Condo Living-The Worst Kind of Canadian Living?

[whatnext]

So, this was inspired by a thread in the Vancouver forum. My basic question: is living in a condo the worst kind of living in Canada (bar a tent or cardboard box)? You're at the mercy of the quirks and behaviours of scores of other owners/renters but unlike a someone renting a flat you can't just give notice and leave. Plus these buildings are beginning to rack up some significant expenses as they age.

Then there's been the issue of skyrocketing insurance premiums for some of these buildings. Often the result of water damage claims from pipe failures etc.

Often the naysayers claim that operating a house is more expensive but based on what I see being charged monthly maintenance fees I'd argue that's not the case. I can mow my own lawn and rake my own leaves. It's unlikely I'll have to replace the roof more than once.

[SignalHillHiker]

The condo market here is a bit primitive compared to Canada's largest cities, but the cost doesn't really reflect that. Most of them are just apartment buildings whose owners turned them into condos. There are generally no amenities on site - no gym, no pool, no superette, nothing. It's just an apartment building with a different ownership structure. Yet the condo fees are typically $500/month or more.

I purposely did not consider a condo while I was looking, even though a couple of cute ones went on the market during that time. It just wasn't worth the monthly fees when you can (and did) get a rowhouse with no condo fees for less.

[Nouvellecosse]

When it comes to real estate I think the old adage still applies: "location, location, location." Condos may not be great in terms of their physical form and their isolation from the street in the case of high-rises, but their location is often excellent. I would personally consider the worst kind of Canadian living to be anything that requires a long commute, particularly in a city with bad traffic and limited public transit options. Typically that means a detached house somewhere out near the periphery surrounded by unnecessary land to maintain. It's not really the city and not really the countryside. It's neither convenient nor charismatic. In fact those areas are often downright hideous with all the big box stores, strip malls and drive-thrus. It's cheaper per square foot but still not cheap - especially when considering transportation and maintenance costs. Condos may have their downsides but one can certainly do worse.

[ScreamingViking]

I might consider a condo, when I can afford to buy something again. But it would be temporary: a few years at most.

What I'd really love to do is get an older home in a nice but established area of town. Replace the small front lawn with plant gardens, do the same in back but with a seating area, depending on the space. Maybe a few renos over time, unless the place had been updated. Not to flip, but to live in.

Thing is, older homes carry cost risks too. The one I part-owned had a basement flood when a root from a beautiful and huge old maple tree in front of the neighbouring house collapsed the main drain. Had to re-renovate the basement (which was set up to be a separate unit). $$$$$ even with insurance covering part of it.

[WhipperSnapper]

Let's rephrased this as high rise apartment living as a condo could be a subdivided Rosedale (Toronto) mansion or common elements like landscaping.

There's a very large range in high rise apartment living. I could easily live in a one unit per floor building with 10 to 15 floors. There would need to be two elevators. I see an article every week or two about a modern era Vancouver losing its elevator for weeks. This investor driven direction in Toronto and expanding across Canada for larger and larger buildings (typically taller) with smaller and smaller units is hardly ideal in my books and will persist long after the housing crisis has been forgotten. A 70 storey high rise with 1300 walk in closets is hardly something to showcase like a 260 metre office tower.

The rental boom is being built at incredibly inflated value. I don't see much wiggle room in rental prices to come down. Perhaps a bailout will even be necessary if values plummet too much. People's pensions are on the line.

[casper]

I live in a condo, concrete 9 story building built in the 1970s. Un-obstructed water view. Being an older builder it was around half the cost of the a spanking new buildings in Victoria. The building had the exterior resealed, new decking, new windows and new glass railing just over 10 years ago. This year it is new elevators going in.

Solid reserve fund. In BC rules requiring an engineering study and a proper reserve fund are fairly new have only been around a few year. Some older builders had differed work, this one was not bad.

Some of the amenities that were not being used were abandoned to save money. The pool and sauna just did not see much use. Some of the low cost amenities like the billiard room and word working shop continue on with limited use. With an older building your forced to consider the value of some of these amenities especially if they cost money to keep them going.

Love it, in the morning I sit on the deck with a coffee looking out over the water. Minimal noise. The unit is much larger than what a new building would be.

I have had a SFH in Vancouver and a townhouse in Saskatoon. Much prefer this.

[Kilgore Trout]

Condominiums are just a form of ownership. My parents live in a condo but it's a semi-detached duplex in a large complex with several hundred units ranging from SFH to apartments. The advantage for them is they don't need to worry about maintenance: it's all included in the condo fee. My dad is an avid gardener but he gets to focus on the fun stuff (growing plants) without having to worry about the boring stuff (mowing the lawn).

Many plex in Montreal were converted into condos over the years and that seems to me like an ideal situation: you get an apartment in a dense urban setting, but you have the security of ownership and the freedom to customize your home however you like, within the legal limits of course. Usually these plex condos have minimal fees, just enough to keep the roof and structure in good order, so you don't need to deal with the kind of condo board drama you get with much larger buildings. My sister-in-law owns a ground floor condo in a 1920s-era five-plex. She gets 1,700 square feet of space, a large private backyard, all the convenience of urban living, but she doesn't have to take care of the whole building because all important costs like redoing the brickwork or fixing the roof are shared between all owners. Condo board meetings are pretty informal because there's only five units. It's a great situation.

