when the fuck did this start happening?

[spikerS]

Going onto MLS.ca and searching for homes and such, i am starting to notice a really disturbing trend here.

Take this ad for example: C3506641

and in the description I see this:

Note: The size displayed on this listing includes land

and this one: C3510026

Note: The size displayed on this listing includes interior above grade, attached garage

and another:

Note: The size displayed on this listing includes attached garage, interior above grade

and another: C3505551

Note: The size displayed on this listing includes interior above grade, below grade area, attached garage

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought realtors were only allowed to list the actual living space, which are only the rooms above grade. The first one is including the fucking LOT as well in the total living space? Is this not total misrepresentation? including the attached garage? hell, I even saw one that included the detached double garage...

I want to know the actual size of the house, I don't want to see bullshit about how the realtor wants to misrepresent the house and make it seem bigger.

I am thinking I should show this to CREB and see what they say. I have been around real estate for most of my life, and I remember doing something like this was not allowed, not sure why it is skating by now...

[Tik-Tok]

I'm thinking it's allowed because they do disclose the fact in the description. Pretty lame, and I wouldn't bother looking at a place because of it.

[project240]

It is pretty annoying. I noticed it alot on all the listing we were looking at in BC. It seemed like 75% of the listing I looked at included the basement in the sq ft listing.

It makes it pretty frustrating trying to decipher which houses are actually 2000+sqft and which are 1050sqft bungalows listed as 2000sq ft.

I thought above grade was the standard, but seems some are venturing away from that, which as you pointed out, is annoying.

[Unknown303]

Yeah that's uber gay. Should be someone you can complain to about that I'm sure.

[barmanjay]

I just happen to have the CREB Policy Manual on my desk....


Directly from the CREB Policy Manual:

Revised sep 18, 2006

Measuring Guidelines for Residential Real Estate

The basic premise of these guidelines is to show that the Total Floor Area (T) of all residential property is the sum of all floor areas situated above grade excluding porches, decks, patios, garages, carports and other areas above grade that are not services by both heating and electrical.
The Total Floor Area (T) on residential property is always calculated by using outside wall measurements. The exception to this guideline is in the case of attached dwellings, they will be measured center line of common walls and to the exterior of exterior walls.

......

Plant windows are not included in Total Floor Area (T)

Bay and Bow windows with bench-box seats are included in Total Floor Area (T)

All cantilevers except those enclosing fireplaces and chimneys are included in Total Floor Area (T)




** I am not aware of any new changes to this portion of the Policy Manual

[tirebob]

I would like to see both above and below grade living space listed, but listed separately, as in 1400sf up and 850sq down for example...

[Khyron]

Yep - I don't really give a shit which standard they use, but I want them all the same. And including garage in the spec instead of separate just makes no sense.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Khyron
Yep - I don't really give a shit which standard they use, but I want them all the same. And including garage in the spec instead of separate just makes no sense.

Unless your target market wants more room for extended family...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[masoncgy]

I like the idea of combining all available living space, since you never really know exactly how much of the basement is developed, so this can be handy.

The problem is with the townhouses they include all available space, developed or not. They also factor in the garage space which shouldn't even be counted. How about 'wall thickness'? Come on, that's just stupid.

If the place is 1,800 sq ft of developed living space, that's great. If it's 1,200 sq ft with 600 unfinished in the basement, then that portion shouldn't be allowed to be added. It's misleading.

[ercchry]

4 or 5 level splits always get the raw end of the "above ground" deal... which worked in our favor when buying

[big A]

I've seen a normal two story with a walkout refered to as a three story.

[project240]

I'd just like to see a standard among all listings.

We looked at a house out in BC a few weeks back that was listed as a 2600sqft bungalow. Within minutes of entering, it was clear it was no where near this and I spoke with the listing realtor about it who said it was total sq ft.

He basically told me straight out that he gets more showings for larger properties. This is obvious I told him, but you waste your own time showing it because had I known it was in fact a 1400 + 1200 we wouldn't have bothered coming to see it. Waste your time, waste our time.

At the very least the listing realtor should have listed what is included in the sqft.

[AndyL]

I just like the rubber tape measure some use... even the house we bought, how is the upstairs listed over 200sqft bigger than the developed basement - and overall dimensions of the house...

[lilmira]

Next thing you know they are using total surface area.

[Euro838]

Correct me if I am wrong here but I believe in BC, it is common practice to include above and below grade sq ft. Lots of homes do not have basements in Richmond for example.

So if you were trying to compare a house in Richmond with a house in East Van or something, it is would be misleading to only state the above grade sq ft values or you wouldn't be able to gage an equal comparison.

In Alberta, where it is more common for homes to have basements, then up until recently it seems, the above grade values are stated. I think it is important to understand the measurement system of the market you are looking in. Unfortunately, there are some realtors that try these kinds of tricks and gimmicks on the unsuspecting. Don't really know why as it's just a waste of time as when buyers visit and look at the actual specs, and it's not what they are expecting.

Also, as Calgary's lots are smaller, a lot of people now are building nanny/mother-in-law suites above their detached garage. For example, look in the former currie baracks development. In this area, a lot of these skinny homes are truly 3 stories high as they build into the attic and they also build on top of the detached garage. So what you end up having is about 3000 sq ft of above grade developed broken down something like:

Main Floor - 800 sqft
Second Floor - 800 sqft
Third Floor (attic) - 800 sqft
On top of detached garage - 600 sqft

There's probably also another 6-700 of sqft that is developed into the basement too.

When you look at these places, you're like, WTF? How is this place 3000 sqft?

Anyways, I do agree that there needs to be a common standard that allows the consumer to make an informed decision.

[lasimmon]

They state that it includes those extras. What's the problem?

[cherpintow]

Originally posted by lasimmon
They state that it includes those extras. What's the problem?

Because now people are forced to look for the fine print on every property they're looking at to figure out how the seller did the math. Having some sort of standard would eliminate this.

[CapnCrunch]

The main problem is that it makes it hard to search. If I want 2000 sq feet above grade, I get hammered with all the idiots including their garage sq footage.