Heintzman Place (Options for Homes) - Real Estate -

[o_range]

Very interested in buying a unit....
Can anyone give me some insight as to how the 'co-op' title effects condo re-sale value in Toronto?

 

[rh-7]

Technically, the building is a freehold condominium. It won't be labeled a "co-op" in a sense that co-operative housing developments are today. The only reason why it would be referred to as a co-op is because (like most condos), the tenants will be sharing a co-operative role in paying for expenses relating to common areas (i.e. condo fees) and gas, water, heat, etc...

If you're thinking about buying, you should get looking quick because most of the building is sold (phase 1 and 2). I believe that the only units left are either on the 2nd and 3rd floors or perhaps a select few facing North on higher floors. There are also a number of the 2 bedroom corner units still available, but they were the highest price units in the building, I believe. Although, it wouldn't hurt to ask if they plan on adding 3 floors...you could end up with a sweet unit at the top!

 

[o_range]

rh-7,thanks for the info

I've heard there's not much left...I'm trying to get into the next info session, but am away with work all of January.

On one of the above threads I read that north facing units don't have balconies - is this true? Why not?

Thanks again

 

[rh-7]

Two reasons: 1) The train tracks are right there and the noise levels would be high when trains go by, and they don't want people complaining about how trains make sitting on the balcony not so fun. 2) NRI Industries specified as part of the agreement to support the approval of the building that there be no balconies on the north or east sides because NRI smells bad and is tired of dealing with complaints to the Ministry of the Environment.

 

[o_range]

Hmmm, interesting...why not the west side? (Assuming the building's north face is squared to the tracks)

I talked to a friend's lawyer tonight and asked him what the legal definition of a co-op was...his first reaction was one of surprise because as far as he knew, for the most part, they stopped building them 40 years ago. The reasoning behind this is that a true co-op means (according to his definition) that the unit owner does not own the unit/property, but instead owns shares in the corporation which owns the building...something banks don't look highly upon. As a result, the resale value is low, which is why 'true' co-ops haven't sprung up in a few decades...and is what explains the nearly dead land value of Hamilton.

Either way, I think I'm going to opt for the $100 info session Options offers those who can't make their info scheduled sessions. Not enough time, too many questions...

Merry Christmas!

 

[adma]

What about all those co-ops that seemed to be coming up through the Rae gov't years? How do those differ from these "true" co-ops?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yeah, I had a prof who told me that she lived in one down in the St. Lawrence Market - could these be the same as those which adma mentioned?

 

[o_range]

What about all those co-ops that seemed to be coming up through the Rae gov't years? How do those differ from these "true" co-ops?

Really, I don't know anything about the co-ops in Hamilton, or the ones from the Rae years...and more accurately, I don't know what the exact definition of a co-op is.
But from what I've heard, and from what Adma says...then the next question is this: are the condo owners at Village at High Park going to be owners of the individual unit itself, or owners of shares in the company that owns the building?

Thanks.

 

[rh-7]

According to my agreement to purchase, it is a freehold condominium. It is not a co-op. I own my unit, and can sell it for whatever the market will pay whenever I want.

 

[o_range]

According to my agreement to purchase, it is a freehold condominium. It is not a co-op. I own my unit, and can sell it for whatever the market will pay whenever I want.

rh-7

You're right about the above. Also right about all units being pretty much gone. Absolutely everything on the south side is taken, and only a few left on the north. They get confirmation on the 3 floor extension next week, and there's already a wait for those.
Makes me wonder if they're thinking about another building in that area with selling rates like that...
hope so

 

[rh-7]

Well hopefully now that the building is essentially sold out, they'll start the demolition on time in a couple of weeks. Thanks for the update there, o_range.

 

[Jitterbugg]

Regarding the co-op issue - this building is NOT a co-op., really it is just a standard condo, the only difference is that that the company offers to assist with downpayments with the second mortgage. (Buyers who have enough for a good downpayment don't have to take the second morgage if they don't want to). Also, Options work on salary and do not take a profit on the unit.

