+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 50 fl | U/C (/showthread.php?tid=38)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - dtkvictim - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 12:45 PM)jeremyroman Wrote: To be blunt, I resent the position that renters cannot form part of a "real community" and condo owner-occupants are "crazy".
That's not how I interpreted the above comments, but rather the built environment of absent investor developments are harming community development. The investors, who won't live there, have no reason to demand high quality construction, usable amenities, public spaces, etc. They may even be opposed to them in order to save money (unless it's cheap and marketable!).
Renters in general are more transient (mobility is a huge benefit of renting after all), which hinders community development. But I would bet a huge number of renters are "forced" into transiency because the homes they are renting weren't built with quality of life in mind.
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 12:45 PM)jeremyroman Wrote: To be blunt, I resent the position that renters cannot form part of a "real community" and condo owner-occupants are "crazy".
The "local need" is for more housing stock, and many of these developments provide dense new housing near transit, which is aligned with many policy goals. Do I wish homes were marketed more as places to live and less as speculative vehicles? Absolutely. That doesn't diminish the value they have in providing real homes for real people.
That certainly was not something I intended to imply. Renters are very much part of our community in our building, too, and some of them do stay for the long term (and, conversely, some owners move out rather quickly).
What I'm questioning is ac3r's assertion that very few people would buy a new condo to live in. The condo boards have information of wat percentage of residents are owners what percentage are renters; I would be interested in knowing how many people are buying condos to live in.
I very much agree that rental condo units provide places for people to live in, although some of that has been driven by the lack of purpose-built rental housing -- something that is changing now.
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - dtkvictim - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 02:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-26-2022, 12:45 PM)jeremyroman Wrote: To be blunt, I resent the position that renters cannot form part of a "real community" and condo owner-occupants are "crazy".
The "local need" is for more housing stock, and many of these developments provide dense new housing near transit, which is aligned with many policy goals. Do I wish homes were marketed more as places to live and less as speculative vehicles? Absolutely. That doesn't diminish the value they have in providing real homes for real people.
That certainly was not something I intended to imply. Renters are very much part of our community in our building, too, and some of them do stay for the long term (and, conversely, some owners move out rather quickly).
What I'm questioning is ac3r's assertion that very few people would buy a new condo to live in. The condo boards have information of wat percentage of residents are owners what percentage are renters; I would be interested in knowing how many people are buying condos to live in.
I very much agree that rental condo units provide places for people to live in, although some of that has been driven by the lack of purpose-built rental housing -- something that is changing now.
According to Statcan, 55.9% of Ontario's condominium apartments are owner occupied. As this number is trending downwards, new builds would be even below that. Better Dwelling, which I don't trust as a source, uses Statcan's Canadian Housing Statistics Program to claim that non-occupying owners owned 81% of the 3,210 condo units recently built in Waterloo Region. Or in other words, about 610 people purchased condo apartments to live in during the measurement period (since 2016).
I don't know how to navigate Statcan's data to verify this claim.
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 09-26-2022
Statscan's data on this is not 100% as they rely on surveys and there are multiple ways to interpret the questions. But I don't have a better data source, other than asking your friendly local condo board member!
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Lebronj23 - 09-30-2022
(09-22-2022, 02:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: Lol what the hell? I can't wait to see the next 7 videos.
You asked for it. He’s vid #2 !
https://www.duoliving.ca/?v=2&fname=Brad&lname=Noble&email=bradnoble15@gmail.com&phone=5195020652&city=Kitchener-Waterloo&country=CA&type=Investor&source=Other&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=duo_video_2
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - cherrypark - 10-03-2022
(09-26-2022, 04:25 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Statscan's data on this is not 100% as they rely on surveys and there are multiple ways to interpret the questions. But I don't have a better data source, other than asking your friendly local condo board member!
Drives me nuts that what should be really un-complicated data to collect is missing and relies on so many games of telephone and slanted assumptions (see: recent parroting of Chapman's poor reading of the 1/3 occupancy of Garment St).
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - ac3r - 10-15-2022
The lights in the shorter building are flashing like crazy this morning like they did in the Duke Tower building a few weeks ago.
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Votemac - 10-26-2022
I have a lot of pictures from the inspection of my unit yesterday but i'm struggling to re-size to post here
Until I figure it out, I've posted a few here
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/station-park-kitchener-vanmar-44s-kirkor-architects.32355/page-3
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Rainrider22 - 10-26-2022
thanks for sharing..
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Spokes - 10-28-2022
Thanks for these. If you're at inspection time, this is certainly an exciting time for you.
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Votemac - 11-01-2022
Move in is about a month away! Couldn't be more excited.
Here are some of the pics plus a kitchen shot. For obvious reasons, I'd rather not show too much detail of my specific unit but i'm happy to answer any questions
Tower A Lobby
Tower A Hallway
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - CP42 - 11-01-2022
Nice!
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Spokes - 11-01-2022
Awesome! Thanks for sharing
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - Rainrider22 - 11-02-2022
Cool, Best wishes to you in your new abode...
RE: Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 44 fl | U/C - tomh009 - 11-02-2022
I do like that wall (on the left in the second photo) -- that must have been a substantial upgrade, right?