You know those condo magazines that can be found in a box on the street corner, on a stand inside Starbucks, or laying in the pile of newspapers on the floor of your gym?

Well have you ever stopped to think about who is publishing these and what their agenda is?

Personally, I wouldn’t trust the content, and I hope that the general public doesn’t take “BEST CONDO EVER” at face value…

www.wikipedia.org defines “Conflict of Interest” as:

“When an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.”

Well, I’d better have my lawyers on retainer if I’m going to make the following claim, but here goes: I hope that everybody who reads ANY condminium magazine understands that these magazines are nothing but advertisements, and offer nothing in the way of facts or advice.

You all know that, right?

For example, Condo Life, as pictured above, is a fantastic publication if you want to know what new condominium developments are popping up across the city.  But if you read the “articles,” you should know that these aren’t written by impartial “columnists” like you might see in the Globe and Mail.

These magazines are basically collections of advertisements for any developer, anywhere.

Developers pay these magazines to publish their ads, or in some cases – pretend articles.

Case in point is the cover of the May 2011 edition of Condo Life which claims that Library District Condominiums is “Downtown Toronto’s BEST VALUE.”

Okay…

According to who?

I’d love to know who, other than the developer, thinks that this development represents “Downtown Toronto’s best value.”

Because I certainly don’t!  And if you took a random sample of Realtors and even the buyer-pool themselves, you’d find that very few people would agree with this claim.

In my opinion, anything in CityPlace represents “Worst value,” but that’s just me.

Just take a look at the artist’s rendering of the project, and if it looks shady – that’s because it is.

Where did they get that giant green park from?

Where is the Gardiner Expressway?

Where are all the other buildings in CityPlace?

I only see one or two other buildings, when in fact there are about THIRTY condominiums within eye-shot of the site where Library District Condos will be built.

Open the front cover of this magazine, and you’ll find advertisements for:

-Cresford Developments
-Exhibit Condos
-Minto 775
-Tridel
-Orchard Point Harbour
-O2
-L Tower
-IQ
-Pinnacle
-Monarch
-Quartz
-Blue Water
-Bravo
-Willow Park

And that’s just in the first fifteen pages alone!

If I went through the whole magazine, I think every development and every developer in the city would be represented.

So what is my problem with this publication?

If it were being passed off as a collection of advertisements – like Auto Trader, then that would be fine.

But I feel as if it’s being passed off as having actual articles, write-ups, and reviews of condo projects when in fact it doesn’t.

Take the “article” about Library District Condos, for example.

They call this the “COVER STORY” when in fact it’s simply on the cover because the developer paid for it.  It’s not like this is Page A1 of the National Post and instead of leading with a story about Stephen Harper or Osama Bin Laden, they’re talking about some crummy development.

It’s not clear who is writing these “articles.”

If you ask me, I’d think the developer is writing them.  I’m not saying they are with certainty, but I’d have to be convinced otherwise.

There’s no name with the article; no “By John Smith.”

When I read something like, “Context is known for their cutting edge features and finishes inside the suites,” I think to myself, no they’re not.

What was cutting edge about Radio City?  Anything?

So WHO is writing this?  WHO thinks Context is cutting edge?  Is it Condo Life Magazine?  Do they have a staff writer who is putting these opinions down on paper?  Did this writer examine 6-8 buildings that context has completed and come to this conclusion?  Or is it Context who believes that Context is cutting edge?

Either way, it’s a conflict of interest.

You’ve got a magazine whose business model is selling ad-space to developers, and we’re supposed to take them at their word when they give a favourable review to a development?

Or, you’ve got a developer paying to put an “article” in a condo magazine, and they’re tooting their own horn by giving themselves a glowing review?

Where do you get “BEST VALUE” from?

What studies were done?

What surveys were completed?

Who came to this conclusion?

Call me cynical, but you can’t believe everything you read, especially when it’s a hyperbole like “Downtown Toronto’s Best Value.”  What’s to stop somebody from making this claim if they don’t have to back it up?

What’s to stop anybody from making any claim?

Case in point:

I think this graphic, which I made in Paint in about forty seconds, is equally as, (a) credible, (b) believable, as making a claim that something next to the Gardiner Expressway AND within the confines of CityPlace is “Downtown Toronto’s Best Value.”

Although, I will stand up for Context Developments and say that they have done some great projects.  Tip Top Lofts, Mozo, and Sp!re all come to mind, and there is simply no comparison between Context and Concord – except that they both begin with the letter “c.”

So the next time you pick up a condo magazine, just realize that there’s a reason it’s next to The National Enquirer.

You can’t believe everything you read.

Unless, of course, if it’s found on my blog…