I purchased a unit because I needed something with a den, because I have a home office - this was the most affordable for me. I don't regret the decision.

I go up to the Junction every couple of weeks to look around - and there is a new business opening every time I go. The thriftshops and check cashers are slowly closing out, the organic markets and art galleries are moving in. The area has personality - I really like it just how it is, but it is gentrifying no doubt. It will be like Roncenvalles Village in 5 years, unless Toronto has an economic collapse.

I purchased a 670 sq ft. unit with no parking/locker in phase 1 for $167,000 ($193,000 minus the second mortage) Does anyone know what a comparable unit in Phase 2 is going for? Just want to know if I'm making any money

 

[rh-7]

Regarding the co-op issue - this building is NOT a co-op., really it is just a standard condo, the only difference is that that the company offers to assist with downpayments with the second mortgage. (Buyers who have enough for a good downpayment don't have to take the second morgage if they don't want to). Also, Options work on salary and do not take a profit on the unit.

I purchased a unit because I needed something with a den, because I have a home office - this was the most afforable for me. I don't regret the decision.

I go up to the Junction every couple of weeks to look around - and there is a new business opening every time I go. The thriftshops and check cashers are slowly closing out, the organic markets and art galleries are moving in. The area has personality - I really like it just how it is, but it is gentrifying no doubt. It will be like Roncenvalles in 5 years, unless Toronto has an economic collapse.

I purchased a 670 sq ft. unit with no parking/locker in phase 1 for $167,000 ($193,000 minus the second mortage) Does anyone know what a comparable unit Phase 2 is going for? Just want to know if I'm making any money

I think you got a good price on that. I'm pretty sure that all 1+1 units were well over $200,000 for phase 2. I bought a 525 sq foot, one bedroom (technically a studio, but it's got a bedroom with door and all. The bedroom is 12'6" by 9'). I'm facing Southeast (so, downtown, high park, lake, no trains, etc...), and I paid 158,000 plus the loan of about 20,000 for the down payment, totaling around $178,000. My unit is quite a bit smaller than yours though! It is laid out well, so I'm pretty sure it'll be big enough for me.

You're definitely right about the area though. I've been heading over to the Junction a lot lately as well and it's really looking much nicer than it used to. Lots of galleries, and cool shops and restaurants. There's a Friendly Thai there now too...I think that's new! Plus Vesuvios, North of Bombay, and a bunch of other great little restaurants. Obviously, we're trying to convince ourselves that we've made a good purchase, but I think that the area is already a lot like Roncesvalles and will only get better in the next couple of years.

 

[baldrick]

more info on status

updating what rh-7 had to say - options for homes applied for and received approval for variances for a few more stories from the City. NRI has appealed the approval to the OMB, and is complaining that options did not advise them about the changes.

NRI is fighting another proposed building in the area, and is hyper sensitive about new residents in the area.

 

[Archivist]

Jitterbugg is correct about co-ops, and this building is not one. I think the co-ops/condos discussion gets confused because our laws and those in NY State are so different, but have some of the same terminology.

In Toronto, a "non-profit housing co-operative" means a non-profit housing co-operative under the Co-operative Corporations Act - this is the legal definition. I live in a co-op, and I pay rent to the Cooperative. No one owns their unit. The building is a mixture of "Market Rent" units and "Rent Geared to Income" units, so that someone up the hall from me might pay $100/month for the same unit as me. This model was that followed by the Rae government, and squashed by Harris.

Co-ops strike me as an ideal way to accommodate low income people. A lot of control over how a co-op is run is local, since there is a board of directors. People on low incomes are frequently a great resource for a co-op, because they often have a lot of time to lend to the administration of the building. The necessity to make decisions as a group leads to people knowing each other. You certainly have a mixture of incomes. I believe there is a program which offers some grants or loans to co-ops to assist them with big ticket repairs - so the buildings are frequently well maintained. Finally, because they are not marketed to the public, the architects frequently seem to have more leeway to express themselves in the buildings - so they are more interesting and of a higher quality (ironically) than many condos.