|
Cultural Imperial posted:I don't think that's what everyone who bought a hotel condo in whistler was thinking kalenn. Those things are harder to sell than cancer. I was speaking specifically to the luxury ones in Toronto, although i didn't actually say that. 'Resort' properties like Whistler / Vail and such are totally different animals.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
For people who want the jet-set lifestyle, wouldn't it be more efficient to offer a premium service at high-end hotels where you can store a certain amount of personal belongings or luggage over the long term? That way, you have your stuff when you show up to the hotel, but you aren't permanently attached to the place via ownership. You'd simply tell them to bring your stuff up to your suite when you arrive, and then have them take it back down to storage when you depart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:While the facts are what they are, the reality is that the majority of people buying units in these things don't give a poo poo about any of that and just want the hotel jet set lifestyle. An extra couple thousand (or 10,000) is a drop in the bucket. This is same the Trump tower in Toronto that is at the centre of a purchaser class action, alleging “an investment scheme and conspiracy.” And that also only closed sales on ~50 of the 261 units as of last fall. Seems like some of that stuff mattered to someone. link
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:For people who want the jet-set lifestyle, wouldn't it be more efficient to offer a premium service at high-end hotels where you can store a certain amount of personal belongings or luggage over the long term? That way, you have your stuff when you show up to the hotel, but you aren't permanently attached to the place via ownership. You'd simply tell them to bring your stuff up to your suite when you arrive, and then have them take it back down to storage when you depart. I don't know, seems like you make more money by selling the customer a chunk of the hotel, ensuring that a) They'll always be coming back, since it's harder to hop to a competitor than if you were just renting them storage space and b) you can charge them fee out the rear end. Plus there's probably all sorts of fiscal and legal advantages to spreading ownership around. Your idea would be a better deal for the customer, but not as much of a cash cow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I don't know, seems like you make more money by selling the customer a chunk of the hotel, ensuring that a) They'll always be coming back, since it's harder to hop to a competitor than if you were just renting them storage space and b) you can charge them fee out the rear end. Yeah, I was talking about the customer's perspective -- it's definitely a worse deal for the hotel. Mind you, sitting there with a bunch of unsold units that aren't generating cashflow can't be that great either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I was talking about the customer's perspective -- it's definitely a worse deal for the hotel. Mind you, sitting there with a bunch of unsold units that aren't generating cashflow can't be that great either. I'm not overly familiar with the concept, but can't they rent out those units as hotel suites in the meanwhile?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I'm not overly familiar with the concept, but can't they rent out those units as hotel suites in the meanwhile? I'm not sure, to be honest. In the versions I've usually seen, the "resident" side of the building has a separate entrance with different security, etc. I can see why the concept appeals to people, though -- it'd be so nice if you could travel carrying nothing more than a laptop bag with some electronics, and a passport. I've already gone to carry-on only on all of my travels, and it's so much nicer than lugging a whole bunch of crap with you everywhere you go -- now just imagine cutting that down even further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Personally I wouldn't mind having daily maid service, but I doubt that's included. Otherwise, what does an hotel get you, access to a gym and pool and... lovely bar and restaurant I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Personally I wouldn't mind having daily maid service, but I doubt that's included. Room service and concierge. And by concierge I don't mean the "concierge" of most condo buildings, which is just a dude watching the elevator cameras, but an actual hotel concierge who has both knowledge and influence when it comes to attractions and restaurants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Room service and concierge. that's funny because I see concierges as sort of a leftover from another era. They may have been useful before the Internet, but now they're just bought off by local restaurants. If I want to find a good sushi place in Toronto, I'd check BlogTo or "CityEquivelent" before I went out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
