Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 12:20 PM

Right, so Doof is looking at a bit of real estate.

LuxuryRealEstate - Vancouver, British Columbia Canada - Majestic Point Grey Estate - Residential
$18m.
0.66 acres

LuxuryRealEstate - Burnaby, British Columbia Canada - Twin Cedars - Residential
$16.9m
1.3 acres

LuxuryRealEstate - Toronto, Ontario Canada - Prestigious Bridle Path - Residential
$18.5m
2.02 acres

Am I missing something here? 0.66 acres? 2.02 acres? That's crap!

So, what I don't understand is, why is the property on such small plots when it's in the second largest country in the World?

UK: 640 peeps per square mile.
Canuckistan: 7.8 peeps per square mile.

Really, for these prices I'd expect 20 acres of grounds, minimum - even here. So what's the deal?

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 17, 2009, 12:34 PM

Vancouver and Toronto are expensive. Just like NY and LA.

But honestly, Canada doesn't get you either.

dzp111 · Sep 17, 2009, 12:54 PM

What pray tell, is a peep?

They are expensive homes but they are mansions and while they don't show it I bet there front views are incredible.

And like Sprinkles says, Vancouver and Toronto are very expensive. My apartment (flat?) would be triple the rent in Toronto.

Monique · Sep 17, 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Right, so Doof is looking at a bit of real estate.

LuxuryRealEstate - Vancouver, British Columbia Canada - Majestic Point Grey Estate - Residential
$18m.
0.66 acres

LuxuryRealEstate - Burnaby, British Columbia Canada - Twin Cedars - Residential
$16.9m
1.3 acres

LuxuryRealEstate - Toronto, Ontario Canada - Prestigious Bridle Path - Residential
$18.5m
2.02 acres

Am I missing something here? 0.66 acres? 2.02 acres? That's crap!

So, what I don't understand is, why is the property on such small plots when it's in the second largest country in the World?

UK: 640 peeps per square mile.
Canuckistan: 7.8 peeps per square mile.

Really, for these prices I'd expect 20 acres of grounds, minimum - even here. So what's the deal?

First, Sprinkles is right they are the 2 most expensive cities in Canada. You were looking at luxury items. Also, people in Canada love to stick close to each other. If you go outside those cities like Québec city, Ottawa you will find larger sites. Also, it is an English thing to have a big house and a small land.

Most of the largest lands and inhabited or very few people live there. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal started as small cities and suddenly they grew very large. My niece lives 2 hours North of Toronto in Milton and still they paid 400,000 for their house with a very small backyard.

I live in an apartment in Québec city close to a very large park. I do not have the same animities than in Montreal but Québec is a very beautiful city and at 50 it is fast enough for me.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by dzp111

What pray tell, is a peep?

It's Greek for "people".

Originally Posted by dzp111

They are expensive homes but they are mansions and while they don't show it I bet there front views are incredible.

And like Sprinkles says, Vancouver and Toronto are very expensive. My apartment (flat?) would be triple the rent in Toronto.

Not really interested in price as a primary factor - interested to know why the small plot sizes, considering your population density.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Also, people in Canada love to stick close to each other. If you go outside those cities like Québec city, Ottawa you will find larger sites. Also, it is an English thing to have a big house and a small land.

Thanks Monique. So it's a cultural thing then, this living on top of each other? Hmmm.

I've been googling for luxury properties on land, such as the type you can find easily here in Europe. But so far it's been "nice house on no land" or "crap house on enough land".

Like this:
Cranbrook Real Estate Rockies BC homes for sale
Nice land, utter shed of a house.

Laminar · Sep 17, 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not really interested in price as a primary factor - interested to know why the small plot sizes, considering your population density.

Really?

Radioflyer · Sep 17, 2009, 02:28 PM

UK: 640 peeps per square mile.
Canuckistan: 7.8 peeps per square mile.

Most Canadians live with a couple of hours of the US border, exceptions being some cities in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Consider, large portions of the land is uninhabitable ,,, north of the 60th parallel, mountainous areas, the Great Canadian Shield, tundra and bush and lakes.

I hope you aren't planning to move here, you wouldn't like us.

mduell · Sep 17, 2009, 02:38 PM

Really, you're looking for cheap land at luxuryrealestate.com?

