News   Nov 25, 2024
Work Advances at Line 5 Condos Near Yonge and Mount Pleasant
 197     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Pinnacle Resubmission Bumps Heights of Lakeside Project at Sherbourne and Lake Shore
 447     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Toronto’s Construction Boom: Prioritizing Worker Safety in High-Risk Environments
 366     0 

Throw away buildings - CBC

I just read that all of Toronto's single detached houses will be junk in 5 to 10 years. Turns out that these "roofs" they put on are only expected to last 20 to 25 years. If your really lucky they may stretch to 40 years. And then you have to replace them. At $20,000 or so per unit, you might as well just knock down the house.
 
azzo:

You are assuming that consumers are given the knowledge that the product they brought will likely fail in 15 years. If one makes it explicit that in their sales job, then I'd agree with you.

AoD
 
Chuck said:
I work in the industry, and in all honesty, articles like these are more accurate than false. Windows for example should last 30-35 years based on what is available on the market. However, cheaper products last 10-15 years if you're lucky. As for the cost, assuming floor to ceiling windows, complete replacement might easily be $10,000 per unit or more - a big expense to pay once a decade instead of three times per century.

Add to that the roof that fails in 15 years instead of 25, the caulking which fails in 10 years instead of 20...essentially you're screwed if you purchase a condo older than 10 years old. Of course, that's hardly an issue for the investors who sell within 5 years of occupancy.
Click to expand...

And what of those houses in the subdivisions? With all the repairs they will need due to below standard construction.

Chuck said:
You must remember that highrise buildings are ridiculously expensive to properly build and maintain - one of the reasons why most supertalls are commercial. Personally, I'd rent!
Click to expand...

Actually no, if you look at the world, i know Torontonians have a narrow mind of what the world is, most high rise buildings going up are residential.

nfitz said:
I just read that all of Toronto's single detached houses will be junk in 5 to 10 years. Turns out that these "roofs" they put on are only expected to last 20 to 25 years. If your really lucky they may stretch to 40 years. And then you have to replace them. At $20,000 or so per unit, you might as well just knock down the house.
Click to expand...

The subdivision my parents live in just outside Montreal has had huge issues with the roofs. I know of 4 houses on our block that had roofs replaced just after the 10 year mark and 1 house before the 10 year mark. I know the owners of that house took the developper to court. Need to find out whatever happened with the court when i go back this weekend.
 
After listening to two days of the radio broadcasts, I find the reporting to be one-sided and quite sensationalistic. The TV reporting and teasers of the feature are even worse.

Firstly let me preface by saying that I think most condo owners are aware, and its very well documented, that regardess of what your condo exterior is (i.e. glass vs concrete vs brick,etc), condo fees will be guaranteed to increase substantially at around the year 15 mark. It also can be argued that any brand new property you buy, a house, townhome,etc, will require you to spend a lot of money to maintain it as it ages.

Secondly, the more complex a building is, the more likely it is to have seriously expensive problems in the future. For example, personally I would not invest in either the Marilyn/Absolute condos or 1 King West (a friend who is a structural engineer told me some issues with this building).

Thirdly, buying into a building higher than 20-30 stories regardless of what the exterior is made of has increased risks (as oppossed to a smaller build form) because of increased complexities/specialization in technology for maintenance.

And here are the problems I have so far with the reporting:

1. They have so far failed to really make a differentiation between the topic matter, ie all glass will fail in a short time with the above three points.

2. They have failed to differentiate between good build quality and bad build quality. Using a lawsuit against Cityplace as an example for all condos, lumps all developers and builders as equals which they are not.

3. The reporting gives the viewer the impression that this is a distinctly Toronto problem and fails to really mention, that all new towers, both commercial and residential, in pretty much any urban centre in the world, even with climates similar to Toronto, are being built with glass.

4. They have quoted inconsistent lifespans for glass. One 'expert' has said 5-15 years. Another said 20-25 years. The two quotes makes a big difference.

5. They failed to provide any alternate points of view. Most of the experts they have had so far have a biased agenda. They failed to reference that there are some really old glass office towers in the downtown core that have primarily glass walls that have far exceed the 5-25 year life span. Two examples have been demonstrated in this thread.

6. They make the implication that because a building will require maintenance, that is it 'throw away'.

7. They failed to mention or report the cost of building a non glass tower.

8. They failed to really distance the issue of defective condo balcony glass (which most likely was the instigator for this report) from their topic matter, all glass curtain walls will fail in a short period of time. It leads the viewer/listener to fill in the gaps with an illogical conclusion.

----End

I have found the feature so far to be very educational, especially in regards to how glass fails. I do see the point that glass facades can be viewed in the future as a fad, and something that was somewhat ill-concieved.

But the bulk of the reporting has a strong fear mongering tone, and is absent of any counter arguement.
 
Makes you wonder who is going to buy units in these building 10-15 years from now, especially when the younger demographic moves out to the burbs and points elsewhere. Intersting to consider that St. James town may have better quality buildings than City Place.
 
^What do you mean "when the younger demographic moves out to the burbs"? Are you saying that when the current residents get older, have kids and move out there will not be new 20somethings to replace them? Or are you saying that in the future young people will not choose to live in the city?
 
