Toronto U Condominiums | 183.79m | 56s | Pemberton | a—A

As an aside, prices in the Hamptons, a Long Island beach town about 100 miles east of Manhattan for the rich and famous, have sold at $400 PSF.

You can't really compare the price per square foot of a condo apartment to that of a house.
 
Ontario and more specifically Toronto has some of the highest tax rates in North America on new housing - and will have the highest tax rates once HST is implemented. These prices are not "insane" and are a reflection of the tax environment, land supply, labour and materials.

If you think these prices are bad, wait until the HST comes into play next year and Toronto's new development charges increases (bascially doubling) are phased in over the next couple of years once the freeze is lifted.

For many new homes and condos in the Toronto the sales tax alone would be:
13% HST
2% Provincial Land Transfer Tax (phased in rate)
2% Toronto Land Transfer Tax (phased in rate)

On a $500,000 new home/condo (basically a downtown middle class two bedroom condo) the sales taxes would cumulate to an additional $77,200 in sales/land transfer taxes.

That of course doesn't include various other taxes, charges and fees that are embedded into the price such as:
Development Charges (Municipal, Regional, Education & GO Transit)
Storm Water Management Fees
Topsoil Removal Fee
Regional Water Meter Fee
Engineering Design Review and Inspection fee
Public Art Charges (1% of construction costs in Toronto)
Engineering Fees
Parkland Dedication Fees (Cash-in-Lieu)
Building Permit Fees
Planning Fees (Various Development Application & Processing Fees)
Plan of Subdivision (singles and row houses)
Plan of Subdivision Registration/Review
Site plan approval fees
Plan of Condominium fess
Ministry of Environment Engineering Review
Land Registry Closing Fees (Title Registration)
Conservation Authority Fees
Electrical Permit - Electrical Safety Authority
Legal Fees
Costs associated with municipal by-laws
Additional costs due to recent building code changes
Toronto's Green Development Standards
Toronto's incoming green roof by-law
WSIB Premiums (Home Builder Rate Group) + WSIB Premiums passed on to builders by trades
Surcharges imposed by trades to cover potential Ministry of Labour safety fines
Tarion Registration Fees
Tarion Enrolment fees

And the list could go on... yet people still wonder why housing is increasingly becoming unaffordable...



The pricing is insane. Whose to blame is beside the point.
 
You can't really compare the price per square foot of a condo apartment to that of a house.


No you can't but people, realtors, and appraisers generally do.

IMO a house should have a higher value since it has substantial land value since the house on it is a depreciating asset; while condos have almost no land value since one never owns it, plus the land value is diluted by the density on it and again the tower is depreciating in value with age.
 
IMO a house should have a higher value since it has substantial land value since the house on it is a depreciating asset; while condos have almost no land value since one never owns it, plus the land value is diluted by the density on it and again the tower is depreciating in value with age.

True, but the structure of most detached houses will "fall apart" much faster then a modern concrete tower.

Of course there's more land associated with a house vs a condo, but condo's still have land. For example, a well located condo unit at Bay/Bloor might own a 1% share of the buildings plot. 1% is not a huge share but, depending on the location, could be worth quite a bit.
 
IMO a house should have a higher value since it has substantial land value since the house on it is a depreciating asset; while condos have almost no land value since one never owns it, plus the land value is diluted by the density on it and again the tower is depreciating in value with age.

There is still a land component in the cost structure - which can be very substantial depending on the location and number of units to spread the cost between units (with land values escalating depending on potential density).
 
The pricing is insane. Whose to blame is beside the point.

It's not about 'blame' or 'insanity' - there is a fairly rational reason behind most price points (however there are always some projects that deviate from the norm) - if one were to look at a project pro forma & feasibility study there usually isn't anything 'insane' printed. There are clear rational reasons based on supply side inputs and market studies to support selling prices.

Perhaps there is another thread that would be more appropriate to discuss so called insane prices as despite the broader moderation in condo sales absorptions this particular project by Pemberton is actually doing quite well at the current prices.
 
