Garment Street Condos | 25 & 6 fl | U/C

[bravado]

Because the only time commuters are exposed to the outside is when moving between car and building...

[Momo26]

Ah okay I stand corrected. 'Tis only connected via the underground then. That's kind of neat if you ask me.

I like this little quad of buildings, I am really hoping some fantastic anchor businesses come into the ground floor units. Has there been any updates?

[Momo26]

Further to that, any more tenants outside KPMG in the GloveBox?

[GarmentGate]

Just received an email today:

We appreciate your ongoing patience with respect to the unavoidable delays that have impacted the completion of Garment Street Condos.

As you are aware, the following Notices of Unavoidable Delay have been issued:

1. Notice of Unavoidable Delay dated April 9, 2022 regarding the water event that took place at Garment Street Condos over the course of March 26, 2022;
2. Notice of Unavoidable Delay dated April 9, 2022 regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and related labour and supply chain disruptions; and
3. Notice of Unavoidable Delay dated May 20, 2022 regarding trade strikes.

We have been working diligently alongside our construction team to establish new occupancy dates and expect to be in a position shortly to share this information with you. As such, you can expect to receive a formal second notice - confirming the total length of the delay - within the coming weeks. This second notice will include your revised Statement of Critical Dates and your new occupancy date.

Although specific dates have not yet been finalized, in an effort to provide you with as much notice as possible, we can share that we anticipate the first round of occupancies to begin in early September. As well, we can further share that we anticipate registration of the condominium in late Summer or early Fall. As such, we may be in a position - in accordance with your Agreement of Purchase and Sale - to provide final closing of your unit concurrently with occupancy.

If you have questions about this correspondence, please contact Momentum Developments at info@momentumdevelopments.ca.

We look forward to welcoming you to Garment Street in the near future!

Warm Regards,

114-120 Victoria Street South Inc.

Has anyone impacted by the flood delays received a notice to sign a Final Occupancy Date Amendment? It states the following:

"The signing of the amendment may result in the loss of delayed occupancy compensation as described in section 7. In the event that delayed closing compensation is payable prior to the date of this Amendment, the Purchaser waives entitlement to such compensation. The parties hereto confirm that the Purchaser shall retain any ability to claim delayed closing compensation that is applicable from the date of this Amendment to the Firm Occupancy Date or Delayed Occupancy Date."

So, does this mean that there is a possibility of receiving some sort of compensation? My unit was delayed by 5.5 months and as a result, I was financially impacted. It would be nice if all owners who were delayed due to the flood received some sort of compensation.

I have no answer but I would think if the home you bought was flooded they would compensate. Seems insane not to do so.

You need to look closely at the purchase agreement as it pertains to delays and namely 'unavoidable delays' and the dates of said letters. Something about so long as they advised you of notice of unavoidable delay within 2 weeks of firm occupancy then they are covered off.  Check yours as well for 'final occupancy date' and they likely put some date in bloody 2024 to cover themselves off for even larger delays (so long as the letters went out in time yada yada)...it's ridiculous.

The flood should not even fall under unavoidable delay IMO as they messed up in workmanship.

I have no answer but I would think if the home you bought was flooded they would compensate. Seems insane not to do so.

I agree. The flood occurred on floor 18 and it damaged many units below it, which have since been "repaired". Looks like shoddy work to me, but I'm hoping they fix things before my possession date. I was curious to see if others who were impacted by the delay have heard of any sort of compensation since I think it's justified.

You need to look closely at the purchase agreement as it pertains to delays and namely 'unavoidable delays' and the dates of said letters. Something about so long as they advised you of notice of unavoidable delay within 2 weeks of firm occupancy then they are covered off.  Check yours as well for 'final occupancy date' and they likely put some date in bloody 2024 to cover themselves off for even larger delays (so long as the letters went out in time yada yada)...it's ridiculous.

The flood should not even fall under unavoidable delay IMO as they messed up in workmanship.

I agree, if someone messed up, it shouldn't fall under unavoidable delay. It was completely avoidable if the job had been done correctly. I'm waiting to hear back from my lawyer

What came of talking to your lawyer re: unavoidable delays?

What came of talking to your lawyer re: unavoidable delays?

