|
I was wondering why a friend was bitching about how awful Equifax was the other day. Tell the owner that unless they are giving you a loan, they can do their own credit checking. Actually even if they are giving you a loan.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
The kitchen sucks for the price but with utilities included it's not as bad as it looks. I would also say the location (little portugal) is the quickest gentrifying neighbourhood in Toronto right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
RBC posted:The kitchen sucks for the price but with utilities included it's not as bad as it looks. I would also say the location (little portugal) is the quickest gentrifying neighbourhood in Toronto right now. Does it have good Portuguese food nearby? If so, this is worth paying extra rent for! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
I moved into my higher-end apartment building with an extremely fussy landlord with nothing. No previous references, it was my first time actually renting. No proof of employment, absolutely nothing. His wife interviewed us and we pretty much only talked about travel in europe. What we did for work sort of came up but she didn't really press for details other than the general industry. The only actually paperwork involved was signing the lease and a cheque for first month + damage deposit. No ID's, absolutely nothing. Yet other friends moving into a lovely slum that ended up having 2 separate unrelated meth labs in it needed a gently caress off stupid amount of paperwork, bank statements, letters from their employers, pay stubs, and reference letters from previous landlords. It seems really inconsistent. Even in Vancouver one friend found an apartment and they recommended a reference but she couldn't get one because her previous place was a bedbug infested slum owned by an absentee landlord and she had to write down her place of employment and contact info but they never called. Another friend renting in the same general area in a very similar building had to do a whole ridiculous process with pay stubs and she almost didn't even get the place because they wanted 3 previous landlords and she only had 2. Really seems to depend on the owner/management company. But anecdotally I've noticed the better buildings seem to prefer a face to face interview where they just judge if you'll be a good tenant or not, and shittier places have an entirely form based system that does gently caress all to actually screen lovely people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
RBC posted:I'm still lolling at this video linked from the ut kingsclub thread. How stupid do you have to be to buy something like this? "Based on my ten years' experience in real estate, I bought a condo, sight unseen, from a developer with a bad reputation. What? No, I was not repeatedly dropped on the head as a child and then forced to huff lead paint, why do you ask?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Shower stalls are pretty common downtown. Even in larger bathrooms because of money. It's pricey, and the immediate neighbourhood isn't amazing, but Little Italy and Roncesvalles are about a 15 minute walk and streetcars on College and Dundas. Meh, got any one bedrooms in the $2500 range?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
RBC posted:I'm still lolling at this video linked from the ut kingsclub thread. How stupid do you have to be to buy something like this? This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned "cargo cult construction quality" earlier. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
People reaaaaaly need to do their homework. I mean I know anyone stupid enough to buy a condo hasn't done any homework, but builders and developers have reputations. Even in Victoria I can give people a list of awesome developers I'd totally buy from if I for some reason went insane and wanted to buy, and a list of people to never do any business with. It's not hard, you just look at their previous building's quality and any previous financial drama involved. Yet even in the US house buying thread which I still check out from time to time to see how they're doing it's constantly like "Hey guys should I buy a home from this faceless mass produced mega-subdivision developer that makes Arrested Development look like a documentary about a quality home building company??" and everyone lists reasons why not, why the CEO is a piece of poo poo, why the company will just fold and the owner will start a new one to get out of warranties, examples of every project the company has touched being an absolute disaster with multiple lawsuits and condemned buildings. And then the dude will just be like "Well you have to use this builder to buy in this subdivision and the other companies are slightly more expensive and we need a 4,000 sqft house because we have 2 kids so we're going to buy, their website says they build quality houses so I think they've changed" every loving time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
that guy has a follow up video where he explains how he spent $13,000 fixing up his concrete tomb/death shack. the concrete in the walls was spalling and crumbly but it's ok because he covered it with drywall and painted it a nice colour! mommy, what's a structural integrity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
How exactly do you determine the reputation or quality of a developer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:How exactly do you determine the reputation or quality of a developer? Check out what they've previously built. Look up any scandals related to them (personally, not what ever numbered company they're working with this year) Talk to people who have bought from them before. Talk to anyone in the construction industry, they know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