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Really, you're looking for cheap land at luxuryrealestate.com?

No, I'm looking for luxury properties with land.

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 17, 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

My niece lives 2 hours North of Toronto in Milton and still they paid 400,000 for their house with a very small backyard.

Well 45 min west of toronto actually. Not terribly nice there either.

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 17, 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, I'm looking for luxury properties with land.

The buy the land and have a big house built on it if you have the time. You want cheap, check out the other provinces.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Radioflyer

Most Canadians live with a couple of hours of the US border, exceptions being some cities in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Consider, large portions of the land is uninhabitable ,,, north of the 60th parallel, mountainous areas, the Great Canadian Shield, tundra and bush and lakes.

Consider the land mass of the UK. It'd fit inside Ontario nearly four times over.
Consider the population. It's twice that of Canada.

And yet somehow you manage to have tiny plots. I'm not getting it. Has the government commandeered vast swathes of land for use as national parks or something?

Originally Posted by Radioflyer

I hope you aren't planning to move here, you wouldn't like us.

Well, it would appear not. Judging from your replies, both you and Sprinkles appear to be complete tossers - so that's 50% of Canadians in this thread. Extrapolate that to 50% of the Canadian population and it's easy to see why your superiors south of you always take the piss. Who the hell would want to live amongst people with such an obvious inferiority complex?

Of course, the other 50% of you seem like decent people. One of whom is Quebecois, so it would seem like Quebec has damn good reason for wanting shut of the rest of you. Can't say I blame them.

The Final Dakar · Sep 17, 2009, 02:59 PM

Have I mentioned lately that I love this place?

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

The buy the land and have a big house built on it if you have the time. You want cheap, check out the other provinces.

Who said anything about cheap? I'm simply wondering why there's no properties at the high end with any land to speak of. And yes, I checked out the other provinces - it appears the same all over.

I guess it's as Monique said - a cultural thing.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Have I mentioned lately that I love this place?

Well, you ask a sensible question and a cacophony of {plural of swear word beginning with "c"} turf up.

Eug · Sep 17, 2009, 03:08 PM

Not sure what you're getting at.

Cranbrook is in the middle of nowhere. People around here usually don't buy mansions in the middle of nowhere (although it does happen once in a while). Good snowboarding in Cranbrook though.

Bridle Path has the most expensive mansions in Toronto. It's in the middle of the city, yet with acreages, and is where people like Prince buy homes. Homes may go for $25 million. Move a couple of km away, and you can get a nice home for 6-digit $. Move 20 km away, and you can get several acres for a couple million $. You can build a $10 million mansion there if you want.

Point Grey is arguably one of the nicest neighbourhoods in North America, in that it's close to the gorgeous University of British Columbia grounds, while being right in the city, and on the ocean, with all the popular trendy amenities, without being totally obnoxious or gated. ie. It's a piece of super-nice oceanfront property that's in the middle of the most expensive city in Canada.

P.S. There are several luxury properties with lots of land. They're just not for sale. Real estate inventory is quite low at the moment. A lot of the vacation and high end luxury properties were taken off the market after the economic meltdown.

PPS. If it's the same one I'm thinking of, I've been through that 2 acre Bridle Path grounds, on a garden tour. I'll tell ya, 2 acres in the middle of a large urban centre is pretty damn big. Imagine what it might cost to get that in London.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Not sure what you're getting at.

Cranbrook is in the middle of nowhere. People around here usually don't buy mansions in the middle of nowhere (although it does happen once in a while). Good snowboarding in Cranbrook though.

Bridle Path has the most expensive mansions in Toronto. It's in the middle of the city, yet with acreages, and is where people like Prince buy homes. Homes may go for $25 million. Move a few km away, and you can get a home for 6-digit $. Move 25 km away, and you can get several acres for a couple million $. You can build a $10 million mansion there if you want.

Point Grey is arguably one of the nicest neighbourhoods in North America, in that it's close to the gorgeous University of British Columbia grounds, while being right in the city, and on the ocean, with all the popular trendy amenities, without being totally obnoxious or gated. ie. It's a piece of super-nice oceanfront property that's in the middle of the most expensive city in Canada.

