Oakville custom home architecture

[Memph]

There are many true custom homes in Oakville, but there are also many that are not.

A lot of lots being sold as 'custom homes', are lots owned by developers. Many older bungalows south of the QEW have been owned by developers, renting out these spaces for the interim. When they are ready to redevelop, some actually go ahead and have designs done. They then sell the real estate with the permit drawings to Owners. Some will sell the project to Owners, and offer different packages - so there is some customization but it is customization from developer chosen options. So in many cases, the expressions that you see on buildings do not entirely reflect the Owners.

Always remember that developers and contractors are inclined to limit choices for clients as much as possible. The more choices there are, the more possibilities for delays.

Yeah, that's true. Maybe it would be better to describe these as single unit SFH developments in contrast to the tract housing of new subdivisions.

 

[lenaitch]

My brother and sister-in-law lived in 'old town' (south of the QEW) for years, and it seemed every time a sold sign went up, the house was a hole in the ground within days. It always struck me that this was awfully fast given legal, permits, etc., even for buyers who are really good at planning, so your explanation makes a lot of sense in hindsight.

 

[junctionist]

There are many true custom homes in Oakville, but there are also many that are not.

A lot of lots being sold as 'custom homes', are lots owned by developers. Many older bungalows south of the QEW have been owned by developers, renting out these spaces for the interim. When they are ready to redevelop, some actually go ahead and have designs done. They then sell the real estate with the permit drawings to Owners. Some will sell the project to Owners, and offer different packages - so there is some customization but it is customization from developer chosen options. So in many cases, the expressions that you see on buildings do not entirely reflect the Owners.

Always remember that developers and contractors are inclined to limit choices for clients as much as possible. The more choices there are, the more possibilities for delays.

Everything I mentioned applies to developers as well. They can certainly make better architecture and design happen too. They could limit the choices to a few particularly strong options and then vary the design with the next project.

 

[wopchop]

Everything I mentioned applies to developers as well. They can certainly make better architecture and design happen too. They could limit the choices to a few particularly strong options and then vary the design with the next project.

Completely agree.
My explanation wasn't meant as an excuse, more as some context to the idea that owners are tasteless. I would say that most owners who are building a house are concerned only with interior finishes, focusing their money on that. Mostly they are completely clueless about architecture, exterior finish, and all the other systems that makes a good build - water management, building envelope/insulation, mechanical systems, etc. And this cluelessness shows in the quality of builds that are being done and purchased.

Yeah, that's true. Maybe it would be better to describe these as single unit SFH developments in contrast to the tract housing of new subdivisions.

If you take a drive around Oakville, you will see many $1.5M - $2M homes being constructed with the absolute minimum code / bottom of the barrel construction practices. It is shocking.

I would say that you are right in that a lot of these builds are basically tract housing in older neighbourhoods except with higher quality interior finishes.

 

[Memph]

If you take a drive around Oakville, you will see many $1.5M - $2M homes being constructed with the absolute minimum code / bottom of the barrel construction practices. It is shocking.

I would say that you are right in that a lot of these builds are basically tract housing in older neighbourhoods except with higher quality interior finishes.

In new subdivisions? Because you're not gonna see new homes under $3m south of the QEW.

 

[wopchop]

In new subdivisions? Because you're not gonna see new homes under $3m south of the QEW.

Yes you are right. Not sure why I wrote it that way.
What I meant was the construction cost. I would not include the real estate value, because it does not accurately reflect the $ spent on the new home construction itself. The dollars spent on the land and original house isn't helping make a better new house.

In this area, most of the bungalows seem to be selling ~$1-1.5M, depending on frontage. After that, let's say average $500/s-f from what is being spent on these homes around here. You could do it for less, or more, depending on the level of finish.

 

[Memph]

Yes you are right. Not sure why I wrote it that way.
What I meant was the construction cost. I would not include the real estate value, because it does not accurately reflect the $ spent on the new home construction itself. The dollars spent on the land and original house isn't helping make a better new house.

In this area, most of the bungalows seem to be selling ~$1-1.5M, depending on frontage. After that, let's say average $500/s-f from what is being spent on these homes around here. You could do it for less, or more, depending on the level of finish.

At $1-1.5M you're probably looking at the smaller lots and less prime neighbourhoods around Kerr Village, Fourth Line, etc where bungalows might go for about $150-200/sf of land. In more desirable areas (SE Oakville and waterfront areas around Appleby College) bungalows can go for $250-$400/sf of land, which for 0.3-0.4 acre lots can translate to upwards of 3m.

In the more affordable parts of South Oakville, could probably find a 1-1.2M lot, build a 3000 sf home on it and turn it around for 3m.

The pictures I took though, you're looking at more like 2.5m for the lot, and the possibility to build a 6,000+ sf home and selling it for 5m+.

 

[wopchop]

At $1-1.5M you're probably looking at the smaller lots and less prime neighbourhoods around Kerr Village, Fourth Line, etc where bungalows might go for about $150-200/sf of land. In more desirable areas (SE Oakville and waterfront areas around Appleby College) bungalows can go for $250-$400/sf of land, which for 0.3-0.4 acre lots can translate to upwards of 3m.

In the more affordable parts of South Oakville, could probably find a 1-1.2M lot, build a 3000 sf home on it and turn it around for 3m.

I'm looking at realtor now, west of Dorval and there are definitely bungalow lots in the range that I quoted.
I wasn't really referring to anywhere east of the Thirteen Mile Creek, as that is a different universe.

 

[Memph]

I'm looking at realtor now, west of Dorval and there are definitely bungalow lots in the range that I quoted.
I wasn't really referring to anywhere east of the Thirteen Mile Creek, as that is a different universe.

Fair enough, although west of Dorval, bungalows are still fairly likely to remain bungalows whereas east of Downtown Oakville they'll most likely be redeveloped once they go up for sale. (do you mean Fourteen Mile Creek? Or Sixteen Mile Creek? I don't think there's a Thirteen Mile Creek...)

 

[wopchop]

Fair enough, although west of Dorval, bungalows are still fairly likely to remain bungalows whereas east of Downtown Oakville they'll most likely be redeveloped once they go up for sale. (do you mean Fourteen Mile Creek? Or Sixteen Mile Creek? I don't think there's a Thirteen Mile Creek...)

Sorry, yes, Sixteen Mile Creek

You would be surprised how much mansion redevelopment is happening west of Dorval to Third Line. All along Bridge and the streets off of it. The area around Bridge & Warminster especially has a lot. I would definitely say more than East of Dorval to Kerr, where frontages are typically narrower.

West of Dorval it is easy to demolish the existing, build a 3000 SF+ house and still meet the lot coverage maximum (35%)