Toronto at Home - A Real Estate Blog

Real estate fees and commissions

The Toronto area real estate market has shown steady growth for nearly 10 years, resulting in positive outcomes for consumers, the real estate business and the economy as a whole. However, this period of growth has also led to a number of misconceptions about the business.

Perhaps the most common misconception is that in a hot market, properties "sell themselves" and the REALTOR® has less work to do in order to earn commissions. Many consumers are not aware of how the commission structure works, and given the significant amount of money changing hands in a real estate transaction it is natural for them to want to know where their money is going. Let’s take a brief look at how commissions work.

When a consumer decides to sell their home, they often agree to pay their chosen salesperson (actually the brokerage) a certain percentage of the selling price of their home upon completion of the sale. This rate is generally specified in the Listing Agreement that is signed by the homeowner and the listing salesperson. As in any business transaction, prior to signing an agreement the consumer should firmly establish the level of service they will be receiving and the fees they will be required to pay.

When a home sells, commission is initially paid to the real estate brokerage that employs the listing salesperson. In most cases a portion of this money - often half - is immediately forwarded to the company working on behalf of the buyer for services provided in bringing the transaction to fruition. The remaining funds, meanwhile, may be distributed in a number of ways depending on the business model of the listing brokerage.

Some brokerages retain a portion of the listing salesperson’s commission for operational costs like company management, rent, office staff, employee training, franchise fees and so on. Other companies may forward all of the commission to the salesperson but charge a significant monthly fee.

A good portion of the commission earned goes toward maintaining the business operation and, of course, marketing and selling the home. Keep in mind that most real estate professionals are paid solely on commission, with no base salary. Their livelihood relies on the level of service they provide their customers and clients.

It is also important to understand that as the real estate market grows, so too does competition for commissions. An active real estate market typically brings in a large influx of new registrants that reduce market share for each individual. For example, the total number of sales in 2005 was 24 per cent higher than in 2001, the beginning of the most recent “hot market.” By comparison, the number of Toronto Real Estate Board Members during that time increased by 33 per cent, to over 23,000 active Members. The 7,000 transactions, on average, that take place each month are divided among these Members.

Learn about our commitment to reduce the cost of selling homes by providing full MLS® service at 3%.

Toronto's Second Suite information

by Bob Aaron
Toronto Real Estate Lawyer

The recent death of a single mother in a Toronto basement apartment fire is a reminder tragic fires can and do occur in every type of dwelling.

For landlords everywhere, it should underline the importance of ensuring that their below-grade residential units comply with all relevant fire code, building code and zoning bylaw requirements.

Based on my own experience, I believe many of the thousands of basement apartments in the Toronto area fail to comply with one or more of the governing regulations.

Real estate agents have become very creative in using euphemisms for the term "illegal basement apartment." Some of the more common expressions are granny flat, nanny suite, income potential, second suite and, my favourite, "no warranty as to retrofit status."

Sadly, there appears to be no single source of intelligible, reliable information on how to create a new basement unit, or to legalize an old one.

I started a search recently with the City of Toronto's Second Suite information kit (available at the Access Toronto counter in the main lobby of City Hall, and at the old civic centres in York, East York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York).

It contains a number of pamphlets and booklets about renovating, building permits, smoke alarms, building costs and responsibilities of landlords. But there is virtually nothing about the actual physical requirements for basement units: size, fire protection, zoning, parking, window area, ceiling height, exit requirements and similar basics.

An online search revealed some very helpful information at http://www.landlordselfhelp.com, and http://www.carsondunlop.com

Jim Laughlin, the city's deputy chief building official, advised that if you have a house less than five years old, forget about a basement apartment. So-called conversions can only be done in "existing" homes.

Under old legislation introduced by the former NDP government, basement apartments created or legalized between July 14, 1994 and Nov. 16, 1995 are grandfathered if — and it's a big if — they complied with health, fire and building code standards.

Apartments created during this time don't have to meet current zoning bylaws, but they do have to meet all the other requirements.

