WELL, IN CONDOS IT’S . . . DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER ! ! !

by charles laurie hanes march 12, 2003

The condominium development business is certainly a lucrative one. You go out and find a parcel of land and buy, or option it and set up a sales infrastructure, put a sales trailer on the site and run ads, turning that small investment in the land into a virtual flood of cash (providing the location is a demand one).

Since entering the condo sales industry as a Developer’s top gun salesman back in 1983 I’ve never seen a bad sales site. I actually played a role in the structuring of how sales sites should operate as when I got into this business there was no template or successful "how to" manual.

It actually is incredible to me today to see how little has changed. You visit a lavishly appointed sales center (many times built into a trailer but more frequently downtown built into a collapsible frame building) usually with a small entrance area where you are required to remain in a rather cramped environment until one of the "sales associates" (I’m told that political correctness has led to this definition of the professionally trained salesperson) comes out and greets you and then introduces you to the development.

You start with a model that is always impressive, many times with little light switches that allow you to flip and see various locations of units that are for sale. You are then usually led into the model suites where you see magnificently designed and decorated suites (usually a couple) showing you what the model may look like (providing you have the money to hire a David Nivens for example plus pay for the Art Shop furniture and costly appointments).

Many developers show you fully or at least partially "upgraded" model suites with most developers catching on to posting a small sign stipulating that some features are "upgrades" for display purposes only. Astute purchasers agents will assist you to narrow down what "upgrades" are shown and help you understand that "all that glitters is not gold".

As a professional Buyer’s Agent, my job is to assist in the purchase but more importantly to bring a knowledgeable perspective on the area, the building itself, and then specific units in that development that enhance your odds of being satisfied with your selection.

One of the foremost aspect of the process rests in Developer Selection and in a city with well over 100 new residential condominium sites under development, just like in every profession and business out there, you are going to find reputable developers and others whose conduct and track record show clearly that they are less than reputable.

As a Buyer’s Agent,  I am certainly obligated under law to disclose knowledge (certainly first hand knowledge) with matters specifically related to ethical conduct of developers. As Publisher in Chief of the real estate channels found on simplycondos.com I feel the comparable obligation to my readers (now surpassing 15,000 "Hits" Per Day) with like disclosure.

Certainly it is not my place to assail anyone without granting them the opportunity to defend themselves and I herewith extend the invitation to any party discussed in my editorials to submit their rebuttal and/or explanations and I GUARANTEE it will be published.

Still, I am opposed to publishing my particular view on these matters as many of them (first hand knowledge means it directly effects me) directly involve me in my professional position. I have, in the past, been assailed by a number of people and been threatened with litigation simply for having published an email from a client who was expressing his concerns over 1 King St. West.

The five page narrative  from the developer led me to retract the article (at the insistence of my Broker at the time - now X-Broker) something that I was opposed to doing but which was really not worth fighting over on so many levels. This is not to suggest that I am opposed to intellectual challenge but I would invite it on a level playing field where one party does not hide behind industry ethic codes to masquerade their opposition to honest comment written by end-user consumers.