Toronto Life has gotten around to trumpeting The Condo Generation – nudging its aging boomer readership toward a few more investment properties, while giving those younger basement-dwelling idealists concerned with the environmental future of the city something to wax rhapsodic about. And for those falling between dominant demographics, specifically the 26-to-39-year-olds depicted with smug smiles alongside the floorplans of their 677-to-1200 square foot converted digs, priced between $206K and $316K, the feature supports any argument that the typical urbanite born between 1966 and 1979 won’t be doing much of lasting value with their lives.* Leanne Delap takes a break from writing about her divorce from Jacob Richler to interview a radio news reporter, food editor, marketing manager, interactive designer, record company minion and manager of account services at a company that studies tween trends – all savouring the extended adolescence enabled by projects like Radio City and the Tecumseth Lofts. At least condo king Brad "Not Brett" Lamb seems amused by the cycle of emotional disorder that’s making him wealthy: “We get them single. We get them when they move in with someone," he says. "Then we get them when the relationship breaks up.” Whether or not these units are constructed well enough to remain appealing for the long haul, or if the market crash that Toronto Life (who dedicated a panicked cover to the already-expired subject of Renter’s Hell four years ago) insists will never happen savages the self-esteem of those who’ve taken the condo plunge, what will linger are memories of an age group that managed – contrary to all anti-yuppie posturing of the past – to appear even more vacuous than any generation that came before. Hopefully they won’t mind if any Generation X derelicts take up residence over a grate in Douglas Coupland’s park. (*Disclaimer: This post is the opinion of someone working as a blogger. Who owns nothing. And pays too much rent.)
The Condo Generation [Toronto Life]
6 responses so far ↓
Jeremy Wilson // January 17, 2006 at 5:30 pm |
It’s sad that $300K buys what is essentially a box, with one bedroom, if you’re lucky.
Emma // January 18, 2006 at 3:08 pm |
Oh please. Could we get over the hatred of condo-dwellers? My unfashionable, slightly more than mid-rise building downtown is full of a mixed bag of the vacuous nouveau-yuppies you describe, older people who have sold their labour-intensive houses and moved downtown, immigrants who grew up in densely populated cities abroad, students living in units bought by their parents, and people who want to walk to work or other things nearby. What do you get for $300K? — well, apart from one (and maybe two) bedrooms and some living space — location. Not everyone wants to live downtown, but for those who do, living in a condo makes sense and the smaller space is a welcome tradeoff.
Clide Rockwell // January 18, 2006 at 4:55 pm |
I agree, its time to get over this rediculous ranting and raving over condos. $215,000 bought me an extra 2 hours of my day vs. schlepping on the GO Train out to some horrible suburb. Sure, its only 650 square feet, but how much space do you really need? Why should one person live in a 1200 square foot townhouse in the burbs, so they can have a backyard to entertain that one Saturday a year? Please!!!
Lena // January 19, 2006 at 12:24 pm |
Condos are okay, but why do they have to be so ugly?
realestatejunkie // January 19, 2006 at 1:59 pm |
The story is littered with contradictions and shameless broker double-speak and rhetoric. Lamb remarks have all the integrity and objectivity of a snake oil salesman and the housing economists and builders association reps have CONFLICT tatooed to their perma-smiles. Condo Living has many enormous advantages and its degree of penetration in Toronto should in most cases be celebrated and trumpeted as the sign of a maturing and very vibrant and thriving metropolis. Notwithstanding, the PACE of new SUPPLY (mostly speculative) is ALARMING and DISTURBING and without question provides a sense of foreboding for all those with a vested interest in market stability and security. Demand for these vertical subdivisons CANNOT keep pace with the supply and wence the “speculative refugees” (ie those who blithely and so very ignorantly see Toronto condos at $320/sq. ft. a vertiable bargain on a world scale) wake up the dynamics of the market and either dump or abandon the units they purchased by the dozen the tall cue ball will be singing a totally different tune.
Check out my blog for further discussion on the subject at
http://www.realestatejunkies.blogspot.com.
Mike // January 27, 2006 at 2:12 pm |
“It’s sad that $300K buys what is essentially a box, with one bedroom, if you’re lucky”
People who say things like this either a) lucked in to real estate when houses were cheap or b) are proud-to-be-renting-I-won’t-be-tied-down potheads. Either way, clueless.
First of all, it isn’t true. 300k now buys you a very liveable 2-bedroom apartment in most parts of the city. Or even, as in the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood, basically in the dead centre of the city. Not such a crazy idea.
Second: So what? What’s the alternative for people who have 300k to spend today? A rooming-house shitbox in Chinatown (once you renovate and fumigate), or a 30-foot lot in Markham (once you buy a car).
Even those people in Toronto Life are living with a tough financial reality. This city is expensive. Ten years ago, they would have been just as annoying in their fixer-uppers with Ikea kitchens.
You must be logged in to post a comment.