Fast forward to July, 2000, when the Ontario Municipal Board approved a Toronto bylaw to permit second suites (basement units) across the entire city. The bylaws of the six former Toronto municipalities have now been amended to contain harmonized zoning standards.

Laughlin explained that new basement apartments can now be created and old ones legalized if certain minimum requirements are met:

• The detached or semi-detached house must be at least five years old.
• The front of the house cannot be significantly altered to change its appearance from that of a one-unit building.
• Stairway exit walls and a continuous ceiling in the unit must have appropriate fire-rated drywall separations from the other unit. Exit doors must have a specified minimum size and thickness.
• The unit's exits must satisfy the Fire Code (if existing) and the Building Code (if new). While it is best to have a separate exit for the unit, a shared exit is acceptable in some circumstances.
• The basement unit must be smaller than other units in the building.
• Certain property standards must be met concerning minimum ceiling heights (6 feet, 5 inches) and minimum window sizes.
• All units must have operating smoke alarms. A carbon monoxide detector may also be required.
• Bathrooms have to have either a window or exhaust fan.
• Inspections by the Electrical Safety Authority and the local fire department are required for existing units.

The fire inspection is often called a fire code retrofit certificate, but compliance certificates from the fire department and electrical authority alone do not mean that the apartment is completely legal.

• An additional parking space is required for the new unit in most areas of the city.
• Newly created units require building permits before construction begins.

Anyone interested in creating or legalizing an existing basement apartment will have to become familiar with parts 9 or 11 of Ontario's building code, the fire code, electrical code, the zoning bylaw, property standards bylaw and the credit limit on a bank loan necessary to fund all of the work.

It may appear to be a regulatory nightmare, but Laughlin says the city will help guide people through the process.

Anyone building a second suite or buying a house that contains one should seek the professional help of an experienced architect or contractor experienced with below-grade living accommodations.

The consequences of doing it wrong can be deadly.

Service key to repeat business

New study from Coldwell Banker®

REALTORS should consider making customer service their top priority, according to a new survey from Coldwell Banker®. The Coldwell Banker Customer Service Study reveals a strong correlation between the quality of a company's customer service and its long-term success.

Nine out of 10 consumers surveyed declared that great customer service is "very or extremely" important in deciding whether to give a service provider repeat business. The survey found that a typical consumer switched businesses they dealt with twice in the past three years due to "bad service”. In addition, consumers surveyed indicated that they change providers because of bad service (32 per cent) nearly as often as they change businesses for lower prices (38 per cent).

When asked to define the differences between great and bad, consumers said the top characteristics of companies with "great service" were: resolving questions and problems (66 per cent), knowledge of the product or service (49 per cent), being easy to reach (35 per cent), and understanding requirements (35 per cent). In contrast, consumers said "bad service" included the following characteristics: inability to resolve questions or problems (46 per cent), being unavailable/difficult to reach (38 per cent), needing to deal with multiple people/departments to resolve problems (37 per cent), lack of product knowledge (34 per cent), and unprofessional demeanor (33 per cent).

The survey results also suggest that companies may not be gathering vital consumer feedback. Only one-quarter of surveyed consumers reported having frequent opportunities to voice their opinions on their service experiences, while one-third reported they had only infrequent opportunities to do so.

"Service is king, and it can make or break a company," said Gary Hockey, President of Coldwell Banker Canada. "Nothing beats knowledge, experience, problem-solving and responsiveness. Combining that with good manners usually wins a customer for life. It's one thing to talk about excellent customer service, but it's quite another to demand it and maintain it as a key element of an organization's culture.”

The online survey of 555 U.S. consumers who have bought or sold a house anytime within their lives was conducted by Harris Interactive and commissioned by Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation. The study measured consumer expectations and perceptions of overall customer service in a number of different industries. "The findings of this survey reinforce what our own research has indicated here in Canada," said Hockey. "We have conducted focus groups of Canadian home buyers and sellers, and the results closely parallel those of the recent Harris study."