peter banana posted:that's funny because I see concierges as sort of a leftover from another era. They may have been useful before the Internet, but now they're just bought off by local restaurants. If I want to find a good sushi place in Toronto, I'd check BlogTo or "CityEquivelent" before I went out. If you're a millionaire you're probably not the type to pull out your phone to look through blogTO. And that's just part of what a concierge does for a hotel guest. Plus if you actually live there, between the concierges and property managers they do all kinds of bend-over-backwards favours for you. Try getting a rental apartment super to organize a birthday party for your poodle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I think I can't even begin to wrap my head around the mindset and desires of people that rich. There's so many things I'd never fathom doing even if someone gave me a billion dollars because it just seems so wasteful, or lazy, or unnecessary or plain old tacky and embarrassing. I don't think I could design luxury condo projects or mansions because I just can't get my head in that space. I remember years ago I was working on a semi-rural luxury condo project that's marketing was about how green and in tune with nature it was. It wasn't in the slightest, the design was insultingly energy and material inefficient. The unit plans seemed insane to me, something like 50% of the floorspace was totally useless wasted space for hallways and foyers. The building also had a huge pool, multiple hottubs, a huge full gym, and a private marina that also had an attached building with showers and storage even though it was only for the residents and their units all had multiple bathrooms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
ironically being "maddeningly frugal" is probably the most reliable way for the average joe to become "rich" (financially independent)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
gently caress golf courses. Seriously just loving been golf now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:gently caress golf courses. Seriously just loving been golf now. Minigolf is the sport of kings. Unfortunately my favorite course was bulldozed so that a Wal-Mart could move two blocks down the road and pay slightly less rent 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
peter banana posted:ironically being "maddeningly frugal" is probably the most reliable way for the average joe to become "rich" (financially independent) Questionable. You can cut as many corners as you want, but unless you're making over $40-45k annually you aren't going to be putting much away in return for living as if you are below the poverty line. At best, an accident won't wipe out your savings. You certainly won't become a millionaire, or retire at thirty. The secret behind all the "money moustache" guru's is they had a stupidly high paying job for at least a half decade right out of school. I find their assertion that you, too, can follow in their footsteps if you just forego all joy for twenty to thirty years of your life to be horrific.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:gently caress golf courses. Seriously just loving been golf now. Try skeet shooting. It's like golf with a shotgun  Rime posted:just forego all joy for twenty to thirty years of your life to be horrific. I don't think anybody's ever made that assertion. Being responsible with money isn't mutually exclusive with no having fun, ever. Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:I don't think anybody's ever made that assertion. Being responsible with money isn't mutually exclusive with no having fun, ever. Agreed. The key is to separate your having fun and happiness from money. But, MMM himself admits that making a large amount of money probably helped him make the realisation much quicker that Rick Rickshaw fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:This is same the Trump tower in Toronto that is at the centre of a purchaser class action, alleging “an investment scheme and conspiracy.” And that also only closed sales on ~50 of the 261 units as of last fall. Need to differentiate between hotel-condo units, which are the troubled ones, and which are literally a private hotel REIT but with a stupid structure, and actual condo units which are places which people live in. Quite a difference in the economic case. There's all sorts of things that sound slimy about the deal but using it as a straw man for the point you're trying to make doesn't work. Like, this is not much different than a time share in economic terms, which isn't nearly the same thing as the high-end private condos which are bought by people to live in or rent out the normal way. PT6A posted:Yeah, I was talking about the customer's perspective -- it's definitely a worse deal for the hotel. Mind you, sitting there with a bunch of unsold units that aren't generating cashflow can't be that great either. If you're referring to trump, the units are generating cash flow and being rented, just none of that's accruing to the owners who are trying to bail. Lobok posted:Room service and concierge. Usually it includes access to all hotel facilities including concierge but NOT cleaning. You can pay extra to get that. peter banana posted:ironically being "maddeningly frugal" is probably the most reliable way for the average joe to become "rich" (financially independent) This is true, but the wealthy people who buy these services aren't the ones who probably made the money in the first place. They're the wastrel sons and daughters who spend most of their lives torching the houses built by their parents. That said, the rags to riches types can make different sorts of poor financial decisions: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
