Wadhurst Townhomes | 11.75m | ?s

IMG_5572.jpeg

The site has been leveled, also looks like they changed the name to Ascension Block
 
northlands said:
Does anyone have insight on what are condo fees are usually like on rowhousing like this? And what do they typically cover?
Click to expand...
I know of one unit in a complex built in the 2000s. For a 1100 sqft unit, the condo fees are about $300 and cover external maintenance (snow shovelling, landscaping) and repairs (roofing, driveways, stairs)
 
Sorry no pic - foundations are poured for half of the townhomes but it's progressing fairly slow.

I wonder if Cantiro read the market wrong on this one. These 1,600 sq ft townhomes with no basements aren't selling at $800K to $1M plus despite the great location.

Homes in this area are unaffordable for most and these townhomes even create a further gap in that regard as the cost per sq ft makes them some of the most expensive property in this area. Although we know, infill doesn't equate to affordability per se.
 
TAS said:
Sorry no pic - foundations are poured for half of the townhomes but it's progressing fairly slow.

I wonder if Cantiro read the market wrong on this one. These 1,600 sq ft townhomes with no basements aren't selling at $800K to $1M plus despite the great location.

Homes in this area are unaffordable for most and these townhomes even create a further gap in that regard as the cost per sq ft makes them some of the most expensive property in this area. Although we know, infill doesn't equate to affordability per se.
Click to expand...
However, high priced infills tend to make existing stock cheaper. That's why we have to keep building at the high end of the market to maintain overall affordability. If you allow 'old' product to become expensive you've totally lost the affordability war - i.e. Vancouver.
 
occidentalcapital said:
However, high priced infills tend to make existing stock cheaper. That's why we have to keep building at the high end of the market to maintain overall affordability. If you allow 'old' product to become expensive you've totally lost the affordability war - i.e. Vancouver.
Click to expand...

My friend has a 50s home in Ritchie with lots of new infill around and his place has only gone up in value (he's had it assessed). His city assessment has also gone up. And there are some tear downs on lots in Ritchie that are asking more each year. So when you say it makes older stock cheaper, what am I missing?
 
TAS said:
My friend has a 50s home in Ritchie with lots of new infill around and his place has only gone up in value (he's had it assessed). His city assessment has also gone up. And there are some tear downs on lots in Ritchie that are asking more each year. So when you say it makes older stock cheaper, what am I missing?
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty small sample size though. You have to look neighbourhood wide, if not district and city wide. It’s still supply/demand economics. Look at condos centrally. Many have dropped in value due to more being built and lower demand. Infill homes just have a lot more demand and supply doesn’t jump by 100-300 units as quickly as a new tower leads to.

Neighborhood desirability is tough to measure as new infills often “cause” improvement to an area and also correlate to an area that’s already on the rise. Without infills, it’s not like central areas won’t still see prices rise. But with more infills/lot splits, hopefully they rise slower as there is more competition. A street with 20 old homes vs 20 infills and 10 old homes will ideally have some of those older homes still cheaper than if no infill was built.

And even without infill, lots of old homes get renovated and see large jumps in prices. That’s just the cycle of neighborhoods, especially higher land value ones.

More people spending 800k in central areas might mean less 800k homes in windemere, keswick, etc being built and that land being more 500-600k homes.
 
thommyjo said:
That’s a pretty small sample size though. You have to look neighbourhood wide, if not district and city wide. It’s still supply/demand economics. Look at condos centrally. Many have dropped in value due to more being built and lower demand. Infill homes just have a lot more demand and supply doesn’t jump by 100-300 units as quickly as a new tower leads to.

Neighborhood desirability is tough to measure as new infills often “cause” improvement to an area and also correlate to an area that’s already on the rise. Without infills, it’s not like central areas won’t still see prices rise. But with more infills/lot splits, hopefully they rise slower as there is more competition. A street with 20 old homes vs 20 infills and 10 old homes will ideally have some of those older homes still cheaper than if no infill was built.

And even without infill, lots of old homes get renovated and see large jumps in prices. That’s just the cycle of neighborhoods, especially higher land value ones.

More people spending 800k in central areas might mean less 800k homes in windemere, keswick, etc being built and that land being more 500-600k homes.
Click to expand...

I think I misunderstood the comment about infill making old homes cheaper - as in going down in price. It's cheaper in relation to the price of new infill homes (which tend to be a lot larger sq ft wise than the home they replaced), but prices are still rising. That's why owning land is so valuable.

Again in terms of Wadhurst, not one sale in a year other than the one 'sale' right at the beginning. Infill generally sells pretty well in Westmount but these haven't found traction yet.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top