Jump to content

Buy Herself


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

52 replies to this topic

#1

Sea

Sea

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 24, 2012 @ 3:56 PM

Former Property Virgins host Sandra Rinomato's new show on HGTV Canada. From their site,

Top-rated television personality and award-winning real-estate agent Sandra Rinomato guides single women through the exciting, emotional and scary process of buying their first home in this new HGTV Canada series.


There's been two eps so far, a woman looking at condos in downtown Toronto (forger her name), and the other was a woman named Danielle looking for an income property in Hamilton. I like Sandra, so I've been watching. Anyone else?

#2

Trey

Trey

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted Apr 27, 2012 @ 10:43 AM

I haven't seen it yet but I will probably catch an episode this week. It's supposed to be shown at 3 pm Saturday and Monday which is a better time for me.

Is it pretty much the same format as Property Virgins?

#3

Sea

Sea

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 28, 2012 @ 8:06 PM

It is very similar - the main difference was that Sandra went into the properties with the potential buyer and they did the walkthrough together, unlike PV where she sent the virgin(s) in on their own first.

#4

Trey

Trey

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted May 1, 2012 @ 10:13 AM

I caught last night's episode. I liked it pretty well, enjoyed looking at the different condos.

But I do think the HO was very shortsighted in buying the one she did. Baby is going to grow up pretty fast and it won't be very long before she'll want a proper bedroom, not just a little nook off the living room, with floor to ceiling windows yet so no privacy at all.

I know the third condo was quite a ways out but it had so much more room and would have lasted them until Baby grew up.

I do realize that life style is important but HO didn't seem to realize that having a baby to raise trumps going out and having fun.

#5

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 3, 2012 @ 10:07 AM

The one thing I like about this show is the way Sandra Rinomato spends time breaking down the monthly living costs of buying a property: Mortgage payments, condo or HOA fees, maintenance, utilities, property taxes, etc. Her stern lecture to single mom Alicia about doing up a monthly budget and figuring out what she could realistically afford is one that most people should take to heart before they buy property; I daresay they will usually discover they can afford less, not more, than they thought.

So many real estate shows (including Rinomato's previous show, Property Virgins) only focus on the price of the property without ever mentioning whether it's affordable on a cost-of-living basis. This is how so many people wind up house-poor. Just because your bank pre-approves you for a giant-sized mortgage doesn't mean you can afford to carry it.

#6

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 4, 2012 @ 9:53 PM

I just saw Alicia's episode and I too think she made a mistake not buying the two bedroom place. She forgets that Zara's going to grow up and not only would a 4 or 5 year old want her own room, but there are schools to think about. Yes, there are schools near the city core here in Toronto that are wonderful, but they're usually in pricey areas (where condos hover around the half mil mark and single family homes close to seven figures). A suburban condo is likely in a good area for school. At almost age one, Zara is only about three years away from Junior Kindergarten!

#7

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 5, 2012 @ 2:48 PM

I don't know why so many people seem to think that Alicia should've taken the 2-bedroom place in the suburbs. What, just because she's a mom, that means she has to exile herself to life in the outskirts of suburbia, sit in traffic an hour or more in each direction every day (which is time away from her kid) and sacrifice not only her own life but the ability to expose her daughter to the cultural benefits of growing up in the city? Suburbs versus city is a personal choice; there's no "right" or "wrong" answer. But if she wanted to stay in the city, I think she found a place that she and Zara could grow in for at least 4-5 years if not more, and the plus-one could always be sectioned off into a perfectly good bedroom as Zara gets older. The automatic assumption that parenthood=suburbia is what's killing our cities, IMHO.

#8

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 5, 2012 @ 9:14 PM

I don't know why so many people seem to think that Alicia should've taken the 2-bedroom place in the suburbs. What, just because she's a mom, that means she has to exile herself to life in the outskirts of suburbia, sit in traffic an hour or more in each direction every day (which is time away from her kid) and sacrifice not only her own life but the ability to expose her daughter to the cultural benefits of growing up in the city? Suburbs versus city is a personal choice; there's no "right" or "wrong" answer. But if she wanted to stay in the city, I think she found a place that she and Zara could grow in for at least 4-5 years if not more, and the plus-one could always be sectioned off into a perfectly good bedroom as Zara gets older. The automatic assumption that parenthood=suburbia is what's killing our cities, IMHO.


It's not a suburbia vs. city thing, but a what's good for kids thing. I too want to raise any hypothetical children my husband and I have in the city, but I worry about the schools. I live downtown right now, and the area public schools have lowish test scores. The separate schools are a bit better (as are French Immersion), but still not as good compared to similar schools in other parts of the Toronto (e.g. Yonge/Eglinton, Lawrence Park, Willowdale and most parts of the 905/"real" suburbia. Lawrence Park would be great - if I could afford the seven figure home prices!)

#9

Trey

Trey

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 12:19 PM

I don't see it as suburban vs urban so much either. As for myself, living 250 miles from Toronto in a rural area, anywhere from Mississauga to Oshawa is "the city" to me:) Even living on the outskirts of Toronto, you have many more cultural benefits than most places in the province so I don't think they'd be missing out on that.