What 20somethings will want, or afford, to pay the significantly higher condo fees to refit these units which, if these articles are to be believed, will be in dire need of repair and upgrades in 10-15 years time?
 
i think hes trying to say when 20 somethings get married and have kids and feel they need to move to the suburbs who will buy these units... I assume another young generation. BTW my 1920 house falls apart all the time. Thats simply the cost of ownership. If you can afford 500k for a condo im pretty sure you can afford to change the glass.
 
Mary Wiens is doing this series. I believe that she’s more a ‘columnist’ and not a news reporter. Her role is more of Metro Morning’s story-teller. Her stories aren’t meant to be straight-up news. (Though I’m surprised this topic is on her radar - See past spots on Roma teens in Parkdale; the Tibetan community in Parkdale; primary education and diversity in Parkdale; biking in Parkdale; civic action in Parkdale; the impact of streetcar track replacement in Parkdale…do I sense a theme?…wait, she lives in Parkdale? Aha!)

Beaconer is bang on – the article is fearmongery. But the root of the story she’s telling isn’t that glass will fail – that’s just the hook. 10 yr or 25 yr glass lifespan; cost of glass vs non-glass tower; good builder vs bad builder … none of that is the point.

The point of the story is that few/some/many/most of these condos – nobody really knows – were built hastily with visual appeal, not efficency/durability, in mind. Few/some/many/most – nobody knows - are going to have significant problems, but we don't know which or when. A few already have, and they're still young. What we do know is that, with the exception of a few high-end boutique and hotel condos, all of them have been built by corporations that no longer have any skin in the game.

Meanwhile people are moving into condos as a low-cost, low-maintenance living option. Many are NOT aware of the increasing cost of ownership with the condo. The state of an individual unit or even a building is more difficult to assess than a typical house. Aside from monthly fees (often artificially depressed or manipulated), cost of ownership only comes due every once in a while when something big fails, and the unit can change hands three or four times before that happens. And when the big maintenance comes due responsibility is diffused across numerous owners, many of which only stay a few years or are landlords that do not live in the building.

We haven’t had a condo frenzy like this for 15 years or so, and problems from that generation of buildings (differently built, maybe better maybe not) are only starting to come home to roost. And nowadays, single family housing is financially out of reach and condos are the primary entry into the market.

So if we're in the midst of a condo boom, and people are buying into them unawares of the long-term implications, and the building population is semi-transient, and builders know that aspects of these buildings will slowly deteriorate, and a few already are, and we don't know how many more will or when, who is going to be left holding the bag when that happens? That's the point, I think.


(Now, I think you could write the same story about new-build single-family homes too, but responsibility there is individual and therefore relatively uncomplex.)
 
Last edited:
This is intended only as a very general statement, but as long as the current cultural norm persists, there will be young people moving into the City and slightly older people moving out with their families. As young people are starting families later and later, the period of time they spend in the City, either single or as a childless couple, gets longer. Barring some external influence that has nothing to do with the quality of condos, these people need places to live. If buildings are falling apart and/or maintenance fees are sky high, then that will lower the price of those condos in relation to others. So the people who will take the loss on the building are existing owners/investors, not people who buy the places after the problems have surfaced. The real problem will be if owners/investors do not spend the money and we end up with a number of badly maintained condos. My inclination is to think is that as long as there is high demand for units close to the CBD there will be an incentive to maintain the buildings, but I agree it is a concern. It's all about demand -- just look at the money being thrown at renovating Toronto's single family housing stock across much of the city.
 
beaconer said:
But the bulk of the reporting has a strong fear mongering tone, and is absent of any counter arguement.
Click to expand...

What argument would you have in favour of window walls? They are inefficient and expensive to maintain. The issue isn't about condominiums per se, rather this shortsighted building facade that gives the illusion of wealth and luxury.

Curtainwalls, precast, cinder blocks etc are better building materials. Yes, it costs more, isn't sexy, etc but they are better for our climate. The general public doesn't really care that a window wall is easier to install than a curtain wall, or is half the cost for the developer.

At the end of the day, which is better for a condominium resident? Something that is expensive to maintain, or cheaper in the long run?
 
I'm with EMP on this. The point isn't that windows fail. It's that they provide little insulation value when working, and almost none after they fail. If all of the exterior walls are window, there's virutally no insulation value in the building.

Canada has an extreme climate that requires cooling in summer and heating in winter. Energy prices are climbing rapidly, and local citizens resist bringing any new source on stream. It seems mad to keep building glass houses in this reality. No one needs entire walls of glass to have a pleasant living space.

I think it's fairly likely that today's condo buyers will be real estate financial fashion victims 20 years from now. The tower renewal program of the 2030s may involve retrofitting the glass towers with real walls.
 
Lol well the thing is everybody, condo boards have relief funds worth 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars these days, so really, if something does "fail" in the future, they'll be able to afford to repair or replace whatever has failed.

I'd really like for someone to calculate the total value of the reserve funds held by condo boards in Toronto today, I'm sure it would be a very interesting and shocking number.

As long as someone is living, paying-for, and caring-for one of the thousands of new properties in the City of Toronto, there will be no condo crisis. Goddamn media.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top