in the condo fees/rent. Some buildings have a lot more than that, and some less. And let's not forget the amount of time that it takes to maintain a house. Time is, after all, money.

I assume that you own a house with no condo element, and that's fine. Your decision makes sense for you. People who buy a townhouse in a development with common elements have made decisions that make sense for them. Same with people who buy an apartment in a high rise building. Your home is no more financially responsible than other types of homes.

I'm not complaining about the 200,000$ 2 bedroom condo. I'm pointing out the difference between the $200,000 2 bedroom condo in a 30 year old building compared to the $450,000 2 bedroom in the new building. There is a much greater price gap between a new and an old condo vs a new and an older house.

If the condo fees alone would cover all maintenance (and saving the equivalent when owning a house would generally be enough to cover the unpredictable), then it wouldn't be so bad. But having to pay $900 per month on condo fees for a 2 bedroom unit just to have to to dish out $10K to $20K to replace the windows is crazy. Might as well rent.

I would much rather live in a condo near downtown, but it seems it will be cheaper for us (my partner and I) to build a custom home out in the boonies. It sucks, but it's reality.

We'll see if condo buildings going up in the burbs near transit lines are more affordable. So far, they don't seem to be all that much. In any case, suburban towers are just as soul sucking as the big box stores and parking lots suburbs are better known for. Here are a few future suburban skylines in Ottawa, by Brigil:

Petrie's Landing (currently served by Trim BRT station. Trim Confederation Line station to be completed by 2024). The two middle buildings are complete.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...wers-1.4885912

Ambassade Champlain between Hull and Aylmer.


http://www.brigil.com/community/142-...ain-commercial

[Acajack]

I am still probably several decades away from moving out of my SFH but while a condo has some future appeal as others have said the fees are a big turn off.

From what I gather in this area (based on Ottawa actually - most condo owners I know live there) the fees seem to run between 500-800 bucks a month.

The usual line is that you get "nothing" for that but obviously it's not "nothing". You get grass cutting, snowclearing, cleaning and replacing light bulbs in common areas, etc. Some security too though the number of condo buildings in this area that have on-site security, much less a Manhattan-style doorman, is close to zero. If you're lucky they have cameras - not sure if anyone is actually watching them or if they're just recording for future police or legal action.

But if you want stuff that is really nice like a pool or tennis courts you're looking at 1000 a month or more.

Plus you still have to pay property taxes and of course there are collective reno projects where you can get outvoted by your neighbours and be on the hook to pay whether you have the money or not. I know that in the latter case there are now tighter controls and obligations for condo boards to have reserve funds, but surprises are still quite common.

With a house if you don't have the money right away or are in no rush to do some work you can put the renos off to another date which suits you more.

Just calculating and for 6000 bucks (baseline condo fees of 500/month) a year I can pretty much barely lift a finger in my house for an entire year and still have some money left over. The grass will be cut, snow removed, the pool will be open and closed in the spring and fall and inside a cleaning lady can come visit once a week.