Toronto Karma Condos | 165.8m | 50s | Lifetime | a—A

I don't see who would want to rent a suite this size. Certainly you could find something much more spacious in an older condo or rental building for the same $.
 
There is scaffolding on the site, and some type of fencing or hoarding around it today.
 
If nobody would want a unit this size, why is the developer planning to build them? Since they are the ones risking their money, I would think that they have carefully studied the market, and have concluded that there IS in fact a demand for them. I would trust their market research over somebody's 'gut feelings' that there is no market for them.
 
$685/sq.ft. is very high for this neighborhood, but then again the smaller the unit typically the more expensive per sq.ft.
These units are targeting investors who could rent them out for $1,000/mo., pied-a-terres (corporate alternative to hotels), and first time buyers.
Furniture layout and liveability in this floorplan is definitely a huge challenge. There isn't enough wall space for a murphy bed.

DNA3 has a 270 sq.ft. unit in their development.
 
A horrid floorplan.

Despite all the talk about market research, someone's getting conned: a place this size runs counter to just about every natural human instinct for space, reasonable comfort and ease.

An apartment like this looks like cynical speculation made concrete - pure commerce, with no ample human needs gumming up the works.

So that people aren't talked down and sidled into an even more inhuman set of arrangements soon, on looking at this, I would propose that the city of Toronto set minimum apartment sizes. Studios: 600sq feet. 1 bedrooms: 700sq feet. 2 bedrooms: 800 sq feet. etc.
This has gotten crazy.
 
Last edited:
Although if it meant living in a space that small to afford downtown living I would TOTALLY be up for it, I have to say, given that a lot of these will just be bought by investors who don't care...

...these floorplans are bad karma.
 
The largest apartment on the list is 819 sq. ft. (their 948 sq. ft includes the balcony, which is ridiculous), and they made it a 3-bedroom (way to get around the city's requirement for 3-bedroom apartments). With a single bathroom, no less. What is this, a rooming house?
 
CanadianNational said:
So that people aren't talked down and sidled into an even more inhuman set of arrangements soon, on looking at this, I would propose that the city of Toronto set minimum apartment sizes. Studios: 600sq feet. 1 bedrooms: 700sq feet. 2 bedrooms: 800 sq feet. etc.
This has gotten crazy.
Click to expand...

Those types of units would have a hard time selling. The starting price would have to be almost 400k for 600 sq ft studios.
 
I hope the OMB decides to grant an approval that is even less than what they got now ... that should teach Lanterra to be more grateful such to not appeal an approval decision @ 46s in the future ~
 
Solaris said:
I hope the OMB decides to grant an approval that is even less than what they got now ... that should teach Lanterra to be more grateful such to not appeal an approval decision @ 46s in the future ~
Click to expand...

What, look around...Lifetime Developments (and not Lanterra) should be able to even go taller considering the area.
 
It's a good spot for 52s, I hope they get it on appeal.
 
Mandating square footage per unit is an interesting idea. As someone going through a permitted renovation it doesn't seem any more intrusive than many other Code requirements. But 600 sq. ft. for a studio is too high. I lived in a 450 sq. ft. studio in Manhattan for over 3 years, 1 of which was with a spouse. It was fine, but older and poorly designed. $1,750 per month. A well designed 400 sq. ft. studio should be fine for many single people that work long hours and/or go out most evenings. The city is attracting young people, and not just finance types making 6 figures out of undergrad, so lower cost rental helps that. There are very few rental buildings going up in the city, and very few old ones in the core, so the investor condos fill that void. I have no idea whether there are too many of these units being sold, but there certainly is need for a good number of them. Now, 300 sq. ft. -- that seems small.
 
I work at home with unruly materials, so I've always needed a bachelor space to always be at about five hundred square feet minimum. That's pretty small in a city where temperatures dip below freezing for well over half the year.

Mandatory minimum sizes for apartments could be part of the downtown building code, as ordinary as standards for wiring, plumbing, fireproofing and accessibility.

Every standardizing innovation in code has usually been decried by those who work with property as being an impediment to availability and affordability. But this isn't quite the case.

I don't know all the mechanisms in place by which the companies that put up the buildings determine what their profit margin has to be, but I'm sure it's more flexible and subject to social determination than they might let on.

These pricey nooks look like the slider-burger or cupcake fad of the development world. People can be talked into buying almost anything, and I find this trend towards unnecessarily small spaces disturbing. Not just because the spaces seem an affront to human decency, but because of the precedent it sets in driving up prices and altering expectations of what can be gotten away with everywhere else. Unless you're a developer, flipper, real-estate maven or in a certain kind of acquisitive mood, I daresay these new micro-sized places don't look like good news.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top