|
LemonDrizzle posted:London doesn't have McMansions and if anything, that trend's going in the opposite direction at the moment - wealthy individuals are buying up grand townhouses that were previously subdivided into flats and turning them back into urban mansions (in some cases, complete with servants' quarters...) I've certainly lived in several flats in London that were subdivided McMansions* from the 1920s (and earlier). Even two-up/two-downs often seem to have been turned into two flats. But I don't doubt with the way the wealth divide is going that poo poo like you describe is happening now. * I mean, they're not McMansions in the American sense, but they were certainly the equivalent from the property / middle class booms of their time.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Why wouldn't you include them? Even if you're buying cash it's still an amortized cost over the lifespan of the vehicle. I'm not saying you can't include them, but it wasn't clear either way in the original post. Lexicon posted:Exactly this. If you live in a city with good public transport (i.e. Montreal or Toronto), proximity to amenities, and have access to vehicles (ideally car-sharing for errands lasting several-hours and car-rental, e.g. Enterprise, for longer trips), you'll never want your own vehicle again. Vehicle ownership is a tremendous hassle and expense for a depreciating object that sits idle the vast majority of the time. Counterpoint: cars are awesome, and if I didn't have to pay extra to get another parking spot, I'd have more of them. It's a waste of money, I suppose, but so is everything that's non-essential to our lives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Counterpoint: cars are awesome, and if I didn't have to pay extra to get another parking spot, I'd have more of them. It's a waste of money, I suppose, but so is everything that's non-essential to our lives. I totally don't agree, but obviously you aren't alone in this (otherwise, Top Gear could not be the most popular franchise in television history). I just don't give a gently caress about cars. I appreciate that they enable road trips, etc, and I'm happy to drive one when it makes sense, but in many ways they have a lot to answer for how cities and towns have been shaped over the past century in North America. Basically, I'm the opposite of a car guy, and a loud proponent of the view that cities are for people, not cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not saying you can't include them, but it wasn't clear either way in the original post. It was totally clear in both the links I posted, and the source is the CAA. If you actually spent some time considering statistics when people link to them, instead of posting gut-feel anecdotes, you would get a lot fewer probations and badvatars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:
In my old neighbourhood it was mostly huge old turn of the century mansions that were nicely cut up into condos and apartments. These are great old buildings and I had some friends living in them and they were all really cool. Huge grand lobby and then a bunch of unique and sometimes a little strange units. Old buildings are generally very adaptable. I forget the name but there's an awesome book on this, follows a few nearly identical buildings in a city built in 1900 to today where they are unrecognizable, it's all about how good buildings are adaptable. Really that's a key in any urban planning and design, adaptability. That 5 story street-wall style building was built as apartments but 20 years later it fell on bad times and the upper floors were abandoned while the bottom stayed retail. Later the upper floors were converted into offices and a small elevator installed. Later it became a hotel, and now it's being converted into micro-apartments. The neighborhood infrastructure, zoning, and bones of the building supported all this. Contrast this with suburban houses, big-box stores, and office parks. They are not adaptable at all. In fact funny story, because they are so purpose-built and low quality a lot of owners of such buildings lobby the city to declare the building "obsolete" to pay far less taxes. That's right, walmart will build a huge brand new big-box store, then say the building has no resale value because it could only ever be used as a walmart soooooo I shouldn't have to pay taxes! And it works. There are millions of square feet of empty office park sitting out there too. Some cities have ideas to turn them into affordable housing or ANYTHING but their locations and the way they were built makes this nearly impossible. A lot of desperate home-owners see them selves putting in a suite, then another suite, but it's often pretty lovely as the building was never designed for it, and the quality of the construction leads to a really awful multiple-family living for the most part. I've seen a lot of horrible illegal suites in Victoria, and making them legal requires so much ridiculous red tape most people still don't do it. I think we're going to see more and more really lovely semi-legal suites in the region as people get desperate for a little extra income. The problem is, a lot of that density will be in areas with suburban style infrastructure, areas hard or impossible to adapt to transit. So all these converted garages just means less off-street parking and more drivers enjoying suburban commutes. Heaven forbid allowing or even encouraging more natural density along transit corridors, or even building new ones. That brings up another problem and why some people are very anti-transit. They know when transit is improved it usually follows with more density. Good transit can transform an area. It raises housing values and up-zoning can drastically raise land values. Transit is seen by some as a battering ram of gentrification. That's also why a lot of black neighbourhoods in the US fight against bike lanes and bike infrastructure. Much like suburbanites fear "urban ferals" coming to their houses and robbing them via the new train, a lot of poorer people fear wealthy white hipsters coming in on their bikes and gentrifying their area. One of these fears is actually grounded in reality though. Anyways, sorry to ramble so much about urban planning poo poo. But it's so