The Beasley | 91m | 33 fl | Completed

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by Built Form

wow, that's baffling. like look at those concrete steps there. still, it's huge, and i bet there's a buyer out there, though they'll probably need to stage it just right and really talk up the investment angle. i wonder what sort of rules govern that one, if it's a condo, townhome, etc.

[s211]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

wow, that's baffling. like look at those concrete steps there. still, it's huge, and i bet there's a buyer out there, though they'll probably need to stage it just right and really talk up the investment angle. i wonder what sort of rules govern that one, if it's a condo, townhome, etc.

It's a condo townhome, single unit, 5800 sf, and they're asking $4.5M. You'd have to be the stupidest investor in the city to buy that dog.

You do know that "condo" can mean apartment or townhouse, yes?

[Locked In]

^ It's actually not a strata lot. It's built in its own parcel: PCL K BL 66 DL 541 GRP 1 NWD PL BCP36984, PID 027-554-015
Source: http://condoleo.ca/mylistings.html/details-20008766

[s211]

Originally Posted by Locked In

^ It's actually not a strata lot. It's built in its own parcel: PCL K BL 66 DL 541 GRP 1 NWD PL BCP36984, PID 027-554-015
Source: http://condoleo.ca/mylistings.html/details-20008766

WRONG. That's the underlying parcel that was assembled and consolidated for the entire development. The strata title will overlay that.

[SFUVancouver]

In the details of the project it says that it is freehold non-strata. I don't know how they can call it a detached single family house when it is attached and tied in to the rest of the building. $4.5 million is a laugh.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by s211

WRONG. That's the underlying parcel that was assembled and consolidated for the entire development. The strata title will overlay that.

You're probably right about the legal being wrong. I actually don't know if this is part of the strata, and you seem pretty sure about this - but its strange that it's being marketed as non-strata if it is/will be a strata lot...

[s211]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

In the details of the project it says that it is freehold non-strata. I don't know how they can call it a detached single family house when it is attached and tied in to the rest of the building. $4.5 million is a laugh.

Theoretically, they could tie it in to the rest of the complex with easements, but then that would still not deal with how this unit would cost-share with the rest of the complex (e.g. if this unit was on its own, it would be responsible for its own snow clearing, maintenance, landscaping, etc., which isn't very efficient)..

[s211]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

In the details of the project it says that it is freehold non-strata. I don't know how they can call it a detached single family house when it is attached and tied in to the rest of the building. $4.5 million is a laugh.

Sorry, I can't find that reference in their project details. Do you have a link?

[jlousa]

Probably in here but I didn't see anything on a quick scan.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...t-DE410541.pdf

[s211]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Probably in here but I didn't see anything on a quick scan.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...t-DE410541.pdf

From the doc, I do note that they wanted to keep the office building on a separate title apart from the strata. Might that be what you were thinking?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

update by me today:

The excavation goes well below the single level of parking under the "townhouse" - so if it were to be some sort of freehold,
you'd need a volumetric right-of-way for the encroachment of the tower's underground garage onto the site - not to mention
(as others have) access and cost sharing agreements for easements and access between the tower and the townhouse owner.
All of that would be far more trouble than it's worth.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by s211

Sorry, I can't find that reference in their project details. Do you have a link?

The part about freehold non-strata is in the "additional info" part of the listing, while the house type is in the "general info" area: http://condoleo.ca/mylistings.html/details-20008766

[Prometheus]

Bottom line: It looks like crap.

[flight_from_kamakura]

well, the thing is that if it's a freehold, obviously you can do a lot more with it, which could make it much more interesting at 4+ million bones. altogether, really puzzling.

[Built Form]

I was expecting these domes to be copper.


pic by Built Form

[s211]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The part about freehold non-strata is in the "additional info" part of the listing, while the house type is in the "general info" area: http://condoleo.ca/mylistings.html/details-20008766

Well, since they got the legal description wrong, I wouldn't put any faith in that either. This is, after all, a broker listing, E&O excepted.

[vanlaw]

Originally Posted by s211

So... the ultimate example of the Vancouver housing market gone bonkers:

the developer's asking $4.5M for this unit (they put it on MLS yesterday). Granted, it's 5,800 s.ft., but I mean really. $4.5M can buy you one hell of a nicer location than this, in a far nicer development.

If I had $4.5M burning a hole in my pocket, i'd gladly take this 3000sf unit at Carina (along w its $1500/mth strata fee), or even save $900k and take the 2000 sf unit on the 23rd floor at Claisto next door......

One day I will own in one of those two buildings...just need my lotto max numbers to come in!


http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...dKey=977376380

[phesto]

As has been mentioned, the house could be an air space parcel. This would technically make it freehold, with the underground parking secured and maintained by various cost sharing agreements and covenants.

Officedweller - it would be a lot of trouble to go to, but maybe they thought it would ultimately yield more value than marketing it as a strata unit? Aside from the strata fee issue for such a large unit, the potential benefits of any amenities/services the strata could offer would probably be nil for that buyer.

Keep in mind it would have been inefficient for the project to provide a completely self contained parking garage under this house with nothing below...

Obviously referring to it as a detached house is misleading.

[s211]

Originally Posted by phesto

As has been mentioned, the house could be an air space parcel. This would technically make it freehold, with the underground parking secured and maintained by various cost sharing agreements and covenants.

Officedweller - it would be a lot of trouble to go to, but maybe they thought it would ultimately yield more value than marketing it as a strata unit? Aside from the strata fee issue for such a large unit, the potential benefits of any amenities/services the strata could offer would probably be nil for that buyer.

Keep in mind it would have been inefficient for the project to provide a completely self contained parking garage under this house with nothing below...

Obviously referring to it as a detached house is misleading.

You're correct that the strata fees would be astronomical, unless there were carve-outs for items that the large unit wouldn't have any need/use/requirement for, such as any costs related to the tower. I've seen some complexes that will carve out costs between apartment and townhouse units.

Shouldn't the draft strata plan be attached to the disclosure statement? That could answer a lot of questions.

[officedweller]

Nice shot of the dome.
Agreed on the copper. Could the steel be a baselayer? (but the finishing on it looks too perfect to be a baselayer)

Almost clashes with the red brick - do you think the building will be painted a different colour?

+++++++++++++

Yeah, it would be interesting if its an airspace parcel.

You do however, see a lot of stratas that consist of separate buildings that have different characteristics (lowrise and tower) that don't necessarily use the same facilities (elevators, etc.). Where it really hurts is if the lowrise leaks and the tower subsidizes the reno cost (or vice versa).

WRT the negotiation of agreements for access across the site and to the underground parking (together with some sort of access/maintenance fee), that could end up being a headache.
At my building 950 Cambie, the neighbouring tower (930 Cambie) is a separate strata and there's a cost sharing agreement in place for the pool and exercise room costs (located in 950 Cambie) - but that's been disputed a few times by the other strata. As for landscaping, 930 Cambie apparently controls the sprinklers in the courtyard and allowed some of the Rhodos to die around the central fountain. Anyways, I don't get involved in strata matters.

Maybe someone's planning on having loud parties on the rooftop and doesn't want to deal with the strata council?