He didn't know and told me to call Tarion, which I haven't done yet. Was thinking of just submitting the Delayed Closing form to Tarion...fingers crossed that they may approve it? 

Someone needs to compensate us here - whether it's Tarion or the builder or those responsible for this delay (plumbing company and/or security company's insurance). I imagine the builder would be suing them, but who knows....

The following is part of a court filing:

On October 30, 2022 I submit a Tarion Delayed Closing/Occupancy Form. A copy is sent to Victoria Street.

On November 23, 2022 I receive a response from Slonee Malhotra of Sorbara Law. Included are the assertions:

“As per the Act, the Tentative Closing Date Agreement of Purchase and Sale and its Addendum, the Vendor has provided you with the required notice for any and all delays”

“Each instance of an extension was carried forward through providing the Purchaser with a copy of the appropriate Notice within the requisite time period. As long as the Outside Occupancy Date is not exceeded, your builder can extend your Occupancy Date without paying you delayed occupancy compensation”

“All notices ending unavoidable delays were provided no later than 20 days after the Vendor knew or ought to know that the unavoidable delays had concluded and setting new critical dates”

“We hope that this information satisfies you that there is no further action warranted on this claim.”

On June 16, 2023 I submit a Tarion Request for Warranty Assessment.

On or about January 9, 2024 I receive the Tarion Claim Resolution Schedule. Conclusion:

The August 15, 2022 notices ending the Strike, Flood, and Covid-19 UD Events (as well as the April 8, 2022 Covid-19 UD notice) did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and therefore were ineƯective. The Critical Dates which existed at the time the first notice of the First Unavoidable Delay Event was sent, specifically the Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Purchaser is entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the time period between the Firm Closing Date of May 12, 2022 to September 6, 2022; 117 days. Therefore, the Purchaser is entitled to the maximum compensation in the amount of $7,500.00.

[GarmentGate]

The following is part of a court filing:

On October 30, 2022 I submit a Tarion Delayed Closing/Occupancy Form. A copy is sent to Victoria Street.

On November 23, 2022 I receive a response from Slonee Malhotra of Sorbara Law. Included are the assertions:

“As per the Act, the Tentative Closing Date Agreement of Purchase and Sale and its Addendum, the Vendor has provided you with the required notice for any and all delays”

“Each instance of an extension was carried forward through providing the Purchaser with a copy of the appropriate Notice within the requisite time period. As long as the Outside Occupancy Date is not exceeded, your builder can extend your Occupancy Date without paying you delayed occupancy compensation”

“All notices ending unavoidable delays were provided no later than 20 days after the Vendor knew or ought to know that the unavoidable delays had concluded and setting new critical dates”

“We hope that this information satisfies you that there is no further action warranted on this claim.”

On June 16, 2023 I submit a Tarion Request for Warranty Assessment.

On or about January 9, 2024 I receive the Tarion Claim Resolution Schedule. Conclusion:

The August 15, 2022 notices ending the Strike, Flood, and Covid-19 UD Events (as well as the April 8, 2022 Covid-19 UD notice) did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and therefore were ineƯective. The Critical Dates which existed at the time the first notice of the First Unavoidable Delay Event was sent, specifically the Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Purchaser is entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the time period between the Firm Closing Date of May 12, 2022 to September 6, 2022; 117 days. Therefore, the Purchaser is entitled to the maximum compensation in the amount of $7,500.00.

[GarmentGate]

Further detail from the court filing:

The Strike Unavoidable Delay

It is Tarion's assessment that the Vendor's August 15, 2022 written notice ending the Strike UD Event did not meet the requirements outlined in Section 5 for the following reasons:

• The notice failed to identify the date of its conclusion;
• The notice failed to set new critical dates by adding to the existing critical date; and
• The end of Unavoidable Delay notice was not sent within 20 days of when the vendor knew or ought reasonably to have known that the Unavoidable Delay had concluded.

However, as the Vendor did not attribute any delay to the Strike UD Event, the insufficiency of the second notice does not impact the analysis, and the critical dates remain unchanged.