P.S. There are LOTS of luxury properties with lots of land. They're just not for sale. Real estate inventory is quite low at the moment. A lot of the vacation and high end luxury properties were taken off the market after the economic meltdown.

Thank you Eug. Those are valid answers to my question (with the bolded one being the most useful).

I guess it's a little different than here, where folks do regularly buy mansions in the middle of nowhere (well, as much as one can be in the middle of nowhere in Europe) - example.

The Final Dakar · Sep 17, 2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, you ask a sensible question and a cacophony of {plural of swear word beginning with "c"} turf up.

Essentially.

Eug · Sep 17, 2009, 03:30 PM

Well, have essentially no old residential castles here.

We have some pseudo castles, and some 100 year old buildings, but a lot of those have been turned into hotels or commercial/government buildings.

Most of the large luxury properties outside the city have lots of land, but the homes on them are very variable. Some are gorgeous, but not necessarily mansion-class (if that's a word). Others have relatively small homes.

FWIW, my sister has 50 acres in a smaller city, and she built a 5000 square foot home. That's a big home, but it's still a regular type home. For North America, it's not that uncommon to have a 5000 square foot home. In her case she lucked out though. She bought before the real estate boom, in a cheap city, in an area which used to be all farmland. Now it's close to suburbia.

And despite being 50 acres and inside a city, if she sold it and moved to a place like the nicer areas of Rosedale in Toronto, she'd probably only be able to afford a 3500 square foot home on a 6500 square foot lot.

besson3c · Sep 17, 2009, 03:30 PM

It's always interesting to me how what many of these mansions have in common is being very large in size. At what point does the size become too large to the point of being undesirable?

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's always interesting to me how what many of these mansions have in common is being very large in size. At what point does the size become too large to the point of being undesirable?

At the point when you can't afford the heating bill.

I've tended to find that the larger the house, the easier it is to keep straight. The same amount of stuff in a 600 sqft room rather than a 200 sqft room means there's more space between the guitars for you to work the vacuum, etc..

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, have essentially no old residential castles here.

We have some pseudo castles, and some 100 year old buildings, but a lot of those have been turned into hotels or commercial/government buildings.

Most of the large luxury properties outside the city have lots of land, but the homes on them are very variable. Some are gorgeous, but not necessarily mansion-class (if that's a word). Others have relatively small homes.

FWIW, my sister has 50 acres in a smaller city, and she built a 5000 square foot home. That's a big home, but it's still a regular type home. For North America, it's not that uncommon to have a 5000 square foot home. In her case she lucked out though. She bought before the real estate boom, in a cheap city, in an area which used to be all farmland. Now it's close to suburbia.

And despite being 50 acres and inside a city, if she sold it and moved to a place like the nicer areas of Rosedale in Toronto, she'd probably only be able to afford a 3500 square foot home on a 6500 square foot lot.

Cheers Eug, good info.

But it looks very much like what you said about inventory being low is holding true. Just been to Knight Frank and they've got nowt bar a couple of small plots in Whistler.

besson3c · Sep 17, 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

At the point when you can't afford the heating bill.

I've tended to find that the larger the house, the easier it is to keep straight. The same amount of stuff in a 600 sqft room rather than a 200 sqft room means there's more space between the guitars for you to work the vacuum, etc..

Not only do you have to heat a place but you also have to clean it too or hire somebody else to do it for you

Frank Lloyd Wright built mansions that made great use of smaller spaces, and I've seen much larger places that have just seemed over the top, ostentatious, and/or garish to me. I think there must be a tendency for people to think that bigger = better, but my current theory is that this only works up to a point, we just have different ideas where that point is (and to some others, that point can seem a little silly). Do you guys agree?

besson3c · Sep 17, 2009, 04:01 PM

Are you thinking of moving to Canada Doofy?

mattyb · Sep 17, 2009, 04:02 PM

$18m ? $16.9m ? Are you telling me that our Doof can buy a property at those prices?

If true, I'm insanely jealous.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not only do you have to heat a place but you also have to clean it too or hire somebody else to do it for you

See second paragraph.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Frank Lloyd Wright built mansions that made great use of smaller spaces, and I've seen much larger places that have just seemed over the top, ostentatious, and/or garish to me. I think there must be a tendency for people to think that bigger = better, but my current theory is that this only works up to a point, we just have different ideas where that point is (and to some others, that point can seem a little silly). Do you guys agree?