RBC posted:I'm still lolling at this video linked from the ut kingsclub thread. How stupid do you have to be to buy something like this? Holy poo poo. edit: this is from 2010, so not exactly a new phenomenon. How is it that Canada has regulations and laws out the rear end for every goddamn thing, but not where it might actually be useful - in stopping these sort of shoddy construction practices?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Funny story which I think everyone here will appreciate: I live in a huge victorian deathtrap which was built prior to the first world war. It's pretty rad, even if it is the premium example of horrific owner-renovations done in the 70's and I am pretty sure will either collapse or burn down from a wiring fire while I am living in it. It sits on a raised berm which is two flights of stairs above the sidewalk. There, picture painted. So the landlord is putting a laneway house in the back, and they had to run the water lines out front to hook up to the main, this entailed digging an eight foot deep trench down one side of the house (thankfully not the side that has settled by 6" over the years) to run the water and sewer in. Problem 1: The water and sewer were original, including the city portion, and upon excavation are discovered to no longer exist in physical form. (This isn't rare, my mother lives in a 40's bungalow a block away and her clay sewer line collapsed during the rain in December). Thank god we filter our water, though it tasted fine for having been filtered by fine gravel as long as we've lived here.  Problem 2: While hooking up the new water main, plumber pulls on main for the house and breaks it somewhere approximately 40 feet back. This causes the main to start leaking through the foundation after the water is hooked up, which fills the 8ft deep trench with water by 6pm yesterday. Swimming pool addition! Landlord must now either tear up the subflooring to find water main inside house, or excavate underneath foundation, install new main, and cut off old main. Problem 3: Civic hookup is still broken as gently caress all the way to the street, and landlord must wait for city to repair it. They are unable to do this for 3 weeks. In the meantime, we have our water running from new hookup pipe, to garden hose, to house main. He's had to backfill the hole due to safety concerns, and must then dig it all up and basically re-do all the work he just did in three weeks once the city gets their poo poo done. I hope the house doesn't collapse into a sinkhole by then. Tl;DR: Don't buy a house. Especially not an old house that has had little proper maintenance in decades. Just don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Talk to anyone in the construction industry, they know. Specifically ask around among specialized subcontractors (like an envelope/siding company, a window installer, whatever), because they will likely have worked for/with everyone at least once, and probably have a running blacklist of developers who have stiffed them on payments and declared numbered-corp bankruptcy in the past. Spoiler alert: the worst is Onni.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Rime posted:Tl;DR: Don't buy a house. Especially not an old house that has had little proper maintenance in decades. Just don't. It seems like everything is terrible. Old houses suck and are falling apart inside. New houses are made by cowboy shell-company developers out to make a quick buck. Condos are condos. This country is not set up, culturally or legally, for long term renting. At a certain point, it becomes necessary to buy a place, if only to ensure you remove the risk of being capriciously served a 2-month eviction notice, as is the landlord's right. So what's a person to do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It seems like everything is terrible. Old houses suck and are falling apart inside. New houses are made by cowboy shell-company developers out to make a quick buck. Condos are condos. There's tons of purpose built rental buildings that have a very low chance of you ever being evicted. Don't rent a condo or basement or something from an amateur, rent in a proper rental building owned and run by a professional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's tons of purpose built rental buildings that have a very low chance of you ever being evicted. Don't rent a condo or basement or something from an amateur, rent in a proper rental building owned and run by a professional. Yep. Also any walk-ups from like 1958 - 1973 are usually really well made. They used good timber and solid construction, and that was before B.C. adopted the Canadian national building code which was 100% inappropriate for our climate. Between 1973 and Leaky Condo Round 1, it's more hit and miss, but anything from that 80's bonanza onwards is almost 100% guaranteed garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Old houses are fantastic, as long as they've had proper upkeep and upgrades over the decades. Sadly there's a handful of those in the entire country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's tons of purpose built rental buildings that have a very low chance of you ever being evicted. Don't rent a condo or basement or something from an amateur, rent in a proper rental building owned and run by a professional. I'm not sure that there are tons, but I know they do exist. To be clear, I'm a happy renter, but I still maintain this country is not set up culturally or legally for long term rental tenancy. If I had kids, I would consider the possibility of capricious eviction a nonzero-probability risk to be concerned about. This is in stark contrast to a place like Germany or Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I'm not sure that there are tons, but I know they do exist. To be clear, I'm a happy renter, but I still maintain this country is not set up culturally or legally for long term rental tenancy. If I had kids, I would consider the possibility of capricious eviction a nonzero-probability risk to be concerned about. Yeah I agree, we could do a lot better. Europe is the renter's promised land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I agree, we could do a lot better. Europe is the FTFY.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I'm not sure that there are tons, but I know they do exist. To be clear, I'm a happy renter, but I still maintain this country is not set up culturally or legally for long term rental tenancy. If I had kids, I would consider the possibility of capricious eviction a nonzero-probability risk to be concerned about. I'd also be concerned about rent increases in addition to capricious eviction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
