[Burnaby] The Amazing Brentwood | 15 Towers | 186m | 56 flrs | U/C & Proposed - Page 19

Jebby · #**361** Posted **May 8, 2014, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

Oh wow... But this condo starts from $0.49, so it might skyrocket even higher after some number of years. That's bad...

It wont even have swimming pool...

That should help keep costs down, unless there's some new innovative untested type of amenity.

jb1969 · #**362** Posted **May 8, 2014, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laniatus

I feel like developers should be liable for the extra costs when a building's expenses far exceed the proposed budget in the first few years requiring a doubling of strata fees...

I know that developers have been responsible for costs over 10% of preliminary budget for many years. And the rules were updated, not sure how long ago, stating;

1. developers are responsible for ANY costs over the preliminary budget for the first year. if there is any overage up to 10%, the developer pays just the overage
2. if the actual expenses after the first year are between 10 - 20 % the developer must pay the strata the overage x 2, and
3. if the extra is more than 20% the developer must pay the strata the overage x 3.

So there appears to be incentive not to deceive.

the strata act is online
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20S%20--/Strata%20Property%20Act%20[SBC%201998]%20c.%2043/00_Act/98043_00.htm

nds88 · #**363** Posted **May 8, 2014, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb1969

I know that developers have been responsible for costs over 10% of preliminary budget for many years. And the rules were updated, not sure how long ago, stating;

1. developers are responsible for ANY costs over the preliminary budget for the first year. if there is any overage up to 10%, the developer pays just the overage
2. if the actual expenses after the first year are between 10 - 20 % the developer must pay the strata the overage x 2, and
3. if the extra is more than 20% the developer must pay the strata the overage x 3.

So there appears to be incentive not to deceive.

the strata act is online
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20S%20--/Strata%20Property%20Act%20[SBC%201998]%20c.%2043/00_Act/98043_00.htm

Thanks for the link. What section is this stated in? My strata is going through something similar where the actual costs are going to be way more than the preliminary budget we were given.

The council was discussing asking the developer to cover the cost. But if its in the strata act, then its clear the developer would be responsible and not us hoping that the developer will be nice to us.

jb1969 · #**364** Posted **May 10, 2014, 10:30 PM**

it's under part 3 owner developer
It amazes me that the strata management companies aren't already letting you know about this.
It seems these companies don't really do much to manage or even assist in managing the buildings.

Laniatus · #**365** Posted **May 11, 2014, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb1969

I know that developers have been responsible for costs over 10% of preliminary budget for many years. And the rules were updated, not sure how long ago, stating;

1. developers are responsible for ANY costs over the preliminary budget for the first year. if there is any overage up to 10%, the developer pays just the overage
2. if the actual expenses after the first year are between 10 - 20 % the developer must pay the strata the overage x 2, and
3. if the extra is more than 20% the developer must pay the strata the overage x 3.

So there appears to be incentive not to deceive.

the strata act is online
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20S%20--/Strata%20Property%20Act%20[SBC%201998]%20c.%2043/00_Act/98043_00.htm

Thank you for that! I am curious how often developers actually end up paying out. Everyone says strata fees usually go through the roof after the first year... Also it sounds like they are only responsible for year one.

Homeowner · #**366** Posted **May 12, 2014, 5:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion

If you can afford it and don't mind construction/traffic noise it's probably a good investment. It'll be easy to rent out at worst case.

Usually 1st phase prices are cheaper because owners have to deal with extra noise and inconvenience of construction.

Homeowner · #**367** Posted **May 12, 2014, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

what does Junior 2-Bedroom mean? is it 1bdr+1den??

1 less bathroom and the total square footage is probably around 700 and under.

Homeowner · #**368** Posted **May 12, 2014, 5:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

I always wonder though... Who are the target renters in Brentwood?? I think Metrotown and downtown will be the popular areas for people to rent. I'm actually a bit nervous about the ability to rent out properties in Brentwood.

I have several friends that rent out their condos in the Brentwood area. Pretty stable. You have professionals that prefer to live in the Brentwood area over the Metrotown area.

