Realestock.com - Your Connected Market Space for Real Estate

Originally, the concept of suburbia was to create a place of community and safety. People moved their families out of the city so that their children would be safe from crime, drug problems, and so that they could be brought up somewhere where everyone knew their neighbors, and where there was a real sense of community.

However, times have changed. Suburban areas are no longer immune to these kinds of problems – a day doesn’t go by where we don’t hear about shootings and other crimes going on in suburbs of any major city. The community element has changed too. People know their neighbors, but many people work long hours in the city, and spend most of their evenings gridlocked in the daily commute, leaving little time for socializing. And I’m not even touching on the effect that rising gas prices have had on the suburban lifestyle, because there’s enough material there for another ten blog posts!

An article in last week’s Globe and Mail Newspaper looked at the growing number of families who are moving from large suburban houses to smaller places in the city. This is becoming a widespread trend all over the world. The families mentioned in the article citied a range of reasons for leaving their suburban houses, including shorter commuting times, more activities for their children, exposure to a more diverse mix of cultures, and close proximity to restaurants, shops and bars.

However, there are a number of plus points to staying in suburbia. If you work from home, it can have many advantages. There are lots of community events and groups, and if you’re not spending your evenings gridlocked somewhere on the 401, then you have the opportunity to really get to know your community. Also, even though crime is rising in the suburbs it very rarely compares to the city, so your kids are still safer in suburbia. Not just that, you get much more space, in terms of indoor square footage, and outdoor acreage, which is tempting when looking at a new home.

It’s an interesting situation. Do you sacrifice the space and tranquility of the suburbs for being five seconds walk from your nearest Starbucks? It’s a hard one. As an ex-English major, I love a good compare/contrast piece, so I had a look at the prices in Bloor West Village (a community in Downtown Toronto) and Caledon, Ontario, a town which is part of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). I chose these places because they were examples given in the article, and also they are both desirable ‘luxury’ areas of the GTA. I looked at detached houses on MLS.ca priced between $650,000 and $800,000 (average spend for a single detached family house in Bloor West Village seems to be in the high $500,000s) in both areas, and then looked at what you could get for a cool million. The differences were very interesting, although not entirely unexpected:

Caledon, Ontario

In Caledon, $650,000 buys you a three bedroom, four bathroom, two storey detached house, with a saltwater pool in the back yard, and a games room. Said back yard? About five acres

For just over $650,000 you can get a five bed, five bath detached Victorian/Heritage house, which includes a suite to rent out, and has a range of period features, such as vaulted ceilings

For just over a million You can get a four bed, 2.5 bath Victorian house set on 25 acres. Unique features include a stone fireplace, and your own private waterfall(!)

For just under $1,100,000 you can get a hundred acres of land – and a six bedroom, six bathroom house with a workshop and heated stone floors

Toronto (Bloor West Village)

For over $650,000, you can get a four bedroom, two bathroom detached house with features such as a finished basement, and a renovated kitchen

For over $650,000, There is a work/live house which has two offices, one bedroom and three bathrooms. Features include a ‘loft like’ setting, and a renovated basement with a separate entrance

For just over a million you can get a three bed, three bath detached property, with a landscaped yard

For just under $1,100,000 you can get a five bed, five bath ‘Georgian-style’ house with a family rec room, and a nanny suite(!)

While the differences do not seem that monumental, it is worth noting that MLS doesn’t list the acreage on the Toronto properties, which indicates that you get little to no land.

To sum up, it depends entirely on your lifestyle, and how much you have to spend. If you can spend upwards of $600,000, then in either place, you’ll be living in a beautiful and quality house. However, the difference will be the space inside and outside – if you want all the conveniences of living in the city, you have to give up the space and privacy that comes with living in a small town. Granted, the lower costs to keep up a smaller place, plus the lack (or reduced use) of a car, will save you money, but the cost of groceries and house maintenance is much more expensive in the city, compared to a small suburban town.

The views expressed on the blog portion of this site represent only the opinions of the author and may not necessarily be the opinions of Realestock.com

Are you thinking of moving to the city? Or have you already done it? Let us know by posting below!

 

 

 I thought this article was interesting. The International Herald Tribune’s Kevin Brass writes on the world of celebrity property buying.

