Jump to content

fernz

Full Member
  • Posts

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by fernz

  1. Excellent job of completely missing what I said.

    Builders build what makes them the most profit, because that's the definition of capitalism. Generally they DO follow "what people want", or at least what some subset of people want, but they tend to take a very short term view of things.

    Builders do not like risk, so if they've been doing something that's made them money in the past, then they're pretty likely to continue doing it until it stops making them money, regardless of what people "want".

    This doesn't make sense. If people don't want it, then it won't make money for the developer.

    • Like 1
  2. Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many.

    I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning.

    I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice of

    materials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully.

    I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a point

    where we begin to think about aesthetics.

    I don't think Randall has any.

    Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

    I agree with most of this, except I would say that three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are three too many.

  3. This discussion is absurd. There's a reason they're called cycles. History has proved they always happen, and to pretend this time is different just because we're at the top of the cycle is insane.

    We can debate whether it will be as sharp as previous ones or not, but the boom will stop, projects will get canceled, some buildings will sit mostly empty after completion, and some will even stop during construction. That's the nature of the beast.

    • Like 2
  4. The incentive is paid out over 15 years in the form of tax abatements, if you build a rental building and own it and rent out the units, you get the abatements. If you build a condo and sell them all, the HOA for which you are no longer a member (once all the units are sold) or the individual condo owners get the abatement. You don't.

    There is a argument that you, as the developer, can charge a higher price for the condo unit because folks are getting the abatement over 15 years. The argument is that people will pay a tad more for their units because of the abatement. Perhaps. But that is really hard to determine.

    Thanks!

  5. Money.

    Taxpayer money vs. Developer money.

    I am concerned that if the incentive (tax abatements over 15 years) continue, downtown will be little more that a bunch of apartments. A mix of apartments and condos are needed. Homeownership puts a bit of a stake in the ground where rental units don't. I think that the incentive is leading folks to develop rental units over condos. And that concerns me for the long term.

  6. Not sure that having 70/300 apartments leased before the building even opens is a bad thing (if it's even true).

    I know apartment managers do not want all of their apartments (or even most) leased in one fell swoop.

    Exactly. 23% of units leased out before opening is actually a good thing. It takes about a year to stabilize a building like this.

    • Like 1
  7. I can understand the slim pickings in labor and materials, but land???

    There are so many undeveloped or underdeveloped land all over the place.

    I can understand that speculators sit on land for ages, but this is the time to build. If they still don't sell when prices are so strong they are never going to sell

    I agree, there is plenty of land, from downtown to the inner loop an beyond, undeveloped land is everywhere.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...