The place Alicia chose was just so small - that's the main point to me. It's too bad there are only three options...maybe they just chose extremes (close but small vs large but long commute) to illustrate a point...I don't know. But I would have wanted a little more room, including a true second bedroom for Zara, even if I did have to move out a little farther.

#10

spaghettijimmy

spaghettijimmy

    Couch Potato

Posted May 6, 2012 @ 1:37 PM

I adore Sandra--lucky Canadians, I wonder if HGTV US will pick this up?

#11

SusieCue

SusieCue

    Couch Potato

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 3:39 PM

I too want to raise any hypothetical children my husband and I have in the city, but I worry about the schools. I live downtown right now, and the area public schools have lowish test scores. The separate schools are a bit better (as are French Immersion), but still not as good compared to similar schools in other parts of the Toronto.


School test scores tell you almost nothing about how good the school/teachers is/are. The only thing school test scores correlate well with is average wealth of the families with kids attending the school. (Rich people can afford to send their kids to all sorts of extra camps, choirs, trips, etc. that help their kids succeed. Also, some of them have more time to focus on their kids' education.)

I'm not a fan of the property ladder approach to real estate, which Alicia has pretty much forced herself into because she'll have to move to a two bedroom place within the next five years. Moving is expensive! I'd rather buy someplace hoping that it's a 'forever house' (or, at least, only planning to move after 20ish years).

#12

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 7, 2012 @ 8:26 PM

Moving *is* expensive, and if you have to move more often than every 5 years or so, it's probably more economical to rent. That being said, not everyone can afford their "forever" house the first time around, especially in an expensive city like Toronto.

SpaghettiJimmy, I suspect the whole "3 properties" thing is staged. I know on some of these other shows, they include the place that the homeowner has already purchased, plus two others for contrast and to give the show some element of "suspense". In this case, Alicia had probably already decided on the small city condo, and they took her to two places further out to show the difference in what she could get.

But, living out in Missisauga or Oakville or Brampton or Newmarket or wherever, and commuting into Toronto every day, is a lifestyle choice that doesn't appeal to everyone. It has a lot of drawbacks: you're stuck living a car-only existence, you have to deal with rush hour traffic for hours a day, and you're living in the land of superstores and strip malls.

Our North American concept of how much space a person "needs" is really warped; I agree that Baby Zara probably will want her own room eventually (and that can be created in the plus-one in the place Alicia bought with a little creative renovating). But in the US in 1950, the average home had 286 square feet per person; by 2000 that had increased to an average of 847 square feet per capita. The average person does not NEED 847 square feet of their own space. Contrast this to the rest of the world, where people regularly live in much smaller spaces.

#13

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 12:24 PM

Was last night's episode with Sandy an audition reel for a Real Housewives (Real Divorcees?) franchise? Seriously!

#14

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 6:29 PM

Yikes! Divorcee Sandy may be a contender for the new most annoying person on a reality TV show. That episode was cringe-worthy. Sandra shows her quarter of a million dollar properties (with, I'm sure you noticed, very small mortgage payments... which means she had the bulk of it as a downpayment - probably a settlement in her divorce - and was CHOOSING to spend more) and all she can do is criticize them?

I hate to say this, but no wonder she's divorced. She should skip the home purchase shows and go straight to millionaire matchmaker, because it's obvious that what she needs is a new sugar daddy.

#15

Sea

Sea

    Fanatic

Posted May 9, 2012 @ 11:56 AM

SpaghettiJimmy, I suspect the whole "3 properties" thing is staged. I know on some of these other shows, they include the place that the homeowner has already purchased, plus two others for contrast and to give the show some element of "suspense". In this case, Alicia had probably already decided on the small city condo, and they took her to two places further out to show the difference in what she could get.


Unlike House Hunters, I don't think the participants on this show have already bought a home. In the latest ep with Sandy, she decided she wasn't ready to buy at all.

#16

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 11:33 PM

Yeah, Sandy struck me as someone who didn't really want to buy a house; she just wanted to be on TV.

#17

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 4:24 PM

You know, her friends struck me as fake, too.

#18

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 15, 2012 @ 7:35 PM

Wow, Jessica's dad was nuts! You'd think he wanted to keep her locked in a cage. Mind you, the place she ended up buying was little more than a cage. Not to criticize the show or anything, but what's with Toronto real estate's penchant for building these tiny boxes in the sky?

#19

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 15, 2012 @ 11:17 PM

Wow, Jessica's dad was nuts! You'd think he wanted to keep her locked in a cage. Mind you, the place she ended up buying was little more than a cage. Not to criticize the show or anything, but what's with Toronto real estate's penchant for building these tiny boxes in the sky?


Money. People around here are willing to pay a lot for location (usually means easy access to public transportation, walking-friendly and lots of good restaurants and shops if you're single or in a relationship/married and kid-free). A lot of people just want a place to crash, anyway.

#20

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 29, 2012 @ 12:11 PM

What's with all these ditzes who go on this show? Last night's Ana the Shoe-a-holic was another one. I mean, a den just to store shoes? REALLY??!