closely tied with housing prices. It's not just mortgage rates and the financial sector and federal ministers, local urban planning and policies also have huge impacts on housing prices, which areas crash, and which areas are more resilient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:and a loud proponent of the view that cities are for people, not cars. I think there's room for a "car guy" to share this opinion. I agree that non-car transport efficiency, particularly in congested areas, should be prioritized, and I can't stand the idea of commuting by car (that's antithetical to the enjoyment of driving, to me). I don't rent cars when I travel, for example, because I will derive no enjoyment from driving some shitbox rental car that's been beaten to fuckery, and it's expensive. I will not drive in very bad weather, nor during peak times if it's at all possible to avoid, because that would be miserable. That doesn't change the fact that I love driving and I love my car. Given that there are a lot of "car people", wouldn't we be better off emphasizing how better urban design and non-car commuting options will actually improve traffic and make driving more pleasant? EDIT: I'd also approve of having a nice racetrack somewhere near the city, so people don't feel so compelled to do stupid poo poo on public roads. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It was totally clear in both the links I posted, and the source is the CAA. If you actually spent some time considering statistics when people link to them, instead of posting gut-feel anecdotes, you would get a lot fewer probations and badvatars. I didn't read the details of the link because I didn't disagree particularly with your assertion. You could've just said, "it includes depreciation and/or finance payments" either in your original post or in response to mine, instead of being snarky about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The problem is our zoning and finance systems basically mean it's either horrible suburban developments or expensive condo towers. It's called the "missing middle" in urban planning. Single family areas near the cores become extremely expensive, but at the same time have the political power to resist any sort of change. Instead, the only groups powerful enough to push through development are massive well connected developers who want to build 30 story towers of tiny condos. The other option is greenfield development farther and farther out from the city of lovely cookie-cutter houses. Both are actually the least efficient ways to house people. Suburbia requires massive amounts of infrastructure that the tax base can barely justify, so basically its an extremely subsidized style of living. Condo towers are more efficient on all fronts, but a tall thin building is very expensive to build as it requires extensive engineering, expensive materials, and a lot of space "wasted" on stairs/elevators. Also development is very political, there's a high cost to all the red tape and political processes to get anything built so only the most experienced and well-equipped developers can get anything done. Back in the day most buildings were built by the people that were going to be using or living in them. An interesting point. It certainly does seem that developers engaging in spec housing or spec renovations will go balls out to the highest luxury level that a market could possibly ever support, leaving the choice for a prospective buyer either "marble bathrooms, exotic hardwoods, and stainless steel everywhere" or "lovely old house that is falling apart" and like competing against the flipper for the latter who is paying cash and has no inspection requirement as they are going to just gut it. But how could you curtail that activity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
A good city is inclusive of a variety of lifestyles and types and classes of people. A good city has a gradient of housing ranging from high density car-free in the core, to apartments with limited/optional parking, all the way out to even single family homes and suburbs. If you are a "car person" you can find a place that suits you, just don't expect or demand your car to get you everywhere quickly and efficiently, or to not have to pay through the nose for a place to store your toys if you live in the core. I've always said pedestrian-focused city planning and policies are ultimately good for car people. Look at a typical clogged suburban highway. Do you think those people live int he suburbs and commute via car to work every day because they just love driving? No, they're forced into it by planning and economics. Set up a proper gradient of housing styles and the city's land area massively contracts meaning the distance from the core to the classic car and a lawn style suburbs is drastically lower, and all those not-car-people are living affordably in the core and walking/transit everywhere, clearing the roads up for car-people. Of course those car people have to pay for their passion, but it allows their cars to be sources of joy, a hobby, rather than a stressful and expensive necessity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Communist! In all seriousness though, I do wish that every tax incentive and political reality wasn't actively working against proper livable urban planning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I didn't read the details of the link because I didn't disagree particularly with your assertion. You could've just said, "it includes depreciation and/or finance payments" either in your original post or in response to mine, instead of being snarky about it. Snark begets snark.  But you're making an effort at reasonable and thoughtful posts today, so I'll leave off. PT6A posted:Given that there are a lot of "car people", wouldn't we be better off emphasizing how better urban design and non-car commuting options will actually improve traffic and make driving more pleasant? These are all valid points, and this is definitely the approach of a lot of cycling, walking and transit-advocacy organisations. There's a place for it, but unfortunately, the response to even the most reasonable proposals is often "War on Cars!" rhetoric from driver interest groups. It's worth examining how the Netherlands got to have some of the best cycling and walking infrastructure in the world (while maintaining efficient, albeit reduced-capacity road networks). It didn't involve pandering to motorists. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...infrastructure/ http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...g-cars-in-1972/ In particular, see this incident (in a video showing kids protesting for better infrastructure). That got broadcast on national television, and a ton of people saw an angry driver trying to start a fistfight with a group of peaceful protesters that included children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:An interesting point. It certainly does seem that developers engaging in spec housing or spec renovations will go balls out to the highest luxury level that a market could possibly ever support, leaving the choice for a prospective buyer either "marble bathrooms, exotic hardwoods, and stainless steel everywhere" or "lovely old house that is falling apart" and like competing against the flipper for the latter who is paying cash and has no inspection requirement as they are going to just gut it. But how could you curtail that activity? A lot of this is due to financing. I'm getting out of my element here and just going off memory but there were a lot of big changes to development post-war in financing. It started out as a way to exclude blacks from the new suburbs, but went into a full on heavy handed social-engineering policy to push everyone into the suburbs from the cities. How to fix it? Cut the red tape, relax zoning, encourage in-fill, and make self or group financing easier. In a lot of ways I think strict zoning and brutal approval processes have simply locked all but the biggest developers out of the game and had the opposite effect that a lot of communities wanted: ie more "locally sensitive" and organic development. It also drives costs the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:For instance in Victoria I'd love to see some of the core and ridiculously expensive single family neighbourhoods get replaced with more affordable row-houses and apartments. There's places here only a 10 min walk from downtown that are still single family houses despite being so close to downtown and well served by transit, but they have extremely powerful neighbourhood associations that lobby and protest and stop all change. The current Oak Bay population has to die off eventually. That's what I keep telling myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Cities are more than just hubs for jobs. The cultural value of cities is significant, especially when compared to suburban sprawl which has virtually no culture at all. Music, Art, food choices, access to people from different parts of the world, travel options, public transit, sports, organizations/clubs for virtually every interest under the sun, etc are all much better in cities and factor significantly on why people live where they live. I am certain I could work from home permanently and move to the suburbs to lower my cost of living, but that would loving suck, because I love Toronto and everything it has to offer and no 3500sq ft house with cookie cutter yard and 2 car garage would ever convince me otherwise. If anything telecommuting allows you to live in a dense centre and enjoy all the culture without needing to worry about how to get to your company's cube farm in the middle of the industrial wasteland. I was recently looking at a job in Surrey and the ability to telecommute was one of the most interesting things about it because gently caress Surrey. Baronjutter posted:The problem is our zoning and finance systems basically mean it's either horrible suburban developments or expensive condo towers. It's called the "missing middle" in urban planning. Single family areas near the cores become extremely expensive, but at the same time have the political power to resist any sort of change. Instead, the only groups powerful enough to push through development are massive well connected developers who want to build 30 story towers of tiny condos. The other option is greenfield development farther and farther out from the city of lovely cookie-cutter houses. Both are actually the least efficient ways to house people. Suburbia requires massive amounts of infrastructure that the tax base can barely justify, so basically its an extremely subsidized style of living. Condo towers are more efficient on all fronts, but a tall thin building is very expensive to build as it requires extensive engineering, expensive materials, and a lot of space "wasted" on stairs/elevators. Also development is very political, there's a high cost to all the red tape and political processes to get anything built so only the most experienced and well-equipped developers can get anything done. Back in the day most buildings were built by the people that were going to be using or living in them. Can you run of mayor in Vancouver instead of mayor flakes-a-lot thanks Lexicon posted:I totally don't agree, but obviously you aren't alone in this (otherwise, Top Gear could not be the most popular franchise in television history). I just don't give a gently caress about cars. I appreciate that they enable road trips, etc, and I'm happy to drive one when it makes sense, but in many ways they have a lot to answer for how cities and towns have been shaped over the past century in North America. Basically, I'm the opposite of a car guy, and a loud proponent of the view that cities are for people, not cars. Cars are stupid and useless in the city from an economic perspective but driving quickly around corners never gets old. I grew up on a farm so have it biologically ingrained that having one is necessary. Frankly I think of mine mostly as toys and value them that way in my financial planning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
You will address his honourable lordship mayor moonbeam by his proper title in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