drat son i love slick rick and now i love u
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
How exactly do these hotel sale things work? I worked on a project that was a "luxury hotel" and from all accounts it was just a normal fancy hotel with all the amenities, but the hotel didn't own the rooms, people bought the rooms. Is it really as simple as the hotel then operating as if they own all the room, booking and renting them to the public, but the owner gets some agreed upon cut? Or is it something much more crazy filled with layers and layers of financial jargon ? I know the marketing is always "OWN PART OF A LUXURY HOTEL!" or "Imagine living pampered in a hotel with access to all its amenities". I'm not a fancy hotel sort of guy, when I travel I like to be out of my hotel as much as possible. But I understand some people like to fly around the world to sit around in a generic high-end hotel all day that's absolutely no different from the ones in their own town. If you love hotels so much, why not probably save a poo poo ton of money and just actually travel and rent a room when you need them? Mix it up, try different cities, different hotels. My guess is this system tricks idiots with too much money and delusions of deserved luxury into buying the hotel rooms for the hotel, thus spreading around the risk. Then once owned, even if the owners go all-out trying to rent the room and make money it doesn't even cover the mortgage after the hotel takes all its upkeep and service fees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How exactly do these hotel sale things work? I worked on a project that was a "luxury hotel" and from all accounts it was just a normal fancy hotel with all the amenities, but the hotel didn't own the rooms, people bought the rooms. Is it really as simple as the hotel then operating as if they own all the room, booking and renting them to the public, but the owner gets some agreed upon cut? Or is it something much more crazy filled with layers and layers of financial jargon ? So you're essentially buying a share of ownership in the corporation which holds the rooms. That corp hires a property manager or hotel operator (like Shangri-la) to do the actual job of running the hotel. The economic deals range from ok to really terrible, and the worst are ways for shady hotel developers to get Hence my comparison to a REIT, which is an alternate structure for doing he same thing but has real rules governing it's structure and disclosure and so is less subject to shenanigans. There are always conflict of interest issues, it's just a matter of degree. Structuring it as a condo corp is a way for the developers to get around the rules for investment trusts and investor protection and instead operate under the condo corp rules which are more favourable in many ways. I mean, a condo corp doesn't even require disclosure of ownership, meaning a shady developer / operator could use this sort of structure, hold 60% of the units directly, and have unfettered control over operations and how much they paid themselves for managing them, with almost no recourse for the minorities aside from risky litigation. Short answer, don't invest in these structures, they're shady and you're going to get hosed. E: I didn't read your full post before responding, your last paragraph basically has it. The only tweak is that the sort that's having problems at trump doesn't give you personal use, you're just buying a share of a hotel. If you want to use it you need to book nights like anyone else. They might get preferential rates or a set number of included nights just like a time share. Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Oh, and don't buy time-shares either. That's the hallmark of the profoundly financially-inept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I know the marketing is always "OWN PART OF A LUXURY HOTEL!" or "Imagine living pampered in a hotel with access to all its amenities". I'm not a fancy hotel sort of guy, when I travel I like to be out of my hotel as much as possible. But I understand some people like to fly around the world to sit around in a generic high-end hotel all day that's absolutely no different from the ones in their own town. If you love hotels so much, why not probably save a poo poo ton of money and just actually travel and rent a room when you need them? Mix it up, try different cities, different hotels. I get what you're saying, and I agree with most of it, but staying in a luxury hotel doesn't preclude you