Jeez. Just forget it. I'm fully aware of the business end of things. I'm more concerned about the socioeconomic impact of the entire system. It deals with dollar amounts most can hardly comprehend. It's widely considered safe or a sure bet ignoring the fact its as cut-throat as any with a continual chain of abusee turned abuser. That misguided amateur investors are being convinced $650 a square foot is of good value at this time and place is of concern. That the gross costs are $550 a square foot to build is beside the point. (there are many, many buildings out there whose market value is less than the cost to build)

True, but the structure of most detached houses will "fall apart" much faster then a modern concrete tower.

Are we talking after abandonment? Otherwise, I'm not convinced. You'd be hard pressed to find a concrete tower from 40 years that hasn't had major structural repairs and/or reconstruction. The same can't be said about a house from that era.
 
Of course there's more land associated with a house vs a condo, but condo's still have land. For example, a well located condo unit at Bay/Bloor might own a 1% share of the buildings plot. 1% is not a huge share but, depending on the location, could be worth quite a bit.

Mike in TO said:
There is still a land component in the cost structure - which can be very substantial depending on the location and number of units to spread the cost between units (with land values escalating depending on potential density).


According to the Community Planning docs:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-10219.pdf

"The development permission the applicant is seeking is 74,000 square metres, which represents a gross density of 7.9 times the area of the development site."
... to me that means whatever the land cost was PSF has been diluted to 1/8 of the value.
 
Jeez. Just forget it. I'm fully aware of the business end of things. I'm more concerned about the socioeconomic impact of the entire system. It deals with dollar amounts most can hardly comprehend.

The socieoeconomic impacts of maintaining an affordable supply of housing to attract labour supply and a high quality of life for the middle class are obviously very important. I don't think anyone would be advocating that downtown Toronto become a playground for the rich. One of the best things about this city is that it is still by and large home to a diverse population with a range of incomes. So yes from that perspective the price increases are obviously something that we should all be very concerned about.

Sorry Cdr, I don't quite follow what you mean... I was suggesting that for example if a plot of land cost $10,000,000 and 100 units are built on it, that a $100,000 land component per unit is built into the price per unit.
 
According to the Community Planning docs:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-10219.pdf

"The development permission the applicant is seeking is 74,000 square metres, which represents a gross density of 7.9 times the area of the development site."
... to me that means whatever the land cost was PSF has been diluted to 1/8 of the value.

Sorry Cdr, I don't quite follow what you mean... I was suggesting that for example if a plot of land cost $10,000,000 and 100 units are built on it, that a $100,000 land component per unit is built into the price per unit.

Hypothetically speaking ....

let's say it cost $10,000,000 to buy this plot of land of 100,000 sf.
That equals $100 PSF.

However, the density being built on that land is 7.9x the development site.
Therefore, the land value for each unit has been diluted to $12.65 PSF = $100 / 7.9
 
Usually the anticipated densities are a factor in the land sale price. Obviously there is a risk factor, but both the buyer and seller would typically take into account what type of density a zoning change would bring and that is reflected in the price for the land. Therefore in the hypothetical price of $10,000,000 - both the buyer and seller would have anticipated a density in the range of 7.9x coverage give or take a bit... had only half the density been anticipated the initial cost for the site would have reflected that....

So yes in the example at 7.9x coverage the price works out to $12.65 PSF - however I wouldn't use the term 'diluted' as the value of the initial land sale would have been based on anticipated density.

The case is certainly different when land is held over an extended period of time vs. taking a product to market shortly after the land is acquired.
 
Last edited:
what's up with these "grand opening" e-mails that i'm getting from U Condo?? how many "grand openings" do they have??? in the e-mail it states something like...."come visit the sales office before it is released to the public"....got that e-mail yesterday.... from my knowledge...it's been available to the public for quite some time... i don't like how builders/salesreps misinforms the public/potential buyers :mad:
 
Agreed! I think U is desperate. Imagine, 320 sq ft for 220K. "Urban Design" studio. ITS ONE ROOM!!!! ONE ROOM.... omg. The math does not work. Who will buy this? I should add that these developers need to take a lesson out of Empire's Fly. That project sold when they adjusted prices to suit the market. U is such a disappointment....the plans are krap, and the prices are outrageous.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top