Printable View
Attachment 26331
A nice big house, but $23.889M? Detroit's promoters really need to play up the housing bargains abounding here. I know a view of the Ambassador Bridge isn't quite up to that of the Golden Gate, but here that SF price could probably get you Meadow Brook Hall, if it were for sale. http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/20.../#photo-422115 Check the link and think what this Pacific Heights Victorian might command in SE Michigan.
Most people would bet you the return on that SF home is going to be higher over the long term than an equivalent luxury home in these parts. Like an expensive stock, the buy-in price is a function of the amazing long-term appreciation.
So who's crazier? The Bay Area resident paying a million bucks for a dumpy house appreciating at a 20% annual clip, or the Metro Detroiter paying 200k for a nice house showing almost no long-term appreciation? I guess the answer is whether you view your home primarily as an investment, or as the place you plan on living forever.
You gotta think bigger. I'm sure this little Vancouver beauty has appreciated since Sept. 2013.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...MOO6xSaH1BOm7Q
Until the State of Michigan has an abudance of good-paying jobs available and is able to properly maintain its infrastructure [[instead of having it crumble like all of the bridges that have been shut down lately) like San Francisco, housing will continue to remain cheap here, as not many people want to live here. Sure, we have plenty of beautiful outdoor scenery and fresh water, but so do several other states that are much healthier.
In order for real estate to appreciate, someone needs to be willing [[and able) to buy it. Now, this particular house may be exceptional, but cities like San Francisco and DC are definitely overheated. Incomes are not keeping up with real estate prices, indicating that those prices and gains are unsustainable over the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Wasn't the idea of Home-As-An-ATM-Machine one of the primary causes of the 2008 economic collapse? I'd rather buy an affordable home and have money left over to enjoy my life, rather than mortgage myself up to my ears, throwing every nickel of earnings into a house, *hoping* that it appreciates in value when I sell it one day. But that's just me.
Places like SF and DC were not representative examples of "home-as-an-atm-machine" practices. These cities, SF moreso than almost anywhere else, do not have high home ownership rates. The places where people do use their houses as banks tend to be in the lower cost cities [[like the Detroit area), where the entry bar to home ownership is lower and more people participate. But the cities with high home ownership rates don't hold their value well because excess supply is the mechanism to keeping real estate cheap enough for low bar entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Even if there is a bubble in SF real estate it probably won't be a dramatic collapse because the limited supply will hedge against that.
Real estate markets in places like the Bay Area and Manhattan do not resemble the rest of the country because the economies of those places are unique to those places.
The increased wealth of the Bay Area has arguably been earned through legitimate economic trade generated by the vast, unprecedented technology advances created there during the digital age. Billions of tech profits have flowed in the Bay Area like nowhere else on the planet.
The explosion of wealth in Manhattan has a different source and comes mostly from zero sum wealth transfers from the rest of the country and the world. The finance industry has fueled Manhattan real estate for many years now. But finance has mostly devolved into rent seeking on a massively profitable level creating "too big to fail" institutions and seven figure compensation for professionals who simply gamble with other people's money. Add in billions from foreign oligarchs and you get $2000/sq. ft. prices for starter apartments.
These markets seem crazy to us, but they're not given the wealth that resides there.
Wall Street has almost nothing to do with the current real estate boom in NYC. Wall Street has been in fairly deep down-cycle since 2009. It's now recovering, but it has little to do with the city's economic or real estate growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline
There are, in fact, fewer jobs on Wall Street now than six years ago, yet the city has had faster jobs growth during that period than at any time in modern history. Granted, Wall Street is very important to NYC's economy, and as it recovers it will probably eventually fuel job growth, but not in the past few years.
I do agree that tech plays a major role in SF prices, but SF was expensive long before the current tech boom, and 90% of tech is 40 miles south of SF, in Silicon Valley. Somewhere like Pacific Heights likely has very little tech money [[it's an impossible commute from Pac Heights to Silicon Valley).
Probably the biggest reasons these cities are so expensive is because 1. They are huge bastions of foreign investment [[especially NYC), 2. They are extremely NIMBY [[especially SF) and 3. They have red-hot economies [[even looking outside the core financial and tech industries).
