waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Concord not looking too good so far
Brad J Lamb
@BradJLamb
Watching @CBC's, The Condo Game. Totally biased report, flat out misrepresenting quantity of quality issues in Toronto's industry.
But here's a point, how's it different then a house ?
Sure I agree, I meant in terms of quality concerns and the ability to address defects ... if anything the argument above could imply, in order for them to profit from housing they need to take even more short cuts, compared to say a condo development.
Hold on there. Single family dwellings on a mass scale in cities are a very new, 20th century idea. Large buildings with multiple residences (whether it's condo, rental, otherwise) have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's how most of the world's urban population lives and always has. There's nothing unproven about condos or high density living; it's mass detached housing that has no precedent. And its costs are still not fully known.I look forward to watching this if I catch it while I'm at home.
Regardless if you are pro or anti condo there are two facts we can't escape from in this city. They are:
First, like it or not condos are playing an ever increasing role in shaping our city not only physically but more importantly socially. Second, the long-term implications of this social change as well as the physical sustainability of this building type are untested.
Yes, high-rise buildings have been around for a long time and condos have been around for a long time. But what does a long time mean? Is 25 years (a standard design life for residential housing) a long time? Is 50 years a long time? Is 100? Compared to free hold single family dwellings or mid-rise structures that have thousands of years of history we are essentially building condo cities of the future that have no precedent in the history of civilization.
Hold on there. Single family dwellings on a mass scale in cities are a very new, 20th century idea. Large buildings with multiple residences (whether it's condo, rental, otherwise) have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's how most of the world's urban population lives and always has. There's nothing unproven about condos or high density living; it's mass detached housing that has no precedent. And its costs are still not fully known.
I suppose you could make an argument that living in skyscrapers is a relatively new idea, but not really any newer than detached houses for the masses.
The only reason that anyone is "anti condo" is because our society has convinced itself that detached housing is the good and natural way of living.
Yep I can see that ... a poorly managed condo board is a huge pitfall ... more so in the past when there was much less regulation then today (yes, many argue there isn't enough as it stands) though the new condo act will hopefully improve things.
A major issue I see is dispute resolution, and again the new condo act will attempt to improve this, but that's always been another serious issue.
Regarding fully glass condos, well, I imagine similar concerns should be shared by fully (or mostly) glass office buildings no ? Not saying this is not a concern though.
I'm not sure I understand this.. there were many detached and semi-detached houses in the Victorian era for example, which is 19th century. In fact, in our city, apartment buildings were considered morally inferior by many earlier in the century (and probably some people today). As far as I know we didn't have many walk-up apartment buildings until the 1920s, and it didn't really proliferate until after WW2. If you visited Toronto in 1900 I would expect that you would see rows and rows of Victorian houses in streetcar suburbs, some commercial buildings along retail streets and lots of churches, in a grid street pattern.
I guess by "detached housing for the masses", what you mean is post-car suburban development? Low-rise buildings certainly have more history than high-rise.