Well, you have to figure out what you need. Or "needwant", as I call it. And then size up to that. Anything beyond what you reasonably needwant is excessive.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are you thinking of moving to Canada Doofy?

No. Just attempting to get a handle on the markets there.

Originally Posted by mattyb

$18m ? $16.9m ? Are you telling me that our Doof can buy a property at those prices?

Nah. I'm not quite that far up the ladder. But I always try to get a grip on the market from the top down rather than bottom up.

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 17, 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, it would appear not. Judging from your replies, both you and Sprinkles appear to be complete tossers - so that's 50% of Canadians in this thread.

Ha ya 50% of us are "tossers" yet you wanna live here. Riiight. I am guessing the population is 90% tossers there (including yourself) which is why you are so eager to move to a place you can't stop bitching about.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Ha ya 50% of us are "tossers" yet you wanna live here. Riiight. I am guessing the population is 90% tossers there (including yourself) which is why you are so eager to move to a place you can't stop bitching about.

Reading skills not very good then, SWG?

Eug · 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not only do you have to heat a place but you also have to clean it too or hire somebody else to do it for you

Frank Lloyd Wright built mansions that made great use of smaller spaces, and I've seen much larger places that have just seemed over the top, ostentatious, and/or garish to me. I think there must be a tendency for people to think that bigger = better, but my current theory is that this only works up to a point, we just have different ideas where that point is (and to some others, that point can seem a little silly). Do you guys agree?

Bridle Path as mentioned above has some seriously expensive homes. $25 million, etc.

What's interesting to note however is that a lot of the old money lives in places like Rosedale or Forest Hill. Here the homes feel like homes. Yes they're expensive, in the $1-$4 million range, and yes they hire people to cut the lawn and tend to the garden, but with a 6000 square foot plot of land, the cost isn't actually that much. A few hundred a year for lawn maintenance, and a couple of thousand a year for garden maintenance... like buying a new iMac and new MacBook every year. More importantly, they actually live in a community, with families walking around. People can actually talk to their neighbours. When I went through the 2 acre place in the Bridle Path for that garden tour, that place really felt like a hotel. The place is far too big to feel like a real home, and the yard is far too big to have enough of the "personal touch" that makes a yard feel homey too. The fact that all the giant homes are fenced in and gated certainly doesn't help either.

P.S. While Toronto is an expensive city, New York and London are way more expensive.

Doofy · Sep 17, 2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

More importantly, you actually live in a community, with families walking around. People can actually talk to their neighbours. When I went through the 2 acre place for that garden tour, that place really felt like a hotel. The place is far too big to feel like a real home.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I'm on two acres at the moment and it's just too close to the neighbours.

Eug · 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I'm on two acres at the moment and it's just too close to the neighbours.

Yeah but Bridle Path's 2 acres are fenced in and gated, with manicured lawns and gardens and 10000 square foot mansions with pseudo castle-like architecture.

My sis lives on 50 acres, but her place has no fences, much of it is farmland (which she rents out to a farmer), and her big 5000 square foot house is a modern home built to accomodate a family with regular family needs. It's not built to be a mausoleum.

P.S. In Toronto, to get those several acres you would have to move to a place like Guildwood, but you won't find 10000 square foot homes there in general. However, I find it too far from downtown.

OTOH, there is one 10000 square foot house for sale in the Scarborough Bluffs that's going for $2.9 million, which has 2 acres of lakefront property. It's less than 20 minutes drive to downtown, although closer to 30 minutes in rush hour.

Phileas · Sep 17, 2009, 08:32 PM

Toronto is one of the few cities in the world where you can live downtown, in a house, with a backyard. London is similar in that respect, except just way more expensive. It takes me 10 to 15 minutes to get to work in the morning.

Leave TO behind, about an hour or so, and you can find farms with 150 acres of land for $400k. Go out further and that price will fall to about $150k.

Move to a province with low population density, like NB for example, and all of a sudden you can own a river with land and a house for 80k. It all depends on where you want to be.