And in NYC most for-sale real estate consists of coops, which almost never suffer deep declines during down-cycles, because of the nature of coops [[which generally require 50% cash buys and extremely strict rules on minimum assets). Of course coops don't appreciate as quickly as condos during boom times.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
One thing that could put a cap on SF's real estate market is water. If drought persists, regardless of economic strength there simply won't be enough water to support the existing population let alone continued growth that would support increased real estate values.
While the price of unusual properties like the one posted at the top of the thread is not necessarily tied to the general price of real estate, real estate prices in the Bay area are very high relative to the incomes of Bay area residents. They are the highest relative to income in the country. It is possible that there could be high levels of appreciation going forward, but that isn't the way to bet.
I don't think that's true. The Bay Area has a much higher median income than New York, but it is not that much more expensive [[if at all on a regional level).Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Further, the Bay Area real estate is not expensive from a historical perspective.
Quote:
The San Francisco housing market, according to Trulia chief economist Jed Kolko, isn't really that overvalued when you consider current median incomes. When Kolko looked at the historical relationship between median income and medium home prices in the San Francisco area—including Marin and San Mateo—he found that houses here are only 6 percent overvalued right now. Compare that with the height of the housing bubble, just before the 2007-08 crash, when housing was a whopping 53 percent overvalued.
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/08/07/gasp_sfs_housing_market_is_not_that_overvalued_aft er_all.php
As I said above, the Bay Area is expensive because of limited supply which is pretty much normal for San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I believe you are mistaken about the similarity between NYC and SF prices. http://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8181993...prices-incomes
There may also be cultural factors at play, or simply the money buying this real estate isn't reflected in local income figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
For example, Toronto and Vancouver has real estate prices which are as high or higher than anywhere in the U.S. outside of NYC and SF, yet median incomes are more like that of Michigan [[or perhaps lower in the case of Vancouver).
So is Toronto a bubble market? Maybe. But maybe also there are cultural factors [[Asians are stereotypical huge savers and often have higher debt-to-income ratios yet lower default rates) or maybe foreign money is using Canada as a secure place to park money [[Canada has much more liberal foreign investment rules than the U.S.).
Bay Area has higher median home prices than the NYC area. The core markets in NYC are generally much more expensive in than in Bay Area [[so Manhattan, Brooklyn, and upscale close-in suburbs) but overall, yeah, Bay Area has the highest medians in the U.S. In contrast with the NYC area [[where you can find reasonably priced, decent suburbs in NJ and the like), there are basically no non-ghetto cheap areas in the Bay Area.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Toronto seems bubbly, but I'm not really trying to claim that SF is a bubble. I do think that it will require a lot of things to keep going right in the Bay area for the median house in SF to have higher-than-average appreciation from this point on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
The extreme top end of the real estate market isn't as much dependent on supply and demand as it is the finances of the prospective buyers. There may be only one interested party for a property, but if that buyer has the means and desire they'll pay the asking price regardless of the actual market value. That's why the asking prices and eventual selling prices for many of these homes can be so drastically different. The seller will throw out a crazy asking price with hopes that they'll stumble upon a buyer for which the price doesn't matter.
Give me gilded age and only 15 mil with another 30 mil in rehab.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
http://mobile.philly.com/classifieds...e&id=266532251
I'll concede that though I suspect some nuance there in how they define the SF market versus others. But I think the more important point is that from a historical perspective SF is not really that expensive right now, which means that it's not in a bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I watch you Michiganders from here in Vancouver, where you need $2.2 million to get you this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...rice-1.3012604
Home ownership or even condo ownership is only a dream for ordinary income earners like me. Be grateful for what you have in Michigan.
the canadian housing bubble just hasn't popped yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Király
http://www.financialsense.com/contri...-market-charts
http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2015/0...ts-resilience/
You are so correct, my Toronto relatives cant believe what we get for our money and they love the amenities we have for the price.. They have average paying jobs and are really struggling and cant afford many social evenings. Their wartime bungalow , 1,000 sq. feet, in a dowdy suburb cost 475,000. They always say how jealous of us in Michigan they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Király
I am so sorry, you make me sad. Have hope and faith. detroit is no picnic. I love my city, my neighbors, the best. My home outstanding. City policy sucks. See John's Carpet House Blues thread for a clue what our city wants to get rid of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Király
Still active in community work, pretty sure they want to move us out too. New development. Crappy homes, big prices. You wouldn't want to hear the screeching from my hood. All true, all sad.