The survey also found that the top five most important customer service skills associated with buying or selling a home are: listening (58 per cent), helping to select a home based on their requirements (48 per cent), helping consumers understand the buying/selling process (34 per cent), listing of the property/advertising (28 per cent), and market analysis (26 per cent)

Real Estate leaders in Toronto

More than 3,000 leaders of the world's corporate real estate industry are scheduled to gather April 17 ­ 20, 2005 in Toronto, Canada for the CoreNet Global Summit.

This year¹s event features Rudolph W. Giuliani, chairman and CEO of Giuliani Partners LLC and former New York City Mayor, as the keynote speaker.

The Toronto CoreNet Global Summit will examine the theme "The Dynamic Enterprise: Emerging Strategies for Success" and provide attendees with a focus on market shifts, economic trends, evolving corporate strategies and technologies, as well as the impact these topics have on corporate real estate management.

In addition to the general sessions and themes, the summit will also feature a comprehensive series of breakout sessions.

Some topics include:

• Leveraging corporate real estate as a strategic function
• Discussions and demonstrations on new approaches to value creation and operational excellence
• Emergence in the corporate value network with occupier and network partner perspectives and viewpoints

For more information on CoreNet Global and the Summit, visit www.corenetglobal.org.

Home price insurance explored

Concept has hurdles to overcome

After years of watching their homes soar in value, some people are worried housing prices are headed for a fall. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) is hoping to allay those fears in the United States a new financial product that could help homeowners insure themselves against a collapse in residential prices.

The exchange is exploring the development of futures contracts tied to housing prices. These would allow institutional investors like insurance companies to make bets on the movement of housing price indices in specific regions. If the index declined, the futures contract would pay off and make up the difference. In turn, insurance firms could use the contracts to finance policies that protect individual homeowners against falling prices.

"It will take some of the financial risk off the table," said Sam Masucci, Chief Operating Officer at Macro Securities Research, which is developing the contracts with the exchange and hopes to release the new product in mid-2005. The contracts would be based on CSW's housing price indexes, which track home price trends and are used by some of the largest lenders for loan originations and mortgage analysis in the United States. The idea of home price depreciation insurance has been around for years, and has been promoted by Yale University economist Robert Shiller – the founder of both CSW and Macro.

The concept must overcome several serious hurdles before it hits the market. It remains to be seen whether insurance companies will take to the idea. Two of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. have already indicated that they have no interest in the concept. Firms typically do not get involved in market-based risks nor use derivatives in their insurance lines. Most importantly, it would be tough to convince an insurer to create such a product after the recent boom in housing prices. Even a small downturn in home prices could result in huge losses.

Some experts also question whether homeowners are concerned enough about depreciation to buy such policies. The risks are indeed high, given the staggering size and speed of the rise in home prices in the United States.

Is it legal to deck the lights?

by Bob Arron
a Toronto real estate lawyer

Can a condominium corporation prohibit Christmas lights on the exterior of the buildings? The Supreme Court of Canada may say no, but a veteran Toronto condominium lawyer believes the decision is wrong.

Last summer, I wrote about a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that sincere personal religious beliefs override the terms of a condominium declaration.

The case originated at a luxury condominium in Montreal known as Place Northcrest.

A group of Orthodox Jewish owners in the project erected temporary religious huts, known as sukkahs, on their balconies, despite a prohibition in the building declaration. During the nine-day festival of Sukkot, observant Jews take their meals and conduct religious ceremonies in the sukkahs.

After the condominium corporation obtained an injunction prohibiting construction of the religious huts, the owners fought back.

In the case of Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, the Supreme Court ruled that if sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with condominium rules, the rules must give way to the religious beliefs and are subject to the charter rights and freedoms of every Canadian.

The exterior of virtually all condominiums in Ontario — including balconies, roofs, and outside windows, walls and doors, are part of the common elements. No individual owner has the right to attach anything to the common elements unless the rules provide for it.