There's few things worth than the ostentatious McMansions that are so popular in and around Oakville. Huge houses with no architectural merit of any kind, owned by people who have far more money than they have taste.

Wiskedjak · Sep 17, 2009, 08:36 PM

How much does 0.66 acres go for in New York? Can you even *find* 0.66 acres in New York?

Eug · Sep 17, 2009, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How much does 0.66 acres go for in New York? Can you even *find* 0.66 acres in New York?

The Manhattan Airport Foundation

dcmacdaddy · Sep 17, 2009, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

At the point when you can't afford the heating bill.

I've tended to find that the larger the house, the easier it is to keep straight. The same amount of stuff in a 600 sqft room rather than a 200 sqft room means there's more space between the guitars for you to work the vacuum, etc..

Have you talked to Geddy or Alex* about housing advice? I think they would have some good tips for you on where to look for rock-star accommodations in Canada.

*I read that Neil moved south to LA after his wife died so I don't think he would be good for any advice.

Wiskedjak · Sep 18, 2009, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, I'm looking for luxury properties with land.

Are you aware of the geography in British Columbia? Mountainous terrain isn't very condusive to large properties. If you want a large property for less than your examples, you should be looking a lot further away from Vancouver.

besson3c · Sep 18, 2009, 12:42 AM

Doofy: how many rock star orgy rooms is ideal for your dream home?

Doofy · Sep 18, 2009, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Are you aware of the geography in British Columbia?

Of course. Large property, mountain view. Ker-ching.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Mountainous terrain isn't very condusive to large properties.

And yet Montana and Colorado manage it.
You're not going to be beaten by Colorado, are you BC?

Doofy · Sep 18, 2009, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Doofy: how many rock star orgy rooms is ideal for your dream home?

Zero, Bess. You forget that my favourite hobby is misanthropy.

hyteckit · Sep 18, 2009, 02:39 AM

Translating Doofy to English.

Doofy => English
I don't understand Canada => I don't understand real estate

LegendaryPinkOx · Sep 18, 2009, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

The Manhattan Airport Foundation

lpkmckenna · Sep 18, 2009, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Consider the land mass of the UK. It'd fit inside Ontario nearly four times over.
Consider the population. It's twice that of Canada.

And yet somehow you manage to have tiny plots. I'm not getting it. Has the government commandeered vast swathes of land for use as national parks or something?

Forget population density. Go ahead and buy a huge lot in Yukon. Dirt cheap.

Doofy · Sep 18, 2009, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Forget population density.

How can I forget about population density when that's the entire point of this thread?

hyteckit · Sep 18, 2009, 04:06 AM

Land is cheap in Alaska.

5 acres for under $5000!

I heard Sarah Palin's house is for sale. Added benefit is that you can see Russia from her house!

Monique · Sep 18, 2009, 08:14 AM

The population living closed to each other is probably also due to the fact that winters are very cold here and that for convenience and security people lived closed to each other.

With times, anyway in Québec, people started to live in the countryside and the love for bigger spaces was born.

Now, you something larger than 2 acres, I do not know where you can find this in an English province, probably there are some very nice country villages in the North of the province that would answer your needs.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

Since some of my co-workers live outside the city, I can tell you that you can easily find properties with more than 2 acres, but you will have to live in a village maybe 30 minutes from the bridges of Québec city.

Also, building houses and selling them is big business prospectors do not like to lose spaces for backyard use.

I know that in Calgary, I missed green big spaces. It is not like you can't find spacious lands but again a cultural thing.

Also, since winters are cold and summers short people will tend to spend more on their houses than on the outside.

Eug · Sep 18, 2009, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Monique

The population living closed to each other is probably also due to the fact that winters are very cold here and that for convenience and security people lived closed to each other.

This is Canada in a nutshell.

Wiskedjak · Sep 18, 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

This is Canada in a nutshell.

Well, Monique's nutshell ...

Here it is in an altogether different nutshell

Phileas · Sep 18, 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

And yet Montana and Colorado manage it.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Colorado and Montana are vast states with extremely low population density throughout. BC has densely populated urban centers, with thinly populated areas making up the remainder.

If you look away from the cities you can find all the land you'll ever need.