CAD is below 80. Wti is at 52 week low. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's tons of purpose built rental buildings that have a very low chance of you ever being evicted. Don't rent a condo or basement or something from an amateur, rent in a proper rental building owned and run by a professional. When you say "rental building", is that just apartment/condo style places? Or are there houses made for families to rent? Maybe I can adjust my expectations, but the idea of raising a family in a 2 bedroom apartment seems crummy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:When you say "rental building", is that just apartment/condo style places? Or are there houses made for families to rent? Oh more than 4-5 people? Yeah you're hosed as a renter. Stuck renting someone's investment townhouse or duplex for a few years until they sell it and the new owners want to move their niece in. Some cities have affordable family rentals but they have a huge waiting list and you can generally only get in if you're a poor on social assistance of some sort. 1 kid's fine in a 2br, maybe even 2. I know about 5 people with kids and they all rent. All but 1 just have 1 kid though so 2br apartments work fine, and the one with 3 kids lives in a 800 sqft that's some how 3 bedrooms, works for them. I think another hosed up thing with Canadian/north american culture is our expectations that you NEED a house to raise kids. Every kid must have their own room, you must have a fenced high security yard because kids playing on the sidewalk or local park will get kidnapped within seconds, you need a car to drive you kids to all their playdates and sports activities. And if you don't have all these you are a bad parent and should be cut off of any social assistance and probably arrested too and your kids sent to a horrible foster home out in the suburbs so they can grow up correctly damaged. I've certainly seen 3br units in rental buildings though. The building I live in has about 14 1br units, 15 2br units, and 1 3br unit. Rare but they exist. The 3br in my building has a family with I think 3 little girls living in it. There's actually quite a few kids in my building, maybe a dozen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd also be concerned about rent increases in addition to capricious eviction. Yup. And once you've got things like kids in school and what not, the switching costs - emotional as well as financial - go through the roof. I don't blame families for feeling pressed to own. The alternative isn't so hot. I save my withering criticism for the specuvestor financial genius types, as well as young singles who think it's a good idea to anchor themselves to a terrible condo in the first city they've ever experienced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think another hosed up thing with Canadian/north american culture is our expectations that you NEED a house to raise kids. I think part of my mental block with it all was that I was raised in rural Ontario. So I'm very used to always being able to run outside and play whenever I want, and living in a huge farmhouse where I could sit in a quiet room away from the rest of my family and do my own thing. The thought of having 2 kids in an apartment sounds so cramped to me. When they're little it would be fine, but as they get older it would be crazy. Looking around online, it looks like there are some townhomes and such in the outskirts of Toronto for less than 2k a month. The houses in that area are 600k, so the rent would work out than less than a mortgage payment anyway. Anyway this doesn't really matter in terms of the thread, just going through my 30-year-old mid-mid-life crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think another hosed up thing with Canadian/north american culture is our expectations that you NEED Fixed. triplexpac posted:Anyway this doesn't really matter in terms of the thread, just going through my 30-year-old mid-mid-life crisis. I solved this by burning down my relationship, moving downtown and becoming a manchild. YMMV. I've been invited to a house-warming party for 2 of my friends next week. They just bought a condo downtown and I don't know if I can go without thinking "big mistake" the whole time. I hope it works out for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah the sharing bedrooms thing doesn't work as well when they get older, but even if you live somewhere for 10 years that's not bad. Kids can totally run outside and play as soon as they get old enough to work keys. It's never been safer to be a kid. Once you trust them with keys and crossing the street they can run to the park any time they want. Of course depends on the neighbourhood, if you're living on some horrible 6 lane arterial and no parks close by that's going to suck. But if like most urban kids you grow up on a fairly not busy street with lots of crosswalks/signals and a park like a block or two away it's fine. Hell I see kids just playing on the sidewalk. Kids don't need a ton of space, they really make due with what you give