Homeowner · #**369** Posted **May 12, 2014, 5:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanK

I don't know if that is a fair comment. In my opinion I would much rather live at Metrotown and am willing to pay more for Metrotown. It is all relative and based on personal opinion. Metrotown prices command a good $50 - $75/ PSF more than Brentwood & pre-sales velocity is much faster in Metrotown. In addition, there is a MASSIVE pipeline of future inventory in Brentwood vs a more controlled supply in the Metrotown area.

Metrotown area will have more of the 'wider' range of people all good & bad. Brentwood has a more older demographic.

Homeowner · #**370** Posted **May 12, 2014, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhausner

49 cents a square foot is ridiculously high for maintenance though.

The building better have kick a$$ amenities for this price. Usually we are looking at 35-40 cent range, but even less for buildings with more units (300+)

AudiA3 · #**371** Posted **May 12, 2014, 7:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeowner

The building better have kick a$$ amenities for this price. Usually we are looking at 35-40 cent range, but even less for buildings with more units (300+)

I think the high maintenance fees will deter a lot of buyers and hurt the resale value

The reason why the maintenance fees are so high are not because of the amenities, but due to 24/7 service & security... http://www.theamazingbrentwood.com/service.html

SpongeG · #**372** Posted **May 15, 2014, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeowner

Metrotown area will have more of the 'wider' range of people all good & bad. Brentwood has a more older demographic.

it also lots of students due its closeness to SFU and BCIT

AudiA3 · #**373** Posted **May 16, 2014, 6:51 AM**

Is that second bedroom going to be a windowless bedroom (a.k.a. Den)?

officedweller · #**374** Posted **May 16, 2014, 10:17 AM**

Looks like it - pretty unusual.
I guess that's teh result of a large floorplate.
The suite next to it looks to have a very deep (15 ft?) balcony (severely shading the suite)

jb1969 · #**375** Posted **May 16, 2014, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like it - pretty unusual.
I guess that's teh result of a large floorplate.
The suite next to it looks to have a very deep (15 ft?) balcony (severely shading the suite)

Looks like that suite also has a second bedroom in the core of the building. those windowless bedrooms look to be the space above the rental portion elevators. very deep suites

VanK · #**376** Posted **May 16, 2014, 6:34 PM**

The B2 plan next to it also has a 2nd bedroom with no window...

AudiA3 · #**377** Posted **May 16, 2014, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanK

The B2 plan next to it also has a 2nd bedroom with no window...

Yeah pretty much 3 out of the 6 2-bedroom units on each floor will have their second bedrooms windowless....

I wouldn't even dare to call such unit a 2-bedroom, it's definitely a 1bedroom+1den. I think Shape Properties really screwed up big time on this.

officedweller · #**378** Posted **May 16, 2014, 10:10 PM**

Toronto (where there are generally bigger floorplates) has floorplans with windowless rooms too (as do lofts in Yaletown - due to the deep blocks):

http://www.x2condos.com/plans_details.php?id=688
http://www.x2condos.com/plans_details.php?id=687

http://www.onebloor.com/images/Fame.png

Homeowner · #**379** Posted **May 17, 2014, 12:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

Yeah pretty much 3 out of the 6 2-bedroom units on each floor will have their second bedrooms windowless....

I wouldn't even dare to call such unit a 2-bedroom, it's definitely a 1bedroom+1den. I think Shape Properties really screwed up big time on this.

It is not uncommon to have bedrooms without windows these days. You look at DISTRICT (around the mount pleasant area). Most of the 600 sq ft 1 bedroom do not have a window just a closet. Some newer buildings are the same case like CAPITOL in downtown. It seems that as long as the room has a closet and is big enough to fit a bed they would call it a bedroom. Funny is those buildings have no problems finding buyers & renters.

We just have to get used to this. But personally I would pass if this was the case. A bedroom without windows is worse than a unit without a balcony.

Homeowner · #**380** Posted **May 17, 2014, 12:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudiA3

Yeah pretty much 3 out of the 6 2-bedroom units on each floor will have their second bedrooms windowless....

I wouldn't even dare to call such unit a 2-bedroom, it's definitely a 1bedroom+1den. I think Shape Properties really screwed up big time on this.

It would be interesting to see how well the development sells if this was the case.