Condo Living-The Worst Kind of Canadian Living?

[Nouvellecosse]

"Condo living" also doesn't necessarily mean skyscrapers. The condo ownership model can also include townhouse developments and lowrise/midrise apartment buildings. And skyscraper apartment don't need to be condos either as it's possible to have rentals even if it hasn't been very common in Canada lately.

Personally, this just reinforces my desire to see a greater proportion of new multi-unit come in the form of lowrises and midrises but doesn't really affect my view of the condominium ownership model that much.

[WhipperSnapper]

Apartments are inferred when people talk about condo living.


Condo ownership can be anything. It can be the grounds (common elements) in a gated single family subdivision. It can be a house with a legal basement apartments. There's multiple condo corps. stratas in Toronto with 2 units

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

This is an urbanist forum based around skyscrapers
How the hell are there so many here crapping all over condo living as inferior? Doesn't this run counter to the very goals and purpose of this very forum?

Reality bites, I guess.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

This is an urbanist forum based around skyscrapers
How the hell are there so many here crapping all over condo living as inferior? Doesn't this run counter to the very goals and purpose of this very forum?

The best skyscrapers are almost universally office space. I see no contradiction.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jonny24

The best skyscrapers are almost universally office space. I see no contradiction.

Yep because the owners of those commercial buildings know what the costs will be in maintaining them and will fund that maintenance to protect their investment.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jonny24

The best skyscrapers are almost universally office space. I see no contradiction.

More like commercial usage traditionally has had a much higher incentive for density because worker proximity is correlated with economic productivity and so the office tower form factor in larger cities is generally superior to lower density offices and can be easily justified. There's a reason the factory replaced the cottage industry. Bigger means better. Meanwhile, higher density residences don't have any additional "living" productivity from being close together so the main justification for building condos is when the purchasing demand in a location can justify the construction costs. People in general are not incentivized to live closer together, it only happens due to external factors.

Hence, commercial buildings are generally going to produce more impressive skyscrapers because traditionally the economics have incentivized it. From an economic perspective, it's historically been true that office towers are superior to residential towers. That doesn't mean that residential towers are a worse form of living by any means, but it does mean that they only exist due to external pressures, not because developers inherently want them to exist.

Personally, one of my favourite skyscrapers built in the past few years is The Brooklyn Tower. Primarily residential.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by chowhou

More like commercial usage traditionally has had a much higher incentive for density because worker proximity is correlated with economic productivity and so the office tower form factor in larger cities is generally superior to lower density offices and can be easily justified. There's a reason the factory replaced the cottage industry. Bigger means better. Meanwhile, higher density residences don't have any additional "living" productivity from being close together so the main justification for building condos is when the purchasing demand in a location can justify the construction costs. People in general are not incentivized to live closer together, it only happens due to external factors.

Hence, commercial buildings are generally going to produce more impressive skyscrapers because traditionally the economics have incentivized it. From an economic perspective, it's historically been true that office towers are superior to residential towers. That doesn't mean that residential towers are a worse form of living by any means, but it does mean that they only exist due to external pressures, not because developers inherently want them to exist.

Personally, one of my favourite skyscrapers built in the past few years is The Brooklyn Tower. Primarily residential.

I'd say that's mostly true, but higher residential density often does have some productivity benefit. Dense residential tends to be located disproportionately in more desirable locations places where people can be more productive due to spending less time traveling to access work or for other reasons. If you reduce the time you spend in a car by an hour per weekday then that's 260 hrs per year that you can use for productive purposes. Or it can allow you to take transit more easily where you may be able to work en-route, depending on how crowded the vehicle is. And a better location can also put more jobs and/or better paying jobs within reach. But if it's dense residential in an inconvenient location then there's probably no productivity benefit.

But the biggest difference is probably that dense residential just isn't as dense as typical commercial in that each resident takes up more space in a residential building than each worker in an office tower.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd say that's mostly true, but higher residential density often does have some productivity benefit. Dense residential tends to be located disproportionately in more desirable locations places where people can be more productive due to spending less time traveling to access work or for other reasons. If you reduce the time you spend in a car by an hour per weekday then that's 260 hrs per year that you can use for productive purposes. Or it can allow you to take transit more easily where you may be able to work en-route, depending on how crowded the vehicle is. And a better location can also put more jobs and/or better paying jobs within reach. But if it's dense residential in an inconvenient location then there's probably no productivity benefit.

But the biggest difference is probably that dense residential just isn't as dense as typical commercial in that each resident takes up more space in a residential building than each worker in an office tower.