This prohibition includes satellite dishes, clotheslines, radio antennas, and of course, Christmas lights and decorations.

Certainly, Christmas lights are part of the holiday tradition, but are they dictated by a religious belief? If so, then anyone putting up lights on condominium common elements might be protected by the Syndicat Northcrest decision. If they're not part of a religious belief, condominium boards would be justified in prohibiting them.

Toronto development lawyer Harry Herskowitz, of Del Zotto Zorzi LLP, believes that the Syndicat decision raises a host of problems for condominium corporations, owners and lawyers.

In an impassioned critique of the case at a Law Society seminar last month, Herskowitz explained his belief that the decision is wrong.

Condominium development lawyers, he says, have the unenviable task of drafting documents that are clear, unambiguous and most of all, enforceable. In his view, the Syndicat case has opened a "Pandora's box of potential conflicts" between condominium corporations and their boards, on the one hand, and, on the other, an endless succession of unit owners whose diverse beliefs might impact future use of common elements.

Owners look to the declaration, rules and bylaws to preserve a uniform look and maintain values. The Supreme Court, says Herskowitz, ignored the legitimate interests of all the unit owners in having the building's luxury style, design and aesthetic appearance maintained at all times.

Herskowitz also argues that when owners knowingly and freely buy into a project with restrictions on the use of common elements, they have waived their rights to complaint at a later date that their religious or other beliefs have been infringed.

In the wake of the Syndicat decision, condominium residents will have increasing difficulty relying on the enforceability of condominium rules if they are subject to attack by individuals who don't like them.

For example, one condominium corporation is having difficulty enforcing a prohibition on satellite dishes erected on the common elements. One unit owner maintains that he needs the dish to get broadcasts of Baptist church preachings, fundamental to his religious beliefs. The fact that he'll be able to watch ESPN sports and the Playboy channel is just a lucky bonus.

Unless the rules violate a fundamental human right, says Herskowitz, the interests of the collective owners to enforce and preserve the integrity of those restrictions should prevail.

Even though I am a strong supporter of civil liberties and the Charter rights of all Canadians, I must admit that Herskowitz has a good point. His argument that the Syndicat case went too far is very compelling.

Real estate agency relationships

In real estate, there are different forms of agency relationships. Before an agency is established in writing, an agency relationship may be established by the actions of the individual parties. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it might be legally defined as a duck, but usually, any relationship before a signed agreement is more likely to be classed a “customer relationship.” A customer relationship is generally defined as the agent owing a duty of honesty and reasonable performance, but is not under contract to perform as an agent. All agency agreements define the specific performance required of the agent, how the agent is to be compensated for that performance and the responsibilities of all parties.

The different kinds of written agency that are available are:

1. Seller's Agent
When a real estate company is a “seller's agent,” it must do what is best for the seller of a property. A written contract, called a listing agreement, establishes seller agency. It also explains services the company will provide, establishes a fee arrangement for the Realtor's services and specifies what obligations a seller may have. A seller that enters into a non MLS Exclusive Listing Agreement has great flexibility in the terms and conditions of the contract. A seller entering into a MLS Listing Agreement has somewhat more limited flexibility being required to conform to the standardized rules and regulations of the MLS system.

A seller's agent must tell the seller anything known about a buyer. For instance, if a seller's agent knows a buyer is willing to offer more for a property, that information must be shared with the seller. Confidences a seller shares with a seller's agent must be kept confidential from potential buyers and others. Although confidential information about the seller cannot be discussed, a buyer working with a seller's agent can expect fair and honest service from the seller's agent and disclosure of pertinent information about the property.   