Our furnace, not that old, 15 yrs, had a glitch. The service repair man wandered through our house saying wow. Our city is trying to get rid of these old neighborhoods, no respect for history.
Your neighborhood is definitely amazing. They don't build them like that anymore. Keep after the City to fix things.Quote:
Originally Posted by sumas
i have always maintained for someone who is self employed, travels a lot, or is retired, real estate markets like the one in Detroit area, it makes so much sense to live there over a place like SF.
Montreal has not suffered the boomtime nuttiness that other cities have because the kind of immigration we get is fewer Asians and more Euro-African-Middle Eastern, and Latin American. Toronto and Vancouver had waves of Chinese and South East Asians, Indians and Pakistanis with a fair bit of money come in as investors. But oftentimes in Vancouver the process of immigration s a ruse whereby an immigrant invests 3/4 of a million in a Tim Horton's or a cousin's supermarket and the principal and his family remain outside the country. The very wealthy will buy a bungalow for two million in West or North Vancouver on the North Shore, demolish and build a Humunga-home and it can remain empty most of the year. The result is that a lot of people refuse to be relocated for a job in the Vancouver market, because they can't convert the sale of their property in their city to something reasonable in Vancouver. There is no point in going to work, sending the kids to school and not have money to spare for coffee or a show, or the occasional piece of furniture. Vancouver's salaries don't cut it for the entry market either as Kiraly points out.
I agree with you totally, and I think some people are starting to see that alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by Detroit500
You get alot of bang for the buck in metro,, and can have a life on a average salary.. You can barely survive in many other areas.
Maybe not so much retirement now since Snyder imposed the income tax on pensions [[I know a lot of folks who now claim Arizona and Florida as their primary residence to avoid that tax).Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroit500
Of course, the average american is not self-employed, does not travel a lot and is not retired.
More pensions being taxed, sky high auto insurance rates and a state income tax in general kind of knock us off the list for a home destination for many retirees, frequent travelers or those looking towards a move to lower expenses. I know a lot of people that travel full time [[Mostly in RV's and a few sail boats). Almost all of them use Florida as their home address as there is no state income tax, reasonable insurance rates and liberal rules about state residency.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I don't understand why people in Metro Detroit feel the need to make silly comparisons between our area and places like San Fran, DC and NYC. I would suggest traveling the Midwest and you will see plenty of cities that are still considerably cheaper and offer just as much if not more. How can we claim to be such a value when the region is filled with so many other inexpensive options?
Actually, this is true. While Detroit is obviously dirt-cheap compared to the NYC and SF type cities, it's pricier than most places in the Midwest. Compare to nearby cities like Toledo or Lansing or Grand Rapids or Flint, and, apples-to-apples, Detroit pricing is much higher. Even bigger cities like Cleveland or Indy or St. Louis or Cincy or Pittsburgh tend to be cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTime
The metro area has lots of high paying technical jobs, and tons of residual wealth, and you don't get a lot for your money in the more desirable areas relative to other areas in the Midwest [[excepting Chicago and Minneapolis).
Maybe Metro Detroiters would rather live in a place like SF, DC or NYC, than they would most other cities in the Midwest...Quote:
Originally Posted by TTime
Maybe some would... I wouldn't go to California if you gave me a free house.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I'll take 1 in Pacific Beach right on the beach... and what the hell I'll take Gpwrangler's the same way too for myself. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpwrangler
What? They're giving them away and he said he doesn't want his, I'm not being a pig! I'll leave a nice tip.
Last time I was out there the tree huggers didn't like my car or my Harley much...and I didn't care for their politics lol. I'll leave the keys to the Free House under the fake rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Keys? Who carries keys? CA tech baby, just the newest tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpwrangler
If you're lucky, you get one of the virtual houses, the kind they keep putting cedar shingles on. They go poof faster than your computer can boot when the Santa Ana winds blow by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpwrangler
This whole thread has a form of 'grass is greener or browner' syndrome.
Which is to say, in my experience across the globe; w/some exceptions, everything is a trade.
Want high culture in spades? Low Crime? Access to luxury goods? Spectacular parks? and above average transit? Great! Expect, above average home prices, and rents; expect more congestion and immigration, expect higher wages, but not as high as the prices might seem to require.......expect more paperwork etc.
A society w/no laws [[and therefore maximum freedom) by definition has no crime; then again.....maybe it has tons..)