I might have worded this poorly, higher residential density definitely has external productivity benefits like you mention (i.e. positive externalities), but internally to the owners I don't think there is an inherent perceivable benefit to higher density living. If a resident was given the choice between a lowrise apartment downtown vs a highrise apartment downtown, I don't think there is much of a perceivable benefit to living in the highrise. Meanwhile, a financial company might highly desire to be in the same building that other financial companies are in, rather than in a street level separate office.

It's also worth noting that in general, residential owners are looking for enough space to fit one single family, multiplied several times (but dividable). Commercial owners are looking for enough space to potentially fit an entire multinational corporation. The scale is just completely different.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

This is an urbanist forum based around skyscrapers
How the hell are there so many here crapping all over condo living as inferior? Doesn't this run counter to the very goals and purpose of this very forum?

A preference for single-family housing isn't necessarily incompatible with urbanism. There are some great neighbourhoods that are predominantly single-family while still being dense & urban, eg:


https://www.solorealty.com/blog/the-...elphia-alleys/


https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail...hrase=building


https://media.istockphoto.com/id/136..._Apff7JCKnQ0w=


That said, IMO the mark of a great city and a healthy society is one that offers a variety of housing forms and built typologies, as naturally, people's preferences and lifestyles vary; as do one's needs through the different stages of their life. And this is where we're failing - increasingly it seems, Canadian cities offer a binary housing choice: big, expensive SFH for the 1%; or small, 1-bedroom condo in a high-rise for everybody else.

In other words, high-rise condos are great. High-rise condos being the only form of housing available (for the non-mega-rich) is not.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Yeah there's a huge difference between attached single family housing in the form of town/row houses (or detached houses close enough together and to the street they function as such) compared to fully detached housing with a much lower FAR. The first picture above doesn't show how big the backyards are, but in the other two you can tell the average FAR is probably 2.0 or more given the height of the buildings. But really, an average FAR of 1.0 is probably a perfectly fine compromise between efficiency and fulfilling people's detached housing tastes - as long as there's a few 4 or 6 story apartment buildings in the area to supplement density and add variety and choice. A FAR of 1 is basically a 2 story house that occupies half its lot leaving the rest for front/back yard, driveway etc.

The problem isn't that detached houses exist; it's that people in them don't want anything else to exist near them.

[logan5]

FAR 1 is what the CoV is going with for its multi plex zoning, which covers the entire city of Vancouver. In full build out of 4 plexes and 6 plexes (depending on lot size), you would have a population density in the 30 000 per sq mile range. That kind of density supports great walk-able streets, and mass transit. A very efficient city. The problem with that is, it takes a very long time to build up density this way. There's not a big enough incentive with 1 FSR.

This is the advantage of towers - they get built fast, and you can boost density fast, and realize the benefits much quicker. The West End was built in about 20 years, between the 1950's and the 1970's. Now the West End is one of the most car free neighbourhoods in the country. Same deal with Downtown South and Coal Harbour. It only took about 20 years to build a 50 000 person neighbourhood. Oakridge will probly be the next neighbourhood that will get built up that quickly. Jericho after that, with its beaches and already existing high streets . Jericho will be a kick ass neighbourhood, comparable to the West End, except it will have the huge advantage of having a subway station serving it.

[MolsonExport]

The Montreal of the 1920s-40s already provides us with a blueprint

[logan5]

Montreal is great and all, but those neighbourhoods were built on raw land (right?), so it built up relatively quickly. That's just not realistic when we are talking about developing over top of existing neighbourhoods.

Yaletown is a tower neighbourhood that checks a lot of boxes. Jane Jacobs eyes on the street, etc.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mzw1QVYTVNBKzonw6

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

Jericho after that, with its beaches and already existing high streets . Jericho will be a kick ass neighbourhood, comparable to the West End, except it will have the huge advantage of having a subway station serving it.

Yeah I'm most excited about Jericho. No reason it won't be an incredible spot. I just need to be able to move there before I need an old folks home.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

This is an urbanist forum based around skyscrapers
How the hell are there so many here crapping all over condo living as inferior? Doesn't this run counter to the very goals and purpose of this very forum?

You were saying?

Tribunal decision reveals strata's struggle to find strange noise
Condo owner slapped with thousands of dollars in fines for noise that strata couldn’t locate
Yasmine Ghania · CBC News · Posted: Jun 28, 2024

A recent decision from B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal tells a bizarre tale about a mysterious noise in a concrete building that has led to hundreds of complaints, tens of thousands of dollars in fines, the consultation of acoustic engineers and the draining of a heating and cooling system.

It started when a man, only identified as RK in Wednesday's decision, heard a "tapping noise" coming from his bedroom ceiling in his North Vancouver condo in the summer of 2020.

He heard it again in November 2021, and by January 2022, "the noise frequency increased to once or twice per week," the decision said. RK asked his upstairs neighbour Alan Zenuk if he could help him find the source of the noise, but Zenuk refused, according to the decision.