2. Buyer's Agent
A real estate company acting as a "buyer's agent" must do what is best for the buyer. A written contract, called a Buyer Agency Agreement, establishes buyer agency. It explains services the company will provide, establishes a fee arrangement for the Realtor's services and specifies what obligations a buyer may have. Typically, buyers will be obliged to work exclusively with that company for a period of time. The buyer agency contract is a contract between an agent and a client and is usually based on the Ontario Real Estate Association’s Buyer Agency Agreement. This contract can be modified by written agreement of both parties to their satisfaction. There are no MLS requirements for buyer contracts as there is no Buyer MLS system in place at this time. Confidences a buyer shares with the buyer's agent must be kept confidential. Although confidential information about the buyer cannot be disclosed, a seller working with a buyer's agent can expect to be treated fairly and honestly.

3. Dual Agent
Occasionally a real estate company will be the agent of both the buyer and the seller. The buyer and seller must consent to this arrangement in their Listing and Buyer Agency Agreements. Under this “dual agency” arrangement, the company must do what is best for both the buyer and the seller. Since the company's loyalty is divided between the buyer and the seller who have conflicting interests, it is absolutely essential that a dual agency relationship be established in a written Agency Agreement. This agreement specifically describes the rights and duties of everyone involved and any limitations to those rights and duties. Current legislation in Ontario deems all sales representatives and associate brokers working for one brokerage company, no matter how small or large, to be the same agency. This automatically puts all buyers under contract with any representative from that company, who are interested in any of that companies’ listings, in a Dual Agency situation for those listings.

Who's working for you?
It is important that you understand who the Realtor is working for. For example, both the seller and the buyer may have their own agent which means they each have a Realtor who is working for them. Or, some buyers choose to contact the seller's agent directly. Under this arrangement the Realtor is working for the seller, and must do what is best for the seller, but still may provide valuable services to the buyer. If the seller and the buyer have the same agent, this is dual agency and the Realtor is working for both the seller and the buyer.

A Realtor working with a buyer may even be a "sub-agent" of the seller. Under sub-agency, both the listing agent and the co-operating agent must do what is best for the seller even though the sub-agent may provide many valuable services to the buyer. Sub agency is created when a buyer chooses not to make a contract with a buyer’s agent and indicates in writing that they would prefer the agent they are dealing with to be the agent of the vendor and for them (the buyer) to have ‘customer status” only with the agent they are dealing with.

Code of Ethics
Realtors believe it is important that the people they work with understand their agency relationship. That's why agency disclosure is included in a self-imposed Code of Ethics which is administered by the Real Estate Council of Ontario. The Code requires Realtors to disclose in writing the nature of the services they are providing, and encourages Realtors to obtain written acknowledgement of that disclosure. The Code also requires Realtors to enter into a written agency agreement with any sellers or buyers they are representing.

Realtors are governed by the legal concept of "agency." An agent is legally obligated to look after the best interests of the person he or she is working for. The agent must be loyal to that person. A real estate company may be your agent – if you have clearly established an agency relationship with that Realtor. But often, you may assume such an obligation exists when it does not. Realtors believe it is important that the people they work with understand when an agency relationship exists and when it does not -- and understand what it means.

Who is a buyer's agent?

Just as home sellers hire listing agents to market their homes to the largest number of potential buyers, such as through the local multiple listing service and on the Internet, home buyers also need somebody looking out for their best interests. That person is known as a "buyer's agent," sometimes called a "buyer's broker."

A true buyer's agent represents only the home buyer in the purchase transaction. The job of a buyer's agent is to look out for the buyer's best interests, putting emphasis not only on the benefits but also the drawbacks of a prospective home purchase.

Any licensed real estate agent can be your buyer's agent. However, some buyer's agents work for realty brokerages that represent just home buyers. These firms never accept listings of homes for sale.

But most buyer's agents work for firms which represent both buyers and sellers, so the situation often becomes very confusing for home buyers.

Types of agents

Over time, confusion about who represents whom in a home sale became so complicated and misunderstood that a few years ago many states enacted agency disclosure laws.

There are three basic agency possibilities, with variations in some states:

• Listing agents represent the home seller only.
• Selling agents represent the home buyer only.
• Dual agents represent both buyers and sellers. (If dual agency is disclosed to both buyer and seller, the arrangement is legal.)