All these things Baronjutter mentions aren't exactly closely guarded secrets. Pick up a book on urban planning and chances are you'll find it all there, and more. Certainly anyone with an actual urban planning degree is well familiar with all this. Like, the "what ought be done" part of the problem is very very very well understood. So what you should really be wondering about is why exactly it isn't how things are actually done... [spoilers](It's the deliberate and coordinated efforts of private interests, most notably developers and car manufacturers)[/spoilers]
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Also, stepping back a bit into the subject a hand, something's been bugging me: When exactly did the CMHC start restricting mortgage terms again? Has the volume of sales actually responded? I understand prices themselves can take a very long time to react, but the units sold should have dropped off almost immediately. Like, with the new terms, no matter how badly you want your $800,000 meth lab, the bank just can't give it to you on a middle-class income - so sales volume for that price bracket should go back to tracking households entering/leaving the sort of income bracket that can actually afford it. I know volume has been dropping, but I feel like it wasn't that big a drop, and also a fair bit more recent thatn the CMHC changes. I mean I guess it could be that people are just buying $300,000 micro-appartments or whathaveyou instead since that's all they can get - then the total sales volume would indeed stay the same - but is that actually what's been happening? Has anyone observed such a shift - i.e. volume for high-price properties decreasing significantly after the CMHC changes, and a corresponding rise volume for lower-price items?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:True, but that's more or less a given in a higher-inflation scenario. It would be demanded....However, food, vehicles, consumer goods, clothing, etc have never been cheaper in percentage-of-earnings terms....The oft-cited point is that "real wages are stagnant". Stagnant, not dropping. Remember that is how things have played out in the US and so far Canada seems to be following the US's shoes here. There is no reason at all to believe that employers/govt. will suddenly decide to do the right thing. Especially the Canadian govt. They did after all help form and currently still try and sustain the housing bubble. No govt. that is competent and interested in the well being of its citizens would do that. The cost of everything else has risen so much that it has far outstripped what savings have been made on those items. So you what if you spend effectively half (or whatever) for a shirt now vs what you paid in the 70's if the cost of college has more than doubled? One costs perhaps 10's of dollars, the other can cost you 10's of thousands of dollars. Vehicles certainly haven't become cheaper though. Even if wages 'only' stagnate everyone becomes poorer if the cost of living steadily increases. Which it has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Wages haven't stagnated, they have in fact decreased over time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Wages haven't stagnated, they have in fact decreased over time. QFT. Hard hourly wages have fallen through the floor when you compare them to inflation adjusted examples from the past: In 1973 the minimum wage in BC was $2.25/hr. Using the Bank of Canada inflation rate, that's worth roughly $12.32/hr in 2014. Ergo, between 1973 and 2011 (when they finally increased it), the minimum wage fell by over thirty loving percent. Even today, minimum wage workers are making $2/hr less than they would have in 1973. Median salaries have absolutely stagnated, though I speak in psychological terms there: for some reason everyone still thinks $30k/yr commands the same purchasing power as it did forty years ago, and accepts it as "middle class". A $30,000/yr salary in the 1970's would be over $160,000/yr today. A 447% decline. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
I figured as much but quick googling wasn't giving me a good source (that and I'm lazy) for Canadian wages over time so I just went with showing how under his favorable 'wages are stagnating not dropping in real value over time' scenario the situation is still hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rob-ford-s-cranes-in-the-sky-line-examined-by-economists-1.2607440quote:
hahaha 9% hahahahahahahahahahahha quote:
holy loving poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
23%??? Jesus, man, that explains a lot about some of the stuff I've been seeing in this town. I knew it was bad but that's European bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Snark begets snark. Denmark had a similar grassroots movement after people got tired of cyclists and pedestrians getting killed by cars. It literally changed the course of all the cities since after world war II the country moving towards a American car focused transportation system. Paper Mac posted:23%??? Jesus, man, that explains a lot about some of the stuff I've been seeing in this town. I knew it was bad but that's European bad. Here's a article which has stats for some other major cities in Ontario: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-youth-unemployment-among-the-worst-in-canada-report-1.1473423 High unemployment is due to things such as Dutch disease wiping out other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing jobs and also how after the 2009 recession the province government adopted many Eurozone style cuts to help the budget. etalian fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TorontoBubble/status/457567866900844544/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
brucio posted:Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service? Yeah I don't understand that infograph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
brucio posted:Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service? Office and service needn't be mutually exclusive. When you phone your bank to inquire about a fee - that's both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
brucio posted:Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service? Employment is usually broken down into goods producing and service providing sectors. Office jobs are usually categorized under service providing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Office and service needn't be mutually exclusive. When you phone your bank to inquire about a fee - that's both. Yeah but the land use infograph separates them, so there's no overlap. Bad infograph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