---

Catering to the foibles of celebrity real estateBy Kevin Brass Madonna likes to low-ball sellers. George Michael may not show up for meetings. Prince wants a house he can paint purple. Like most people - but with a lot more press attention - celebrities have their quirks when it comes to real estate, property agents say. And within the real estate business, catering to those foibles has developed into its own specialized industry. For property agents, working in celeb-estate requires a specialized set of skills, ranging from the ability to outmaneuver paparazzi to expertise in advanced security systems. “You have to have a reputation for keeping your mouth shut,” said Richard Klug, an agent with Sotheby’s International Realty in Beverly Hills, California. “They have to know you’re discreet.” Paranoia is at an all-time high, thanks to the media’s obsession with celebrity real estate. Regular columns in a host of London newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The New York Post, as well as a dozen blogs, are devoted to the transactions of even B- and C-list celebrities. In recent weeks, for example, papers around the world carried articles about Burt Reynolds’s decision to reduce the price of his Florida compound to $10.5 million from $15.9 million while others focused on the decision by a former child star, Frankie Muniz, to list his five-bedroom house in the Hollywood Hills section of Los Angeles for $3.9 million. Celebrities are “living in a fantasy world,” said Ruth Ryon, who writes the widely read “Hot Property” column for The Los Angeles Times. “People like to read about people with more than they have.” Real Estalker, a blog devoted to insiders’ gossip about celebrity real estate, receives more than 300,000 page hits a month, according to its founder, Mark David, who declined to give his last name to preserve his anonymity. Writing as “Your Mama,” his detailed reporting often focuses on the career arcs and decorating tastes of the celebrities, as well as the business transactions. “Most of them could use a well paid decorator,” he said in an interview by telephone. Although property records are open to the public, many celebrities routinely use trusts or front groups to try to hide their transactions. The singer Christina Aguilera used the Brat Pack Family Trust when she paid $11.5 million to buy Ozzie Osbourne’s West Hollywood home - and the home was technically sold by Minnie, a trust named after one of the Osbourne’s family dogs, according to media reports. In many ways the famous do business differently from regular people, agents say. They tend to be late; many like to shop more than to buy. And they generally require properties with private access and high fences that block the views from potential paparazzi nests. Keeping the tabloids away from a client can be a full-time job, agents who specialize in the market say. In one widely reported incident, a London tabloid reporter posed as an Arab sheik interested in buying property to gain access to an estate owned by Princess Michael of Kent. In London these days, prospective buyers often have to sign confidentiality agreements before they are even allowed to see a celebrity-connected property. “That never happened 10 years ago,” said Noel de Keyzer, director of the Sloane Street office of Savills, the real estate company. Agents selling property in high-end markets in centers like London, Los Angeles and New York know that a signal to “clear” a house means a celebrity buyer is on the way. “Usually I say if there is one cameraman there, the buyer will absolutely not purchase the property,” said Joshua Judge, managing director of Coldwell Banker Hunt Kennedy, based in New York, who recently worked with the actress Jessica Alba. In many cases, agents never meet their celebrity clients until the final stages of a purchase. A-listers like Madonna and Keira Knightley “have very good assistants,” said Lucy Russell, managing director of Quintessentially Estates, a property company based in London that specializes in the luxury market. Beyond any desire for privacy, famous buyers have practical reasons for remaining anonymous for as long as possible. “We all know what they are worth,” said Carlos Riveros, a high-end specialist with Chesterton in London. “That’s a disadvantage.” Last year, the owner of a London row house did not even reply when Madonna, his neighbor, submitted a bid hundreds of thousands of pounds below his asking price, according to an agent familiar with the deal. The Material Girl, who is actively buying up property in both London and New York, eventually made a better offer, paying £6 million, or $11.8 million, for the eight-bedroom Georgian townhouse. Within the industry, there is a wide-ranging debate about the effect of celebrity on property values. “With people looking in this price range, you don’t need to say this house once belonged to so-and-so,” said Barbara Candee of Daniel Gale Sotheby’s International Real Estate in New York. “If you are an astute businessperson, you are looking for value, and that’s the only thing you’re looking for.” Candee is representing the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who gave her permission to use his name in marketing his five-acre, or two-hectare, waterfront estate on Long Island Sound, which went on the market last year priced at $14.8 million. Today it is still on the market, with the price reduced to $12.8 million. But there is little doubt that a celebrity presence can create buzz for a property. “It adds intrigue and curiosity - that’s for sure,” said Giles Cook, central London director for Chesterton, the British property company. Last year, despite the continuing downturn in the market, Paris Hilton sold a house in Los Angeles for $3.865 million, which agents said was much more than the prices paid for other houses in the area. “If Paris wasn’t associated with the house, no way it gets that money,” Klug said. Whether they are buying or selling, in some ways celebrities are no different than other people - evidenced by Hilton’s willingness to push for top dollar. And last year, when camera crews followed Victoria Beckham and her entourage as she shopped for a $10 million-plus home in Los Angeles, one of her first questions was: “What famous people live around here?”

I found two interesting interviews from Fox News in Kansas with tips on protecting your privacy when moving out of your house. Real Estate expert Dave Pleskac gives pointers in a two part video that can be found by clicking on the links below: Part 1 Part 2