The Flood Unavoidable Delay

Without opining on whether or not the Flood UD event would meet the definition of unavoidable delay under the Addendum, it is Tarion's assessment that the Vendor's August 15, 2022 written notice ending the Flood UD Event did not meet the requirements outlined in Section 5© for the following reason:

• The Vendor specified that the Flood UD Event occurred between March 26, 2022, and March 28, 2022, with an additional remobilization period of 80 days, resulting in a total Unavoidable Delay Period of 82 days, which can be calculated to have ended on June 16, 2022. The Vendor's notice was sent 60 days after the date the Vendor identified as the end of the Flood UD Event. It was not sent "as soon as reasonably possible, and no later than 20 days after the Vendor knows or ought reasonably to know that an Unavoidable Delay has concluded." The notice did not meet the requirements of section 5© of the Addendum and was, therefore, ineffective and the existing Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

• The revised Statement of Critical Dates set a Provisional Firm Occupancy Date of August 1, 2022. The Vendor's notice was sent on August 15, 2022. Section 5© of the Addendum requires that the new Firm Occupancy Date be "at least 10 days after the day of giving notice" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Firm Occupancy Date is the date on which the Vendor will provide occupancy to the Purchaser. The Firm Occupancy Date cannot be set in the past. The Provisional Firm Occupancy Date of August 1, 2022 provided by the Vendor was set in the past. The notice did not meet the requirements of section 5© of the Addendum and was, therefore, ineffective and the existing Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Covid-19 Unavoidable Delay

It is Tarion's assessment that the Vendor's April 8, 2022 written notice of the Covid-19 UD Event and the Vendor's August 15, 2022 written notice ending the Covid-19 UD Event did not meet the requirements outlined in Section 5 of the Addendum for the reasons that follow.

The Vendor has failed to demonstrate that they experienced unavoidable delay as a result of Covid-19 as described in their notices. The April 8, 2022 notice stated that the Covid-19 UD Event related to delays in the supply of material and labour "required in order to remediate the damage from the significant flooding in the building." On August 15, 2022 the Vendor provided the Purchaser with written notice identifying the end of the Flood UD Event as August 1, 2022. On August 15, 2022, the Vendor also provided the Purchaser with written notice that the Covid-19 UD did not commence until August 1, 2022. Covid-19 cannot be said to cause delays in the remediation of the water damage in the building if the Covid-19 UD Event did not commence until after that remediation had been completed.

The Vendor did not send its first notice of the Covid-19 UD Event in compliance with section 5(b) of the Addendum. The first Covid-19 UD Event notice was sent on April 8, 2022. In the August 15, 2022 notice, the Vendor identified the start of the Covid-19 UD Event as August 1, 2022. Section 5(b) of the Addendum requires that the Vendor provide written notice of the start of the unavoidable delay to the Purchaser by the earlier of 20 days thereafter or the next critical date. The April 8, 2022 notice was sent 115 days before the date the Vendor identified as the start of the Covid-19 UD Event. It does not comply with the timing requirements of section 5(b) of the Addendum and, so, is ineffective.

The Vendor failed to identify the end of the Covid-19 UD Event. The August 15, 2022 notice failed to clearly identify the date of the Covid-19 UD Event's conclusion as required by section 5©. The Vendor indicated that the Unavoidable Delay related to the Covid-19 UD Event commenced on August 1, 2022. The notice included a "total setback" of 35 days from August 1, 2022 to a future date of September 6, 2022, identified as the Firm Occupancy Date. The notice does not identify the date when the Covid-19 UD Event ended, but rather provides a future date when the Vendor intended to provide occupancy to the home. A Purchaser could not determine the end of the Covid-19 UD Event based on the information provided by the Vendor.

Therefore, the April 8, 2022 and August 15, 2022 Covid-19 UD Event notices did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and were, therefore, ineffective and the existing Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

[Momo26]

The following is part of a court filing:

On October 30, 2022 I submit a Tarion Delayed Closing/Occupancy Form. A copy is sent to Victoria Street.

On November 23, 2022 I receive a response from Slonee Malhotra of Sorbara Law. Included are the assertions:

“As per the Act, the Tentative Closing Date Agreement of Purchase and Sale and its Addendum, the Vendor has provided you with the required notice for any and all delays”

“Each instance of an extension was carried forward through providing the Purchaser with a copy of the appropriate Notice within the requisite time period. As long as the Outside Occupancy Date is not exceeded, your builder can extend your Occupancy Date without paying you delayed occupancy compensation”

“All notices ending unavoidable delays were provided no later than 20 days after the Vendor knew or ought to know that the unavoidable delays had concluded and setting new critical dates”

“We hope that this information satisfies you that there is no further action warranted on this claim.”