A society w/no taxes has no public services.
A society that has regulated public behavior [[ie. low crime) has laws and restrictions and taxes for police and other 'enforcers';
A society w/high-quality services has to pay for them.
***
There is of course variation in quality of execution; in nearby natural resources and communities are invariably at different points in economic and demographic cycles at any given time.
There is room for every place to improve by altering, abolishing or creating a new regulation; by increasing decreasing or altering a particular tax; or by investing in more in one or several public services and perhaps, less in others.
But simplistic judgements of 'value' are invariably arbitrary and lack context.
There are few places in the world I rather live that Toronto.........that said, I wouldn't mind a price correction in the housing market of 30% :)
To share a note; many Torontonians while grateful for decent economy and a nice place to live find the pace of development....intimidating and excessive.
One way in which this manifests itself is an ever more demanding municipal bureaucracy which lays down, technical, financial and environmental obligations on developers as never before. Discerning that in this market they can do that, and maybe it slows things just a tad.
Someone I talked w/told me [[can't verify) that a US supermarket chain that set up one store in Detroit not that long ago....was manifestly confounded by how long it took from planning to opening a store in the GTA......upwards of 2 years longer than comparable US locations someone said...........
Let me provide some details from a condo application currently going before council:
a. The community benefits recommended to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement are as follows:
i. An indexed contribution of $4,750,000 to be paid or secured as noted below in the Section 37 Agreement. The total amounts are indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto, calculated from the date of the Section 37 Agreement to the date of payment and is detailed as follows:
a. Prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit the owner shall provide an indexed cash contribution to the City in the amount of $4,750,000 to be allocated to capital improvements that will benefit the community in the vicinity of the project such as, but not limited to, non-profit licensed daycare facilities, community centres, recreation facilities, libraries, arts related community space, local streetscape improvements, Yorkville BIA capital projects, capital improvements to Toronto Community Housing in Ward 27, or public parks in the area, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;
b. Prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit, the City at its sole discretion may opt to use any or all of the $4,750,000 identified in Condition 4.a.i. in conjunction with any other funding sources at its discretion, for the purpose of parkland acquisition in the vicinity of the project, such parkland to be to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation; and
ii. To provide and maintain an accessible public pedestrian walkway on the west portion of the subject property which shall have a minimum width of 3.6 metres and shall provide a direct at-grade connection between Yorkville Avenue and the south property line generally within the area identified as "Pedestrian Walkway" on Map 2 of the Zoning By-law amendment, with the specific location, configuration and design to be determined in the context of a site plan approval pursuant to Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as amended and, as applicable, Section 41 of the Planning Act, as amended, and secured in a Site Plan Agreement with the City; such right of access to be secured by way of agreement[[s) to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
b. The following matters are also recommended to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement as a legal convenience to support development:
i. The Owner shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement for the properties at 836-850 Yonge Street and 1-9A Yorkville Avenue to the satisfaction of the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
ii. The Owner shall provide and maintain seven [[7) residential rental units on the subject site as rental housing for a period of at least 20 years, comprising three [[3) bachelor units and four [[4) 1-bedroom units, as shown on the plans submitted to the City Planning Division dated February 19, 2015 with any revisions to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division. Of these units, one [[1) bachelor unit shall have an affordable rent; an additional five [[5) units shall have rents no higher than mid-range; and one [[1) unit will have no rent stipulation;
iii. The Owner shall provide tenant relocation assistance for tenants in the existing rental units including an extended notice period, financial assistance beyond the minimums of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the right to return to a replacement rental unit for the eligible tenants, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;
iv. The Owner shall enter into and register one or more Section 111 Agreement[[s) to secure the rental replacement units and the tenant relocation provisions outlined above and as detailed in the draft Zoning By-law Amendments which are Attachment Nos. 13 and 14 to the report [[March 25, 2015) from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division;
v. The Owner shall enter into and register a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, agreeing not to transfer or charge those parts of the lands comprising the 7 replacement residential rental units, without the written consent of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division or their designate to assist with securing the Section 111 Agreement against future owners and encumbrances of the lands until such time as the City Solicitor determines that its registration on title is no longer required to secure the provisions of the Section 111 Agreement; and
vi. The Owner shall convey a portion of the land on the west side of the subject property to create a 6.0 metre wide public lane secured in a Site Plan Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services and the City Solicitor.