brucio posted:Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service? I was wondering this - I think it's another geographical stat rather than an employment stat (like, 48% of the jobs in toronto are in an area of office buildings?) but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Most of the land use is for office jobs, most of the jobs are service jobs. In other words, service jobs don't take up much land. edit: still a bad infographic because it should say '48% of the land use in Toronto is for office jobs' if that's what they mean
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:I was wondering this - I think it's another geographical stat rather than an employment stat (like, 48% of the jobs in toronto are in an area of office buildings?) but I'm not sure. It was explained above, but many service jobs take place in an office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:Most of the land use is for office jobs, most of the jobs are service jobs. Service jobs are just anything where you're not being paid to give someone a physical product. A customer service job is both in an office and is a service job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
So before anyone starts asserting that it's a good idea to curb asset bubbles with monetary policy, take a look at what's happened to Sweden's attempt to curb their housing bubble by raising interest rates: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26612
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
I dunno. That blog post seems to boil down to "there's no such thing as an asset bubble". He even blames the 1929 crash on government interference. I mean, isn't the alternative that the bubble just inflates even bigger until it bursts "naturally" as in 2008, causing even more pain for everyone? Also it's a blog called "The Money Illusion", and he sincerely asserts that the Swedish Riksbank should be making decisions about national fiscal policy on the advice of bloggers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I dunno. That blog post seems to boil down to "there's no such thing as an asset bubble". He even blames the 1929 crash on government interference. Sumner is a bit of a nut job. He's making his mark in the economics world with 'nominal gdp targeting' as an alternative to inflation targeting. That said, it has never been the mandate of any national bank anywhere in the world to make fiscal policy, let alone staunch asset bubbles. I just shake my head whenever dumb shitheads complain about the cost of groceries and blame the bank of canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:So before anyone starts asserting that it's a good idea to curb asset bubbles with monetary policy, take a look at what's happened to Sweden's attempt to curb their housing bubble by raising interest rates: The thing you have to understand is that bubbles/booms are inherently unstable and will in the end always blow up. You can't predict the exact cause or exactly when it will happen but it -will- happen. The best a govt. can hope to do if it finds that it has inadvertently (unlikely, they usually require regulators to 'look away' to form in modern economies) allowed a financial bubble/boom to form is to pop it early. If they don't pop it early it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and when it finally does pop on its own the situation is that much worse. That is why any good regulator and/or central bank interested in the well being of its citizens is going to 'take away the punch bowl' just after the party gets started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Good news out of "Canada's Most Expensive Housing Market" - helper mortgages! 2.5% downpayments are the new 5% downpayments! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBl5MfA3QiU It's a good thing we're Not Like The States though, right guys? How Not Like The States we are? It'll totally be okay this time because it's Not Like The States!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:An interesting point. It certainly does seem that developers engaging in spec housing or spec renovations will go balls out to the highest luxury level that a market could possibly ever support, leaving the choice for a prospective buyer either "marble bathrooms, exotic hardwoods, and stainless steel everywhere" or "lovely old house that is falling apart" and like competing against the flipper for the latter who is paying cash and has no inspection requirement as they are going to just gut it. But how could you curtail that activity? The most straightforward way to accomplishing this is to ban the sale of any residential zoned property that isn't fit for residence. Either the property can be renovated pre-sale (and must be inspected), in which the seller will do a minimum job. OR the property can be demolished and we essentially start from nothing. Exceptions are: Heritage buildings. These are done on a case by case basis, and the planning board (or equiv) iss given leeway to approve the sale as is or approve sale on condition of 'compliant' renovations. Foundation only. Building is removed, but the foundation is preserved for use in the new building, subject to inspection. Bankruptcy. Property is sold at auction as usual, but the auction includes compulsory inspection at 60, 120 and 240 days to ensure the property is being brought up to spec. Cost is built into the auction fee. Act of god (fire, flood, earthquake, etc). Properties impacted are grouped up and sold to a holding company owned by the underwriter and a demolition/construction company. Holding company works with planning board to evaluate current and future land use, and (re)builds based on the outcome. Underwriter may be government agency. This is pretty brutal, but it would work. You'd end up with a bunch of homes renovated to the minimum spec, and a solid inspection regime would insure the work doesn't get too shoddy. Depends a lot on effective inspectors, and policing them against brides/laziness would be needed, but that is always the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:00
|
|