To cover the situation in which one agent in a brokerage office is the listing agent, but another agent in the same office locates a buyer for the listed home, some state laws now allow "transaction agents" or "facilitators." The participation of a facilitator avoids any potential legal conflict of interest for the dual agency, the sellers and the buyers.

Payday for agents

The real estate agency laws now specify that whoever pays the sales commission to an agent does not determine who that agent represents.

There is a very practical reason for this legal result. When a home sale closes, the seller winds up with the cash and is in the best position to pay the sales commission to the listing agent. If a buyer's agent produced the successful buyer, the custom is for 50 percent of the sales commission to then be paid by the listing broker to the buyer's broker. The net result is that working with a buyer's agent usually costs a home buyer nothing extra.

However, when the buyer's agent shows the buyer an unlisted home, usually called a "for sale by owner" or "fizzbo," the seller may refuse to pay the buyer's agent any sales commission. In that rare situation, the home buyer is expected to pay his agent 50 percent of a customary sales commission, typically 3 percent of the sales price. Most do-it-yourself home sellers are so thrilled to find a buyer, however, that they will gladly pay the buyer's agent half the sales commission.

Pros and cons of having a buyer's agent

The obvious advantage for home buyers of having their own realty agent, instead of working directly with the listing agent, is that a buyer's agent is free to point out the defects of a home, whereas the listing agent must primarily look out for the seller's best interests.

But a drawback of having a buyer's agent, instead of letting the listing agent handle the transaction as a dual agent and earning all the sales commission, is that the listing agent then lacks the flexibility to "adjust" the sales commission downward to successfully close the transaction.

When a home buyer works directly with the listing agent who acts as a dual agent, that dual agent is not supposed to disclose confidential information to the other party, such as the lowest price the seller will accept or the highest price the buyer will pay. But it is difficult for some dual agents representing both parties not to reveal confidences, such as steering the parties to a higher or lower price to put the sale together.

However, when the buyer is represented by a buyer's agent, that agent cannot reveal confidential information and is likely to negotiate a better price and terms for the buyer.

Another possible arrangement is that the listing agent represents the seller only and the buyer is not represented by any agent. This situation is becoming extremely rare, however, because smart home buyers realize they need agency representation in one of the largest financial transactions of their lifetime.

Finding a good buyer's agent

If you're selling a home, several interviews should enable you to find a good, competent listing agent. But finding a sharp buyer's agent is more difficult because most experienced realty agents prefer working with home sellers. As the old real estate motto says, "Those who list last."

One way to find an agent is to seek recommendations. Friends and business associates who have recently bought homes will gladly recommend their buyer's agents if they were satisfied with the service.

Another method is to visit advertised weekend open houses to meet listing agents. Most of these agents are also seeking buyers and will eagerly offer to act as a buyer's agent on other homes. Sooner or later, you will find an agent with whom you can work to represent you as a buyer's agent.

Understanding agency contracts

When you find a buyer's agent you like, be wary about signing any buyer's agency agreement. Some buyer's agents try to contractually tie up prospective buyers for 90 to 180 days. Even if the buyer purchases a home alone, or through another agent, the contractual buyer's agent gets half the sales commission. Better alternatives include (1) not signing any buyer's agency contract or (2) signing only a 30-day buyer's agency agreement, just in case the buyer's agent turns out to be ineffective.

Home buyers who have any doubt about whom a realty agent represents in the transaction should not hesitate to ask. If you wander into a weekend open house, it's obvious the agent you meet represents the home seller.

But that agent can also represent you, as a dual agent. If that seems like a conflict of interest, it is. Remember, however, such representation is perfectly legal if disclosed to both buyer and seller.

Be sure to disclose to any listing agent you meet that you are already represented by your own buyer's agent.

To avoid agency confusion, most states now require realty agents to disclose in writing who they represent in the home sale. If you are not clear on this issue, be sure to ask before signing any other paperwork.

