House of the Week: $1.8 million for a five-bedroom, Beach-adjacent home

20 thoughts on “House of the Week: $1.8 million for a five-bedroom, Beach-adjacent home”

1. Too bad it’s boring and looks like it belongs in the suburbs.

2. Faux-gly and charmless on the outside. A mish-mash of suburban bad taste on the inside.

3. it looks really cold

4. Uggers. Brown, brown and yet more brown. Money but no taste.

5. More nasty, charmless beige on beige.
   The worst part of it is the colours don’t even really match!
   Totally fugly.

6. meh

7. This looks just like the dozens of faceless cookie-cutter McMansions that are sprouting up in my loca area which used to be predominantly unique brick bungalows. (Prince Edward, S. of Bloor). Real Estate speculators trying to make boring social climbing suburbanites think they are Kingsway/Forest Hill/Rosedale etc sophisticates.

8. Haha. I love everyone who just posted a comment. Enough of these suburban properties make their way into our neighbourhood streets.

9. The house, deck, backyard is nice. The house is what you make it. Anyone who posted a negative comment most likely can’t afford the price. Keep dreaming!

10. Too much money for a street that runs between Queen and Kingston Road. For that money I would expect a house on one of the more prestigious streets in the neighbourhood, ie: Fallingbrook, Kingswood, Glen Manor etc. etc, etc.

11. eww brampton!

12. The Good: location, wide lot, private drive, Wolf range.

    The Bad: colours, decor, materials. “Faux-gly and charmless”, indeed!

13. Agree with most of the comments, this looks like a suburban nightmare completely lacking in beach charm.

14. Bland on Bland-tyre Ave. Am I saying this because I can’t afford it? Possibly. Or maybe I just have better taste.

15. I’ll take the kitchen, please. Otherwise, all the other comments are bang on. As brooklin99 so astutely points out, no, I can’t afford the price and I’m guessing the majority of people commenting here can’t either (which just offers more proof to the theory that Toronto Life has no idea of its core audience demographics anymore). But I suspect that’s not at the root of the comments. What I think is the issue is that many Torontonians are tired of people buying up great older houses in the city, then tearing them down to build these Oakville-style mansion-in-a-box monstrosities. They’re eyesores in neighbourhoods full of homes with history.

    PS: What’s with the ensuite master bathroom? Most of the house needs some updating, clearly. But that bathroom is a total early-90s bad design gut job. Not what you’d expect for $1.8 million.

    PPS: Since when did being walking distance to Toronto Hunt Club become a selling point? Have we completely given up on being a city with culture and character?

16. $1.8 mil for a house that is decorated with remnants from the HomeSense bargain bin? Pass.

17. I was born in the Beach many years ago. Yes Toronto, it is the Beach. When I grew up the Beach was a cosy neighbourhood, full of old cottages, modest two storey brick homes and some grander houses in Glen Manor. We ice skated in Glen Manor and tobogganed down the hills until the street lights came on and then your mother expected you home. You ate fish and chips wrapped in newspaper and spent your allowance in Woolworths and Kresges at the corner of Queen and Lee.
    I dont like the new yuppified Beach. I especially do not like suburban architecture in my “hood”. Enhance and preserve what we have. When it is gone we will miss what we had.

18. Pretty harsh commentary folks. In any event, this residence is situated in the Beach, not Birchcliff or Cliffside as stated in the Toronto Life article – both of which are located at least a mile east of the Blantyre Ave. Grant Hilborn, Re/Max

19. This is a nice house of this style, but of the hundreds of beautiful houses full of character in the beaches, this is not the one I’d pick for house of the week- that’s for sure.

20. …yawn

Comments are closed.