On June 16, 2023 I submit a Tarion Request for Warranty Assessment.

On or about January 9, 2024 I receive the Tarion Claim Resolution Schedule. Conclusion:

The August 15, 2022 notices ending the Strike, Flood, and Covid-19 UD Events (as well as the April 8, 2022 Covid-19 UD notice) did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and therefore were ineƯective. The Critical Dates which existed at the time the first notice of the First Unavoidable Delay Event was sent, specifically the Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Purchaser is entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the time period between the Firm Closing Date of May 12, 2022 to September 6, 2022; 117 days. Therefore, the Purchaser is entitled to the maximum compensation in the amount of $7,500.00.

Oh am I glad I came back to this forum to see this. Thanks for sharing this information. 

Am I to understand you have the 'maximum' of $7500 coming your way due to the flooding delay specifically and since firm occupancy was set in writing for May 2022 but then pushed to Sept 2022?


With the bloody condo fees up 81% we need this compensation.

Can you give me guidance on going about my own claim?

[tomh009]

With the bloody condo fees up 81% we need this compensation.

I feel for your troubles, but the condo fee issue is far from unique to Garment. Most new condo developments advertise very optimistic condo fees in the first place, and then you add 2-3 years of construction inflation on top of that. Under $0.50 would be very good these days, and that's assuming you're not paying for a concierge or 24x7 security.

[Momo26]

With the bloody condo fees up 81% we need this compensation.

I feel for your troubles, but the condo fee issue is far from unique to Garment. Most new condo developments advertise very optimistic condo fees in the first place, and then you add 2-3 years of construction inflation on top of that. Under $0.50 would be very good these days, and that's assuming you're not paying for a concierge or 24x7 security.

 Went from about 0.51 to 0.87/sqft. Fired the concierge and it still went up that much. Management changed and did not get any clear Answer justifying the jump.

[tomh009]

I feel for your troubles, but the condo fee issue is far from unique to Garment. Most new condo developments advertise very optimistic condo fees in the first place, and then you add 2-3 years of construction inflation on top of that. Under $0.50 would be very good these days, and that's assuming you're not paying for a concierge or 24x7 security.

 Went from about 0.51 to 0.87/sqft. Fired the concierge and it still went up that much. Management changed and did not get any clear Answer justifying the jump.

$0.87! The reserve contributions were probably much too low initially, was this after a reserve fund study was done? The budget should answer a lot of questions, did you get a copy of that?

Looking at my condo fee data, $0.87 is definitely high end locally, and, without a concierge, it's not clear to me why it should be. Kaufman Lofts is higher, but they are dealing with a lot of maintenance issues. Roughly speaking, you should expect the condo corporation to spend maybe 20-25% for each of operations, maintenance and utilities, and probably 25-30% for reserve fund contributions.

(I was a bit out of date on my initial fee comment, I don't see any building below $0.50 any more, ours is now almost $0.60.)

[Momo26]

 Went from about 0.51 to 0.87/sqft. Fired the concierge and it still went up that much. Management changed and did not get any clear Answer justifying the jump.

$0.87! The reserve contributions were probably much too low initially, was this after a reserve fund study was done? The budget should answer a lot of questions, did you get a copy of that?

Looking at my condo fee data, $0.87 is definitely high end locally, and, without a concierge, it's not clear to me why it should be. Kaufman Lofts is higher, but they are dealing with a lot of maintenance issues. Roughly speaking, you should expect the condo corporation to spend maybe 20-25% for each of operations, maintenance and utilities, and probably 25-30% for reserve fund contributions.

(I was a bit out of date on my initial fee comment, I don't see any building below $0.50 any more, ours is now almost $0.60.)

Apparently $744k shortfall.

Let me try this - check your DM.

[GarmentGate]

The following is part of a court filing:

On October 30, 2022 I submit a Tarion Delayed Closing/Occupancy Form. A copy is sent to Victoria Street.