them. Give them some sidewalk chalk and they can go distract them selves for hours in front of the building. My wife grew up in a bachelor sized apartment with her mom, then a 1br once her mom re-married. She got her own room and parents had a folding bed in the living room and a little privacy screen. Lived in a huge soviet complex of apartment blocks but every one had a little central courtyard with a playground. All the kids would just meet there and go on unsupervised adventures all day the moment they were old enough to reach the locks on the door. Looks back on her childhood with a lot of fondness. As long as kids are safe enough and have time/space for unsupervised social play they're going to grow up fine. I have friends who grew up in a more rural setting, but they turned out fine because they had fellow kids within walk/bike distance so they could go off on adventures on their own. Kids just need an environment where they can learn to be independent, be that playing with friends, walking/biking to school. Kids who grow up basically as prisoners in their homes until they get a license turn out pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think another hosed up thing with Canadian/north american culture is our expectations that you NEED a house to raise kids. Every kid must have their own room, you must have a fenced high security yard because kids playing on the sidewalk or local park will get kidnapped within seconds, you need a car to drive you kids to all their playdates and sports activities. And if you don't have all these you are a bad parent and should be cut off of any social assistance and probably arrested too and your kids sent to a horrible foster home out in the suburbs so they can grow up correctly damaged. I think this is definitely a suburban expectation, but places like Toronto are experiencing a huge increase in children. South of Queen between Dufferin and University the number of children under 5 has increased by 65% since 2006 - that's pretty substantial, and there are very few traditional homes in that area I just described. People are having children anyway and just coping. In my neighbourhood, which is still downtown, my daughter's in one of three grade one classes the school runs. This is a school the board was probably looking to close less than 15 years ago because there weren't enough kids. I know families in my neighbourhood with 3bedrooms ,3 kids, making it work. It's not abnormal. There are kids everywhere downtown Toronto, just ask the nerds in the Toronto LAN thread. They are always complaining about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
So, remember that yaletown landswap deal that a blogger determined had lost the city $47m dollars in value? Looks like the courts agreed that it was shady as gently caress. quote:In his ruling, Justice Mark McEwan sided with the petitioners. He said the city’s process had been “opaque” and that the established principles of a transparent public hearing process had been violated. He not only threw out the development permit for the city’s property, but also the development permit for the site Brenhill now has under construction. He ordered new public hearings be held, and awarded the petitioners court costs. Rime fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:So, remember that yaletown landswap deal that a blogger determined had lost the city $47m dollars in value? That's awesome, it's so rare to see corruption actually punished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
quote:
https://twitter.com/prudent_theta/status/560548137656664065?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Holy poo poo. If you are looking for recent shady business dealings with the same company look no further than this month Count Canuckula fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That's awesome, it's so rare to see corruption actually punished. Not to discount the shadiness of the deal (the loss of revenue in particular), but as far as I can tell the judge was basically saying that every public consultation for a new building now has to be super-lengthy and expensive, and can't proceed unless every NIMBY's opinion has been accounted for. To me it reads more like "rich NIMBYs kill new development in their neighbourhood" than "Judge cancels shady construction deal" (though both are probably true).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
RBC posted:I'm still lolling at this video linked from the ut kingsclub thread. How stupid do you have to be to buy something like this? Grover-Condo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Not to discount the shadiness of the deal (the loss of revenue in particular), but as far as I can tell the judge was basically saying that every public consultation for a new building now has to be super-lengthy and expensive, and can't proceed unless every NIMBY's opinion has been accounted for. The development process is already so useless and it's outcomes so bad and corrupt I'm fine just giving control over to the NIMBY's. No more buildings until you idiots figure out how to follow the rules and maybe have a plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Holy poo poo. On a flip note it's another reason why the whole pre-sale concept is a good way to screw yourself over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
etalian posted:On a flip note it's another reason why the whole pre-sale concept is a good way to screw yourself over. Why the hell do people do it? I wouldn't buy a television sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Fear that prices would sky rocket when they can finally pay the rest of the cost? Believing that the 'fair market price' would be 20-30% 3 years later when it's completed? Fear that you won't find a good place in a prime location (near sky train/transit?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:37
|
|
