TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C

[Rainrider22]

Definitely an added bonus of this project to help out that corner

Yes !   I see it now.  Thanks,  it was hard to read all the lines.

[LesPio]

Facebook Ad

[tomh009]

Other ads very much promote it as an investment opportunity as opposed to a primary residence (though this is not very surprising), suggesting that you can retire sooner if you buy one of the units.

[CP42]

I signed up for the email updates for this project. I thought some of you would get a kick out of this one:

[ac3r]

Hah. Yeah right.

I've been getting ads for this on Instagram myself.

[CP42]

Hah. Yeah right.

I've been getting ads for this on Instagram myself.

All of the ads I’ve seen on Instagram have been posted by GTA brokerages 🙃

[CP42]

Got another email from Tek Tower (even though the subject line says DTK Condos???).

I remember IN8 posted these beautiful renderings of amenity space that never came to fruition for their Sage buildings in the university district… I hope since this is a more “legitimate” project and not just student housing that they will actually follow through with these! 

[CP42]

More promotional emails, indicating they are solely targeting GTA investors…

[cherrypark]

> Adding stock won't help the affordability crisis.
> There are too many investors crowding out a constrained seller's market.

How is this dichotomy still a debate? The lack of "yes, and..." to build more and also build affordable/low-income housing, public or otherwise, and instead just holding up an unsolvable affordability crisis as the reason to block anything but low cost housing will never, ever compute for me.

[CP42]

> Adding stock won't help the affordability crisis.
> There are too many investors crowding out a constrained seller's market.

How is this dichotomy still a debate? The lack of "yes, and..." to build more and also build affordable/low-income housing, public or otherwise, and instead just holding up an unsolvable affordability crisis as the reason to block anything but low cost housing will never, ever compute for me.

Not sure if this was a response to my last post or not, but I have no opposition to this development. 

However, the pricing on this (same as DTK) is significantly higher PSF on pre-construction than other developments in the area, because they specifically target GTA investors in their sales rather than local future homeowners/investors. 

For example, when I inquired with Condo Culture about Station Park Phase 2 pricing, they estimated around $750-$800 PSF. TEK Tower has indicated they will likely be pricing around $1,100-$1,200 PSF. Both are luxury condos, just one is pricing relatively similar to the market it is in, while another is trying to capture buyers from a market that is accustomed to higher prices. 

As a local buyer who is familiar with the market, I would simply just purchase a unit from another development which offers better value for my money. I would be evaluating prices of comparables in the same market. However, the people who are blindly buying from the GTA with no knowledge of our local market, simply on the context of “it is less than GTA prices” may actually be driving up the prices in the area, as the comparables they are using are in the GTA market. 

They advertise that it is 48% less PSF and offers “incredible value” but that is comparing to the average GTA pricing, not the average KW pricing. If they compared to average KW pricing they’d likely be around 48% more.

Nothing wrong with the development (I actually attended the neighbourhood meeting and voiced my approval), however their sales tactics are not exactly ideal for our local housing market.

[Lens]

A huge percentage of pre-con buyers are investors, we all know this. The real question I think that we should ask is, are the rents going to be too expensive for the local market if investors are buying at these prices. For instance how can anyone expect to recoup their investment at DTK when the units are small are the prices are huge. People just won't rent there.

[CP42]

A huge percentage of pre-con buyers are investors, we all know this. The real question I think that we should ask is, are the rents going to be too expensive for the local market if investors are buying at these prices. For instance how can anyone expect to recoup their investment at DTK when the units are small are the prices are huge. People just won't rent there.

I agree. I have a feeling a lot of DTK owners will try to charge rents that may be over current market rents, given their lack of local knowledge, but local renters will be comparing to cheaper options here and simply not rent there. We will have to see!

[tomh009]

Especially since a lot of new rental stock will come onto the market before then. In downtown Kitchener alone there will be the Bow (aka Arrow 2), Civic 66, Ophelia, Drewlo, 387 King St E and Woodside phase 2 -- and a lot more in the East End.

I think most of those investors will be cash flow negative and just hoping for appreciation.

[cherrypark]

> Adding stock won't help the affordability crisis.
> There are too many investors crowding out a constrained seller's market.

How is this dichotomy still a debate? The lack of "yes, and..." to build more and also build affordable/low-income housing, public or otherwise, and instead just holding up an unsolvable affordability crisis as the reason to block anything but low cost housing will never, ever compute for me.

Not sure if this was a response to my last post or not, but I have no opposition to this development. 

...

Nothing wrong with the development (I actually attended the neighbourhood meeting and voiced my approval), however their sales tactics are not exactly ideal for our local housing market.

Sorry - should have been a little more clear: this was just a general statement towards a common talking point in the KW discourse (less so on here) that building more won't solve affordability issues. It won't on its own necessarily, but I also think we have a lot of catch up to do while we work out a way to incentivize or pay for the other stock we need.

I found that their marketing specifically hinging on that as a selling point felt gross but indicative of the root of the problem with a supply constrained market. Sure, we could maybe do better on the types of new supply and not having them all be stacked into towers chasing "tallest" status, but there are still people buying/renting 1 beds or that could choose to fit into them instead of competing for larger housing units.

Really appreciate the insights on that disparate pricing too as it takes a bit of leg work to contact their sales to see the differences. I don't get a great feeling from anything IN8 does, so not particularly surprised... good points above that it will be interesting to see how units priced so aggressively will convert into rental prices. If it means some investors eating a loss and reselling because they are sitting vacant, not a big let down in my mind!

[Lebronj23]

This is going to council on Tuesday, then final approval in March I think this could break ground in the spring