On November 23, 2022 I receive a response from Slonee Malhotra of Sorbara Law. Included are the assertions:

“As per the Act, the Tentative Closing Date Agreement of Purchase and Sale and its Addendum, the Vendor has provided you with the required notice for any and all delays”

“Each instance of an extension was carried forward through providing the Purchaser with a copy of the appropriate Notice within the requisite time period. As long as the Outside Occupancy Date is not exceeded, your builder can extend your Occupancy Date without paying you delayed occupancy compensation”

“All notices ending unavoidable delays were provided no later than 20 days after the Vendor knew or ought to know that the unavoidable delays had concluded and setting new critical dates”

“We hope that this information satisfies you that there is no further action warranted on this claim.”

On June 16, 2023 I submit a Tarion Request for Warranty Assessment.

On or about January 9, 2024 I receive the Tarion Claim Resolution Schedule. Conclusion:

The August 15, 2022 notices ending the Strike, Flood, and Covid-19 UD Events (as well as the April 8, 2022 Covid-19 UD notice) did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and therefore were ineƯective. The Critical Dates which existed at the time the first notice of the First Unavoidable Delay Event was sent, specifically the Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Purchaser is entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the time period between the Firm Closing Date of May 12, 2022 to September 6, 2022; 117 days. Therefore, the Purchaser is entitled to the maximum compensation in the amount of $7,500.00.

Oh am I glad I came back to this forum to see this. Thanks for sharing this information. 

Am I to understand you have the 'maximum' of $7500 coming your way due to the flooding delay specifically and since firm occupancy was set in writing for May 2022 but then pushed to Sept 2022?


With the bloody condo fees up 81% we need this compensation.

Can you give me guidance on going about my own claim?

1.     Contact Momentum directly. Tell them you’ve been aware the notices they sent out didn’t meet legal requirements and demand compensation.
 
2.     File a complaint with the Home Construction Regulatory Authority.  The builder sent out invalid notices which likely meant they avoided paying out million(s) of dollars in compensation. 
https://www.hcraontario.ca/licensing-com...complaint/
“If you have concerns that a licensed builder or vendor may have breached the Code of Ethics, please complete the form below.” 
https://hcraontario.ca/blog/the-code-of-ethics/
honesty, integrity, competent service, financial responsibility, unprofessional conduct, duty to comply with law, misrepresentation, forms and documents
 
3.     File an ethics, honesty, misleading statements complaint with the Law Society of Ontario against Seth Jutzi (& any other lawyer who gave you misinformation).  He’s a partner at momentum & lawyer at Sorbara Law.  He signed the notices that didn’t meet legal requirements. You can’t have lawyers putting out false statements/misinformation that benefits their development company to the tune of millions of dollars. This is a multi-million-dollar scandal, something that acts as an aggravating factor. Regulatory fines need to be imposed to deter that type of behavior. What is the integrity of a lawyer’s word worth? The Law Society of Ontario should order the lawyer(s) involved to retract/correct their statements to all affected purchasers (and make them whole).
https://lso.ca/protecting-the-public/com...you-with-5
 
4.     Investigate legal remedies (such as small claims court) that may be available to you on this issue.  Highlights from a legal firm’s article regarding new home warranties https://mccagueborlack.com/emails/articl...nties.html
"Court of Appeal confirms that home buyers are not barred by the provisions of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act from pursuing remedies in the courts”
“There is nothing in the Act to suggest that the statutory scheme is exclusive, or that resort to court proceeding is barred. Indeed, the statute provides additional rights to those which a home buyer might otherwise have had. Had it been the intention of the legislature to set up an exclusive scheme, it would have been simple to say so, but the legislature did not.”
“To ensure that you are not caught by the arbitration provisions of the Act, be sure to include allegations of negligence against the builder in the Statement of Claim."

[baseballkid123]

The following is part of a court filing:

On October 30, 2022 I submit a Tarion Delayed Closing/Occupancy Form. A copy is sent to Victoria Street.