If you're talking about high-rise condos specifically, well, there's a huge amount of variation. Some buildings are crap, others are great. I lived in what by Canadian standards would be called a condo tower in Hong Kong and honestly it was pretty great. I got my little box in the sky, with a great view and a balcony where I could grow plants and grill things, and I had access to a gym that was just an elevator ride away. It was a small building by HK standards but some of the bigger housing estates have an insane amount of amenities, from bowling alleys to huge outdoor BBQ areas to enormous swimming pools.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I might consider a condo, when I can afford to buy something again. But it would be temporary: a few years at most.

What I'd really love to do is get an older home in a nice but established area of town. Replace the small front lawn with plant gardens, do the same in back but with a seating area, depending on the space. Maybe a few renos over time, unless the place had been updated. Not to flip, but to live in.

Thing is, older homes carry cost risks too. The one I part-owned had a basement flood when a root from a beautiful and huge old maple tree in front of the neighbouring house collapsed the main drain. Had to re-renovate the basement (which was set up to be a separate unit). $$$$$ even with insurance covering part of it.

Yes I had a similar issue and had to replace the old clay pipes. Cost about $8k which for many Vancouver condos is less than a year’s maintenance fees.

[C3YVR]

Absolutely hilarious! I own both a condo and house, and have so for years, and for me the condo is by far the more stress free and enjoyable. There is good and bad in almost all things, but whatnext almost always looks for the negative and seems to take pleasure in making note of it. We all need to realize we live in a mixed world and different people have different needs and desires.

[Doady]

First world problems.

[lio45]

Condo living is definitely the fifth worst type of Canadian living, after open outdoors living, tent living, shelter living, and vehicle living, in that order.

[Dirt_Devil]

I have 2 kids and a dog and living in a condo would be a nightmare.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by C3YVR

Absolutely hilarious! I own both a condo and house, and have so for years, and for me the condo is by far the more stress free and enjoyable. There is good and bad in almost all things, but whatnext almost always looks for the negative and seems to take pleasure in making note of it. We all need to realize we live in a mixed world and different people have different needs and desires.

To be fair, I'm the one who brought up the house issue.

But I think regardless of the ownership model, everyone pays. It's just that sometimes the expenses are unexpected.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Condo Living - The Only (Somewhat) Affordable Housing Option For Young People in Canada

[theman23]

Originally Posted by lio45

Condo living is definitely the fifth worst type of Canadian living, after open outdoors living, tent living, shelter living, and vehicle living, in that order.

I remember watching a YouTube video recently where two wide eyed visitors from Australia marvelled about how “laid back” and “chill” Canadians were, citing the number of Canadians who just sleep in their car as an example of this relaxed attitude.

[Coldrsx]

The biggest issue for me is that 'The Act(s)' and industry is more or less broken when it comes to protecting the owner's interest and board's reasonability when it comes to decision making.

We entrust boards with multi-hundred-thousand, if not million dollar corporations to run, administer and be responsible for... which inevitability fail or underperform or are plagued with indecision.

Deferred maintenance at all costs to 'preserve the reserve' or retain desirability from a seller/purchaser perspective.

Add in little recourse for middle-sized events that continue to erode finances and it feels icky and is very much problematic.

[Wigs]

Edmonton and Winnipeg seem to be the only major cities where condos are still really affordable and with decent unit sizes.

I know Montréal used to be affordable, but it seems prices there have taken off in the past 5 or so years.

In Niagara they basically start at $350k for something tiny in usually not the best area. You can find the odd unit for cheaper but usually even smaller and less desirable location.
Typically, a decent one costs $400k-500k for a 2 bed, 1 bath unit.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by C3YVR

Absolutely hilarious! I own both a condo and house, and have so for years, and for me the condo is by far the more stress free and enjoyable. There is good and bad in almost all things, but whatnext almost always looks for the negative and seems to take pleasure in making note of it. We all need to realize we live in a mixed world and different people have different needs and desires.

Is the condo an “investment” or do you actually live in it?

[MonkeyRonin]

Urban SFH > urban condo > rural SFH > suburban SFH > suburban condo.

IMO of course (if we're strictly talking about ownership of a property). But point being, there's a little more nuance than just "condo bad/condo good". Even just amongst condos within a given area there can be a huge variation based on building type and other conditions (eg. heritage loft condo vs. investor-focused high rise. Well-run small building vs. ghost hotel, etc).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Urban SFH > urban condo > rural SFH > suburban SFH > suburban condo.

Yeah pretty much except the last two... really depends. If it's a suburban SFH on or near a reasonably frequent transit route, within walking distance to some basic amenities, and not on a wastefully lot then yeah. But a lot of suburban SFHs don't meet any of those conditions let alone all of them. And I'd place ones that don't below suburban condos that do.