Conclusion

Just as home sellers have their listing agents, home buyers need their buyer's agents to look out for their best interests. To avoid confusion over who represents whom, most realty agents will gladly present a written agency disclosure form to both buyers and sellers.

Campaign shows Realtor benefits

Consumer survey shows results

from RealtorLink™

A survey of Canadian consumers conducted as a follow-up for the 2004 National Ad Campaign shows that the television ads continue to help improve the image of REALTORS, and improve the perception they work hard on behalf of buyers and sellers. The consumer survey was conducted in November, just after the completion of the national television ad schedule.

Eighty-five per cent of English consumers and 74 per cent of Francophone consumers said the phrase “REALTORS work hard on my behalf to help me buy or sell a home” described their attitude extremely or very well. For the same question following the 2002 campaign, 68 per cent of English consumers and 53 per cent of Francophone consumers agreed.

Seventy-one per cent of English speaking respondents and 59 per cent of Francophones said they agreed with the statement “Real estate agents make buying a home easier because they provide expertise about financing and everything else needed to close the sale.” Before the campaign began, 49 per cent of English respondents and 40 per cent of Francophones said the statement expressed their view extremely well or very well.

Saving time continues to be one of the biggest perceived advantages of using a REALTOR, although Francophone consumers are more skeptical about it than English speaking consumers. Respondents have been asked in each of the annual surveys that follow the National Ad Campaign whether they agreed a REALTOR saves time by studying the market and helping consumers make the best home buying decision. In the 2004 consumer study, 76 per cent of English consumers and 60 per cent of Francophones said they agreed with the statement. When the campaign began six years ago, 42 per cent of English and 37 per cent of French speaking consumers said they agreed.

The perception that the home buying or selling process is getting more complicated continues to grow. In the 2004 survey, 67 per cent of English consumers and 55 per cent of Francophone consumers described it as extremely or very complex. In the first consumer survey conducted in 1998, 34 per cent of English consumers and 33 per cent of Francophones provided the same response.

The number of Canadians who feel a REALTOR can help maximize the selling price of their home continues to increase. In this 2004 survey, 58 per cent of English consumers said that phrase described their view, up from 33 per cent in the first year of the National Ad Campaign, and up two per cent from the 2003 survey. Forty-eight per cent of Francophone respondents said the statement described their view extremely or very well, up from 28 per cent in the first year of the campaign.

Ten per cent of English respondents and 34 per cent of Francophones said they are, or would plan on buying or selling a home without using a REALTOR. When the National Ad Campaign began, 23 per cent of English respondents and 41 per cent of Francophones said they were considering a transaction without using a REALTOR.

Thirteen per cent of English respondents and nine per cent of French respondents said they are considering the purchase of a home in the next 12 months, or they have bought in the past year. Statistically this has not changed in the past five years of the National Ad Campaign.

The Toronto real estate style

Toronto is still looking for a residential skyscraper style to call its own. Of the city's tall buildings coming off the assembly line or already constructed, we have unconvincing knockoffs of New York's stylish apartment blocks, circa 1930, and some sleek glass towers that read like bad translations of Hong Kong or Vancouver originals.

And then there is the litter of big loopy items from heaven knows where, billowing on the ground like downed blimps and variously topped off with silly hats or flood-lit steeples or even (in one project at Harbourfront) horns. What's largely missing is a crop of new buildings that look like they grew up here.

It's not exactly a crop, but the new condominium block called Hudson, going up at King Street West and Spadina Avenue, is an interesting example of the architectural idea I'm talking about -- what's good about it, but also what's questionable.

Designed for Great Gulf Homes by David Dow, principal in the highly regarded Toronto office of Diamond and Schmitt Architects, Hudson is a 21-storey project with 282 units priced from $177,900. It will claim its turf in the heart of the city's west side downtown regeneration with an exclamation mark of glass and light brick soaring up from the corner to the highest point on the structure.