On November 23, 2022 I receive a response from Slonee Malhotra of Sorbara Law. Included are the assertions:

“As per the Act, the Tentative Closing Date Agreement of Purchase and Sale and its Addendum, the Vendor has provided you with the required notice for any and all delays”

“Each instance of an extension was carried forward through providing the Purchaser with a copy of the appropriate Notice within the requisite time period. As long as the Outside Occupancy Date is not exceeded, your builder can extend your Occupancy Date without paying you delayed occupancy compensation”

“All notices ending unavoidable delays were provided no later than 20 days after the Vendor knew or ought to know that the unavoidable delays had concluded and setting new critical dates”

“We hope that this information satisfies you that there is no further action warranted on this claim.”

On June 16, 2023 I submit a Tarion Request for Warranty Assessment.

On or about January 9, 2024 I receive the Tarion Claim Resolution Schedule. Conclusion:

The August 15, 2022 notices ending the Strike, Flood, and Covid-19 UD Events (as well as the April 8, 2022 Covid-19 UD notice) did not meet the requirements of section 5 of the Addendum and therefore were ineƯective. The Critical Dates which existed at the time the first notice of the First Unavoidable Delay Event was sent, specifically the Firm Occupancy Date of May 12, 2022, remained unchanged.

The Purchaser is entitled to Delayed Closing Compensation for the time period between the Firm Closing Date of May 12, 2022 to September 6, 2022; 117 days. Therefore, the Purchaser is entitled to the maximum compensation in the amount of $7,500.00.

That is welcomed news! By the sounds of it you are well on your way to collect $7,500 (117 x 150 daily amount up to max of 7,500?). Congrats!

Unfortunately at this point I believe most people never filled out/claimed delayed compensation through Tarion, which from my understanding has to be filled out within 1 year of occupancy. Guessing everyone else is SOL.

[jeffster]

 Went from about 0.51 to 0.87/sqft. Fired the concierge and it still went up that much. Management changed and did not get any clear Answer justifying the jump.

$0.87! The reserve contributions were probably much too low initially, was this after a reserve fund study was done? The budget should answer a lot of questions, did you get a copy of that?

Looking at my condo fee data, $0.87 is definitely high end locally, and, without a concierge, it's not clear to me why it should be. Kaufman Lofts is higher, but they are dealing with a lot of maintenance issues. Roughly speaking, you should expect the condo corporation to spend maybe 20-25% for each of operations, maintenance and utilities, and probably 25-30% for reserve fund contributions.

(I was a bit out of date on my initial fee comment, I don't see any building below $0.50 any more, ours is now almost $0.60.)

I had a friend that owned a 3-bedroom condo. Their condo rates were going up year after year. I think it was over $600/month when he sold his unit and purchased a home.

It seems that with condo-apartments you pay a lot more on condo fees than you would with a condo-townhome. I figured the one issue is water usage. There are folks out there that will have their 40 minute shower and baths filled to the brim because they get the water 'for free'. It is not. My friend was saying that water was the biggest expense (he was on the board) and was over $200/unit.

You would think that there could be a way to make owners pay for all of their own utilities.

That said, it doesn't seem worth it to buy a condo-apartment if your expenses will still exceed $800-$1,000/month based on taxes, condo fees and electric.

[tomh009]

It seems that with condo-apartments you pay a lot more on condo fees than you would with a condo-townhome. I figured the one issue is water usage. There are folks out there that will have their 40 minute shower and baths filled to the brim because they get the water 'for free'. It is not. My friend was saying that water was the biggest expense (he was on the board) and was over $200/unit.

You would think that there could be a way to make owners pay for all of their own utilities.

That said, it doesn't seem worth it to buy a condo-apartment if your expenses will still exceed $800-$1,000/month based on taxes, condo fees and electric.

The condo fees really depend on (1) the cost of operating the building (maintenance, cleaning, insurance, snow removal, landscaping and utilities) and (2) reserve fund contributions. The first group you pay for even in a SFH, although some of it you might pay with your own personal labour. The second group is for future building repairs and maintenance; in a SFH you will still have those costs (new roof, new windows, new driveway etc) but you don't save for them in advance.

But take a look at what a roof costs and divide by 15; the cost of new windows divided by maybe 30; new air conditioner divided by maybe 20, and so on, a house is not maintenance-free, either.

We did the math before we moved into a condo (apartment) and have no regrets about it. And that's not even including the cost savings from going from two cars to one ...