from spending a lot of time outside it, nor does it make it worthless. The beds and linens are generally of a better quality, the toiletries are high quality (meaning you don't have to carry your own poo poo in 100mL containers all over hell's half-acre), they tend to be in good locations, and concierge service is actually pretty great. On one hand, you could probably do everything with a smartphone, but if you're out of your hotel room all day, it's nice to get a restaurant recommended, the reservation made and the taxi arranged all in one go -- especially if you don't speak the language well enough to make a phone reservation. Add onto this nice amenities like a hot tub and/or pool (a nice way to relax after a long flight, or a busy day of walking around a city) and the ability to order yourself a nice cocktail or bottle of wine at all hours (whether you've just spent 15 hours travelling, or you've been partying, or whatever else), and it's really pretty great, even if you're not spending much time there. The morning after you arrive, you will probably be able to make yourself an espresso with the in-room machine, or order it and have it professionally prepared and delivered to your room, instead of making due with a lovely Mr. Coffee in the bathroom. It's just a pet peeve of mine that people act like they're a "better" or "more authentic" traveller than I am because I spend money on nice hotels. I think it might be sour grapes. I mean, I could look at my friends who stay in $1000/night suites (roughly 5 times my personal budget) and get all pissy about it too, but who really gives a gently caress? It's their business what they want to spend their money on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I get what you're saying, and I agree with most of it, but staying in a luxury hotel doesn't preclude you from spending a lot of time outside it, nor does it make it worthless. The beds and linens are generally of a better quality, the toiletries are high quality (meaning you don't have to carry your own poo poo in 100mL containers all over hell's half-acre), they tend to be in good locations, and concierge service is actually pretty great. On one hand, you could probably do everything with a smartphone, but if you're out of your hotel room all day, it's nice to get a restaurant recommended, the reservation made and the taxi arranged all in one go -- especially if you don't speak the language well enough to make a phone reservation. Add onto this nice amenities like a hot tub and/or pool (a nice way to relax after a long flight, or a busy day of walking around a city) and the ability to order yourself a nice cocktail or bottle of wine at all hours (whether you've just spent 15 hours travelling, or you've been partying, or whatever else), and it's really pretty great, even if you're not spending much time there. The morning after you arrive, you will probably be able to make yourself an espresso with the in-room machine, or order it and have it professionally prepared and delivered to your room, instead of making due with a lovely Mr. Coffee in the bathroom. I focused more on his comments re: the structure as an investment - I personally enjoy nice hotels, but I'd not invest in one via the awful pseudo-time-share structure. I'd rather just buy a REIT and use the money in not bilked out of to rent the room
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
I've heard of some of these hotel condominiums in the mountains in Alberta where you can live / vacation in the unit for half the year, and then the other half of the year (probably the winter when people like to go to the mountains) it operates as a hotel unit. There have been all sorts of assessment review board hearings on these types of properties and how the correct way to assess and tax them (residential vs. commercial use) is. There's a financial advantage to them registering the hotel under a condominium plan, and I don't think it's even so much that they can find some idiot to share in the cost of maintaining their hotel. I've personally seen a REIT buy a property (either a "regular" hotel or an apartment building), register the condo plan, and then keep 100% ownership of the units and operate it as your typical hotel... I think it's because they can get a higher appraised value based on the inflated price of residential condominium apartment units (as opposed to the appraised value of a similar hotel based on pure investment value) and therefore borrow more money against the property. These REITs are always leveraging their properties to get more money to buy more properties. It's pretty much all they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Even in Chilliwack, landlords are more concerned with cheaping out and breaking the law than putting in proper appliances. That might make their garage space a little smaller or cut into their profits, after all! Edit: Ahahahahaha this one is even more horrific. I like how even units in the heart of the DTES are over $575 now and don't include your own toilet. But hey, starving artists and low-income seniors can totally afford that!