Edited by PRgal, May 29, 2012 @ 12:12 PM.


#21

Trey

Trey

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted May 30, 2012 @ 4:28 PM

Yep, a big condo with a den to display the shoes in downtown Toronto, all for $250,000. The Four Seasons Hotel in downtown TO is being made over into condos (the hotel moved down the street)...she can buy a 370 sq. ft. condo there for $340,000.

I think Sandra was a little fed up with her.

And I think it was a wise decision on her part to hold off buying until she could afford what she wanted.

#22

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted May 31, 2012 @ 3:04 PM

Yep, a big condo with a den to display the shoes in downtown Toronto, all for $250,000. The Four Seasons Hotel in downtown TO is being made over into condos (the hotel moved down the street)...she can buy a 370 sq. ft. condo there for $340,000.

I think Sandra was a little fed up with her.

And I think it was a wise decision on her part to hold off buying until she could afford what she wanted.


But whether she has enough or not, I think the whole idea of using the den to hold shoes is kind of weird. I use my den as a home office!

#23

superpole2000

superpole2000

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 2, 2012 @ 2:43 PM

Anna had no concept of price per square foot. Wanting a den is fine, but if a den is 75 square feet, and the price per square foot of Toronto condos is around $500, then that den would cost her $37,500. Someone should have shown her that calculation. Once you do the math, simple wants start to look like ridiculous luxuries.

Oh, and I enjoyed the show.

#24

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jun 3, 2012 @ 8:29 PM

What's with all these ditzes who go on this show?


Seriously! If this show's intention was to show that times have changed and women are serious real estate buyers and a market force to be reckoned with, well, maybe they should find some smart, serious female buyers to feature. I'm getting a little fed up with the way this show is just reinforcing the stereotypes it was supposedly going to deconstruct. It would be like a show about buying cars that featured women who just wanted a "pretty colour". Puh-leeze.

#25

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jun 4, 2012 @ 9:30 PM

So, Stephanie seemed a bit like an overgrown child. 27 years old and still couchsurfing at her sister's place? No wonder her sister didn't think she could handle being an adult. Funny that her dad wanted her to take on more than she could afford.

Honestly, I didn't particularly like any of the houses that Sandra showed Stephanie, but I guess for the area, they were okay. The one she bought seemed rather silly, for a first-time homebuyer. What does one single woman need with four bedrooms? And the house was older, requiring a lot more maintenance and upkeep.

#26

Trey

Trey

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted Jun 5, 2012 @ 7:30 AM

Exactly!

I thought one of the smaller places would be better. The 4-bedroom would have been the last place I chose.

And if her job was so uncertain that she had to couch surf, why wasn't she still just living at home? or even in a small apartment?

#27

PRgal

PRgal

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 5, 2012 @ 7:47 AM

Honestly, I didn't particularly like any of the houses that Sandra showed Stephanie, but I guess for the area, they were okay. The one she bought seemed rather silly, for a first-time homebuyer. What does one single woman need with four bedrooms? And the house was older, requiring a lot more maintenance and upkeep.


I would have gone with house 2 or 3, personally. The first house looked like it had original cupboards (they really looked like the ones at the house I lived in back in elementary school, which was built in the early 80s). But at least it was much less, so she could fix it up.

#28

coffeeloverfrea

coffeeloverfrea

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jun 5, 2012 @ 6:52 PM

The first house looked like it had original cupboards (they really looked like the ones at the house I lived in back in elementary school, which was built in the early 80s).


I know!!! I have those exact cabinets in my kitchen now. I live in an apartment that was built in the 80s and hasn't really been renovated since. Unfortunately it's a rental so I can't do much about the ugly cabinets. I did rebel and paint the surrounding walls a fluorescent yellow, though.

I'm glad she didn't go over her budget, but I can tell you that if that were me, I'd be looking for something a heck of a lot more updated. Stephanie didn't strike me as being in any way prepared to take on major renovation work, and living with them as-is is basically the same as living in a rental... which begs the question, why not just rent?

#29

Shermie

Shermie

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 6, 2012 @ 8:23 AM

People around here are willing to pay a lot for location (usually means easy access to public transportation, walking-friendly and lots of good restaurants and shops if you're single or in a relationship/married and kid-free).

Homebuyers (on many of these real estate shows) say this a LOT - wanting to live near lots of restaurants and shops. But if they have such a limited budget for acquiring a home, often having to settle because they can't afford what they really want, how can they afford to go to all these great restaurants and shop at all these little shops (both of which are probably expensive)? It makes no sense.

If this show's intention was to show that times have changed and women are serious real estate buyers and a market force to be reckoned with, well, maybe they should find some smart, serious female buyers to feature.

I would posit that this type of woman doesn't need the help of a real estate show to buy a home, nor does she want to be featured on reality TV.

#30

The Deej

The Deej

    Couch Potato

  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted Jun 6, 2012 @ 5:26 PM

The one she bought seemed rather silly, for a first-time homebuyer. What does one single woman need with four bedrooms?


I would easily find use for the other rooms, like an office, recording studio, guests space, exercise or dungeon play space. Being single shouldn't exclude one from wanting more space to do things.