5. City Council approve the Rental Housing Demolition application [[13 246110 STE 27 RH) to demolish the seven [[7) residential rental units at 836-850 Yonge Street and 1-9A Yorkville Avenue pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 667 and three [[3) residential units also pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 363 subject to the following conditions:
a. the owner shall enter into, and register on title, one or more Section 111 Agreement[[s) to secure the following conditions as further detailed in the draft Zoning By-law Amendments which are Attachment Nos. 13 and 14 to the report [[March 25, 2015) from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor:
i. the owner shall provide and maintain seven [[7) residential rental dwelling units in the development, for a period of at least 20 years, comprising three [[3) bachelor units and four [[4) 1-bedroom units, of which five [[5) units shall have not higher than mid-range rents and additionally one [[1) bachelor unit at an affordable rent;
ii. the owner shall provide tenant relocation assistance for tenants in the existing rental building including the right to return to a replacement rental unit for the eligible tenants to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division; and
b. the owner shall enter into, and register on title, a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, agreeing not to transfer or charge any part of the lands without the written consent of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division.
6. City Council authorize the issuance of a Preliminary Approval by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division to the Rental Housing Demolition application [[13 246110 STE 27 RH) after:
a. the draft Zoning By-law Amendments which are Attachment Nos. 13 and 14 to the report [[March 25, 2015) from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, have come into full force and effect; and
b. the Notice of Approval Conditions for site plan approval has been issued for the development by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, pursuant to Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
7. City Council authorize the issuance of a Section 111 Permit by the Chief Building Official for the Rental Housing Demolition application [[13 246110 STE 27 RH) after the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, has issued the Preliminary Approval.
8. City Council authorize the Chief Building Official to issue a demolition permit under Section 33 of the Planning Act for the residential uses on the lot no earlier than the issuance of a building permit for the shoring and excavation for the subject lands; and of the issuance of Preliminary Approval by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, on condition that:
a. the owner erect a residential building on site no later than five [[5) years from the date the Section 33 demolition permit is issued; and
b. should the owner fail to complete the new building within five [[5) years, the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in a like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of twenty thousand dollars [[$20,000) for each dwelling unit for which a demolition permit is issued, and that such sum shall, until payment, be a lien or charge upon the land for which the demolition permit is issued.
9. City Council request the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, in consultation with the Director, Real Estate Services to report to Toronto and East York Community Council by the Fourth Quarter, 2015 on the parkland acquisition option, including the following:
a. The financial implications to the City in the event City Council were to elect to require the parkland acquisition rather than the cash contribution of $4,750,000 [[Recommendation 4.a.i.);
b. Detailed terms and conditions for the acquisition and capital improvements of the proposed parkland, including any other funding sources such as the cash-in-lieu received from this project under Section 42 of the Planning Act;
c. Any additional terms and conditions that should be considered by City Council in determining whether or not to require the parkland acquisition instead of the cash contribution.
*********
That's above and beyond the basics from the shadowing studies to the wind studies to the traffic studies etc. etc.
I'm not saying I oppose this per se............makes for the awesome place I live.....of course....also forces the prices up just a bit..............
I remember you mentioning approximately how many condos are currently under construction in your general area. Could you remind me again what your best guess of that would be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Just an estimate, but I'd say about 130 hi-rises [[of which maybe 10 are office) so 120'ish condos currently under construction.
Plus the low-rises.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decision...eting-2015.TE5
The above is the 'community council' agenda where I got the report quoted above.
I think I count 17 applications that are either final, seek direction or preliminary. [[for new hi-rise)
There are 8 mtgs scheduled this year, I'd say that's about average.
I am aware this boom won't go on forever.......though most of us called to end about 4-5 years ago.......
I totally agree. Michigan is increasingly getting to be one of the most expensive states to live in. They keep adding taxes on top of the insane taxes we already pay, not to mention some of the highest insurance rates in the country. Cheap housing might seem like a deal when purchased but it isn't a deal when you factor in the costs of property taxes, repairs and maintaining a property that when finished, the house isn't worth the investment you just put in it. And Snyder hasn't done Michigan residents any favors either, especially the seniors.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTime
Thank you for the nod to seniors. 104 plus 157 plus 113 plus 135 and not to forget healthy MI does not cover a $650 per month for a script so my husband can live. Thank you, affordable health coverage???