Rime fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:There's a financial advantage to them registering the hotel under a condominium plan, and I don't think it's even so much that they can find some idiot to share in the cost of maintaining their hotel. I've personally seen a REIT buy a property (either a "regular" hotel or an apartment building), register the condo plan, and then keep 100% ownership of the units and operate it as your typical hotel... I think it's because they can get a higher appraised value based on the inflated price of residential condominium apartment units (as opposed to the appraised value of a similar hotel based on pure investment value) and therefore borrow more money against the property. These REITs are always leveraging their properties to get more money to buy more properties. It's pretty much all they do. That sounds like some form of limited time share arrangement. The main advantage of a time share over a regular hotel plan, from a financial perspective, is that you get guaranteed income. As far as I know, it's still an hotel for tax purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
ATVI (and I imagine most multinational corporations) owns or long-term rents or something a bunch of hotel rooms where they have people traveling through often. I got to live in one while doing some work in Dublin, and although the overall experience was life-draining and unenjoyable, having poo poo magically become clean by the time I came home was absolutely the best. Having invisible servants around is all the fun of, well, having servants, without the guilt/awkwardness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
This reddit thread is great. Normally I find any real estate discussion in r/vancouver to be dumb as poo poo; of course, why should I expect more considering r/vancouver is probably the best digital representation of Vancouver's population. http://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/277p7l/renter_vs_owner_condo_classism_is_pissing_me_off/ quote:actasifyouare [+1] 42 points 11 hours ago (47|2) You don't loving say. quote:the_canadian_chris [+2] 18 points 10 hours ago (18|1) quote:
yup. quote:CLS197 9 points 11 hours ago (9|1) What a lovely bunch of people, vancouverites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
hahaha what the gently caress is going on http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/is-vancouver-real-estate-heading-for-a-seller-s-market-1.2664056 quote:
2.8 million for a house in Vancouver is great value guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:hahaha what the gently caress is going on Depends on the house. lovely stats are lovely stats though. I always wish journalists would put more effort in and include reference to useful long-term comparable data and independent references. Pshhhhh, who am I kidding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Lolz at "same lifestyle for lower expense". Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Where the gently caress is this money coming from. $1M is above the CMHC cutoff right? I guess interest is still low, but with uninsured loans banks don't gently caress around with down-payments, who the hell still has that sort of cash available? I guess the ol' foreign investor trope could still turn out to be true. Or this can just be the usual reprehensible stats manipulation...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Once again pure anecdotes, but most of the people in my parents hood who buy are retired or semi-retired rich people who absolutely can afford a million dollar house. And of the ones who weren't rich from their careers were rich from selling their house in Toronto or Vancouver or locally or where ever. There's a LOT of boomers who bought in the 80's and 90's and saw their house value go up 5 or 10 times and are cashing out, but then re-investing that money in housing because house values going up that rate is all they've ever known. A lot of them are down-sizing but then using the difference to help their kids, which they once again think is a great investment. So they sell the house they bought in 85 for $100k for $700k, buy a nice 500k 2br and give their kid an extra 50 or 100k for their first house at 500k. That 500k house will obviously be worth a few million by the time they're ready to downsize and the cycle can repeat. This is how family dynasties are created! Also it's a mystery why their first house in the 80's was so darn cheap and those double digit interest rates could never ever ever happen again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
That would make sense for CMHC mortgages but again, when it's the bank's own money they are a bit more stickly for things like "do you have the income for a $1M mortgage" and not just the downpayment. Unless the banks are straight up counting on being bailed out CMHC or not which is not outside the realm of possibility I suppose.
Mrs. Wynand fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Unless the banks are straight up counting on being bailed out CMHC or not which is not outside the realm of possibility I suppose. At this point you can bet that is exactly what they are doing. It worked for every other country that burst, why should they think it will turn out any different in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
As far as I can recall, the banks don't have a particularly big exposure to uninsured mortgages. They likely won't need to be bailed out. It's the poor taxpaying sap and future generations that will pick up the pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
I feel like we rotate around to the same discussion every week or so. A) Canadian banks are required to apply prudent lending standards to originated mortgages or risk having their insurance cut off. Repeated excess insured losses risk having insurance cut off entirely. This is a big deal, because it is significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to securitize mortgages that aren't insured. B) tax payers are currently net positive 26bn in value from CMHC (which is being prettied up for a sale by the way); for us to be 'on he hook' would require significant insurance losses, the likelihood of which is relatively low. CMHC also does it's own review of credit quality based on a proprietary system. See my post here for more: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3533827&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post430206168 C) banks have lots of exposure to uninsured mortgages, but part of why they can continue lending is because they securitize them and sell then to investors, including pension funds, insurance companies and the like who are looking for certain yield structures. While securitized mortgages are off the books, the bank may retain marginal exposure to them depending on the structure of the security
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Cool I'll add this to the op.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:36
|
|