Toronto Peter Street Condominiums | 129.84m | 40s | CentreCourt | a—A

what in gods name....

THREE bedrooms in 772 sqft? my place is about 750sqft and i have ONE bedroom...

crazy isn't it ...
just more developer crap and marketing so they can state in their brochures "3 bedrooms from $499,900"

i'll bet that some of the bedrooms will be no bigger than 8ft x 8ft with 3 feet of closet space.
 
And yet magically they manage to sell them. You'd almost think that there was a market for such small spaces... in an urban centre of all places!
 
Photo taken May 4/11


5687320093_fc1f06b419_b.jpg
 
3 bedroom condos are great for urban families to add to the growing demographics but these sizes are a total joke. What Clewes says below is very true in terms of urbanism but, man, 303 sq.ft. studios is pushing the threshold. Sigh...

The object, of course, is to make living small not only comfortable, but preferable. “It’s an interesting social phenomenon,” Mr. Clewes says. “How can people live in such small units? Actually very well. If it’s well-laid out, it can be very lovely. There’s a very spare, clean way of living that’s very attractive. People will use the neighbourhood more, because they don’t have the 36-inch Sub-Zero and large space to entertain — so they’ll go out more.

“There’s a [growing] mix of office, retail and residential here, which is turning the neighbourhood into one of the most interesting in the city. And it all starts with these smaller units; it creates a culture, a vibrancy in the neighbourhood.”
 
Check it out, there's an even smaller 3 bedroom unit, at 741sqft:

Found some floor plans here: http://www.theredpin.com/toronto/peter-street-condominiums

the 3rd bedroom of the 772 sqft unit is ridiculous at 10ft x 6 ft, with only 1 bathroom and minimal closet space for a 'family'.

i'm not sure if it's an error on the part of the RE agent; however, the total 'square footage' includes the balcony space too, as does the maintenance fees ?!?!?

that's not typical, nor right.
 
Last edited:
the 3rd bedroom of the 772 sqft unit is ridiculous at 10ft x 6 ft, with only 1 bathroom and minimal closet space for a 'family'.

i'm not sure if it's an error on the part of the RE agent; however, the total 'square footage' includes the balcony space too, as does the maintenance fees ?!?!?

that's not typical, nor right.

I saw this plan. It's brutal. No wonder it's going selling for 499,000.
 
Clewes is a little guy. Three-hundred square feet to him is what 400 square feet is for other people.
 
If it's any assurance, last year I had a 225 square foot studio in Korea.
One of my co-workers had a 170 square foot pad too.
Oddly we each had to pay almost $100 a month in heat during the winter, and Seoul ain't as cold as here.
 
I'm sure whoever is going to purchase that 741 sq.ft. 3-bedroom unit will probably knock down a couple walls and combine the 3rd bedroom into the living area -- wait a minute, they already have a plan for that.
Not only are the bedrooms incredibly tiny, the kitchen and living area is not designed/sized well for families or anything more than a couple (the kitchen is the same as in the bachelor units).

That 772 sq.ft. 3-bedroom unit is the same as the 772 sq.ft. 2-bedroom unit except they replaced the guest bathroom with a 3rd bedroom. Having 3 bedrooms sharing 1 bathroom is really slumming it.
 
Last edited:
You gotta love those renderings that pretend that the glass will be all transparent and the buildings as light as air. That's one of the oldest tricks in the architectural rendering book.
 
Has this developer developed anything yet? From the amount of agents that keep sending vvip emails, i think this will be a strict investor building.
 
Even in the investor controlled real estate frenzy of the Hong Kong market, a 772 s/f unit would be considered incredibly small. My cousin's 3 bedroom condo at The Waterfront is at least 1,100 s/f. But in the end, this condo will sell if the market stays hot and investors keep buying.
 

Back
Top