RK complained to his strata about the "unreasonable noise" in April 2022, claiming the frequency of the noise "increased significantly over time." He heard "percussive strikes, tapping, scraping, dragging and clunking noises" during the day and night, according to the decision.

The noise debacle escalated, with RK making 443 noise complaints to the strata from April 2022 to November 2023, the decision said. The strata fined Zenuk at least $42,600...

...Zenuk argued to the tribunal that since the strata can't precisely say what's causing the noise, he can't be blamed for it. He sought $5,000 in damages from the strata and a reversal of the fines against him, which he has not paid...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ines-1.7250029

Keep in mind there are thousands of cases like this that never make it into the media.

[SignalHillHiker]

Love this guy.

• Video Link

[whatnext]

This CTV piece struck me as perfect for this thread. How could a seven year old building have these kind of issues and how is the builder/developer not liable somehow?

'No one has $70,000 lying around': Toronto condo owners facing massive special assessment
Pat Foran
Updated Oct. 5, 2024 1:37 p.m. PDT
Published Oct. 3, 2024 5:02 p.m. PDT

The owners of a North York condominium say they are facing a $70,000 special assessment to fix their building's parking garage.

“$70,000 is a lot of money. It makes me very nervous and stressed out of nowhere for this huge debt to come in," said Ligeng Guo.

Guo said he bought a unit in the complex at 869 Wilson Avenue five years ago. He said the possible bill is also difficult for him to imagine paying because he doesn’t have a parking spot in the garage.

According to Guo, he received a notice from the property management company that looks after the complex which said a possible repair to the building’s parking garage may require a $7 million loan to be taken by the condo or a special assessment of $70,000 each for about 100 unit holders.

When CTV News Toronto showed up to the building, other unit holders also expressed concerns about the building’s potential repair costs especially since the building is only seven years old....

....“The Condominium’s engineers have advised that water penetration into the concrete garage roof slab poses a serious structural risk which must be addressed. The Board takes this issue extremely seriously, especially in the wake of the deadly 2021 condominium collapse in Surfside, Florida, which was similarly caused. The Board is tasked with ensuring that necessary repair work takes place, even if the difficult decisions it makes are unpopular with owners.”...

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/no-one-ha...ment-1.7061725

[dleung]

Whether it's mid-rise or high-rise, I'd never live in a building with less than 200 units. You get better amenities and more owners to share risks with. I'm on an 8th floor podium/terrace unit in Toronto and a 30th floor unit in Vancouver, and definitely prefer the former over any ground-oriented unit or SFH no matter where it is (large west-vancouver mansions excepted). Low-rise, if not somewhere unwalkable, means living in constant shadow of other buildings or with neighbours staring straight into your windows.

Also 1 FSR is only good for gentle densification of unwalkable areas, but is not nearly enough to justify transit expansions. I like to live near the subway, so 2.5 FSR should be the minimum density for living within walking distance.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dleung

Whether it's mid-rise or high-rise, I'd never live in a building with less than 200 units. You get better amenities and more owners to share risks with. I'm on an 8th floor podium/terrace unit in Toronto and a 30th floor unit in Vancouver, and definitely prefer the former over any ground-oriented unit or SFH no matter where it is (large west-vancouver mansions excepted). Low-rise, if not somewhere unwalkable, means living in constant shadow of other buildings or with neighbours staring straight into your windows.

Also 1 FSR is only good for gentle densification of unwalkable areas, but is not nearly enough to justify transit expansions. I like to live near the subway, so 2.5 FSR should be the minimum density for living within walking distance.

I agree with the low unit thing. The appeal of a building that advertise 2 units per floor in a 20-30 story building is mystifying to me.

As to SFH I'd take in most situations over a condo. A West Van house with a great view outweighs any negative on needing a car. But there are many neighbourhoods like Main Street in Vancouver that are still largely surrounded by SFH and have fantastic walkable amenities. Look a this list of Michelin recommended restauarants. very view located in the highest density neighbourhoods.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This CTV piece struck me as perfect for this thread. How could a seven year old building have these kind of issues and how is the builder/developer not liable somehow?
[I]
'No one has $70,000 lying around': Toronto condo owners facing massive special assessment
Pat Foran
Updated Oct. 5, 2024 1:37 p.m. PDT
Published Oct. 3, 2024 5:02 p.m. PDT

The owners of a North York condominium say they are facing a $70,000 special assessment to fix their building's parking garage.

I was finishing a basement doing some sump pump work of a fairly new detached and it had showed signs of settling - big crack running up the foundation in the basement. Owner had to undergo similar costs to repair, which they were definitely not prepared to pay for. Not too dissimilar.