Report a Comment

Your argument factor in the maintenance costs of the SFHs as compared to the condos. Plus where are you getting these facts for arguing that in "most locations", condos are worth less than they were 3 years ago? Where are these condos located, because last time I checked, the far-flung exurbs do not have a 'glut of condos'. Did you not pay attention to the quote you copied that says the average time for the value of the investment in TOD to appreciate takes at least 10 years?

For your second argument, why did you not argue what other things are in close proximity to those 'close-in' suburbs, such as transit, major corporations, etc.? Those are the things that keep all home prices high (be it a SF or a condo) because of the proximity to amenities, or in other words, how accessible are these things (able to be reached conveniently), and the resultant demand that the market places for such convenience. It's very prevalent in all the areas that don't have major corporations and the associated amenities near them, in that their home values are, on average, less than those who live near their job (or someone else's job, for that matter).

Please consider arguing facts that can be substantiated and not generalized (see wikipedia: logical fallacy). I do, however, respect your opinion on the matter.

by C. R. on Feb 14, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report