I am applying for food stamps, we kind of like to eat. Assuming my husband can live without that script. He can't process food without it.
Do I sound a bit bitter, yep!
That is a BIG boom. What a incredible economic engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Toronto, to me, is the worst of both worlds. The crappy transit, soulless sprawl and rampant ugliness of North America combined with the high taxes, overregulation, unaffordability and cultural devolution of Western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Michigan, despite all its suckiness, has nicer homes at half the price, and the jobs pay just as well, and more after taxes. If you have to be in the Great Lakes region and want a real city, then Chicago>Toronto, and much cheaper and better jobs, and if you really want a good job market and cosmpolitan city, the coastal heavyweights of NYC, Bay Area and LA are all vastly better than Toronto, plus more affordable [[relative to incomes) and vastly nicer.
The only positives from my perspective are tons of diversity, decent economy, and [[if you're into condo boxes) glassy condos everywhere, giving it a Guangzhou on Lake Ontario look. Skyline is third best in North America. And it's [[arguably) the premier city of a major country [[but Montreal, to me, is the real primate city, at least in urban feel, if not corporate might. Montreal looks and feels like Canada's urban heavyweight). And it's totally safe, but all of Canada is totally safe.
And this is a perfect example of Toronto's relative suckiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
Cities aren't great because of condo "safe deposit boxes" for corrupt Chinese Communist Party members. No city ever became great because of condo construction. The highrise boom in Toronto makes the city uglier and more anonymous by the day. You don't know if you're in Doha, Shenzhen, or Recife.
It's why the city is so often used for movie scenes. It's basically the most anodyne and anonymous global city anywhere. It's perfect for "major modern city somewhere in the developed world".
And this is the perfect example of the arrogant American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
If it isn't exactly how he would want it than it "sucks".
I feel like I'm feeding the troll.........but what the hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
First off, a lesson on etiquette, its fine to have an opinion, one different from mine or any other......and its fine for it to be strong too.
But you could use to learn how to express yourself in a way that might positively impact others........and if offered in real life not result in physical harm. [[not by me.........I'm just too nice, LOL)
But ........I digress
I actually doubt you've been to Toronto seeing as your criticism failed to mention a single street name or building or even architectural style.
For someone whose sure Toronto is all modern Chinese generica..... LOL...
You are aware this city has the largest collection of Victorian era homes in North America?
Bad Transit? Really? Third highest ridership on the continent; and 10-min or better service, 7 days a week, all-day, on most routes...............
Now if you'd said crowded......fair game...........overcrowded in rush hours.....I'm with ya.............could we use 2 more subways....sure...........
But sucky?
Sigh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
You know, I want to sympathize with you, but you kind of asked for it with the bigness of your shoes and the kind of attitude about the kind of city that can't go wrong.
Firstly, the number of Victorian era homes of which you speak cannot possibly be higher in Toronto than in New York, maybe St Louis or Cincinnatti, at most. Victorian era describes just that; an epoch not a style. While I enjoy Cabbagetown houses whenever I roam the streets of your fair city, I do not see the vastness in styles that exists in Montreal. Nothing like the Grey and brown and yellow stone houses that dot my city was ever replicated in Toronto; mostly brick.
Secondly, the condo boom in Toronto is the result of market forces that are pushed from the get go by hungry developers set on getting the most for the least effort. The list you gave above is a sham designed to snare the people into believing there is an effort at oversight where there is none. So, in effect Toronto's real estate market responds exactly to the kind of spec-drive that exists in Vancouver. It is as impersonal as it gets, a question of return on your investment, never that far form collapse, in the sense that it forces regular joes and jo-annes into a frenzy of opportunistic thought. It's OK if your life depends on it, but honestly, the game is lame in more ways than one. Vancouver is way off the charts and isn't worth it except for Chinese fast-exit operators which has now become the reason for living in the Greater Vancouver Economy.
Toronto has at least more reasons for developing and making good from a vastly superior economy than Vancouver's. The one problem is that it is a developer's game with a call center strategy bentyon squeezing whatever immigrant investor into a sliver of that geographical entity you call the Golden Horsesh.. into something greater than it is, in virtual fashion. So, really, Canadian Visitor, unless you are to contribute something positive to Detroityes like our other compatriots here, don't sound off on Hogtown's superiority, there is something lacking, perhaps a little "je ne sais quoi?" lol.