Jump to content

Camden Conte: Multifamily At 1515 Austin St.


Urbannizer

Recommended Posts

Campo managed to wait out another boom without building anything. Good for him.

This is the head of Houston First, who's "leading the effort to have Houston recognized as one of the great cities of the world." Vacant land for decades in prime urban locations sure accomplishes that goal

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone driven by this property recently? Turns out whoever said that that demo of the existing structure took place to turn this block into a parking lot were right. This looks like this will just be parking for however long Camden decides to actually build on this lot... SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone driven by this property recently? Turns out whoever said that that demo of the existing structure took place to turn this block into a parking lot were right. This looks like this will just be parking for however long Camden decides to actually build on this lot... SMH.

Yep.

Biggest boom in Houston in 40 years and it looks like Camden helped downtown add another empty lot (at least for the time being).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

Biggest boom in Houston in 40 years and it looks like Camden helped downtown add another empty lot (at least for the time being).

Yes. The building they demolished was actually nice too. It was historic looking and was used for retail. Camden is on my shit list

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The building they demolished was actually nice too. It was historic looking and was used for retail. Camden is on my shit list

 

On your what list? I'm sure they find that most disconcerting and will immediately reverse course, track you down, and solicit your opinion as to what they should do with THEIR PROPERTY. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your what list? I'm sure they find that most disconcerting and will immediately reverse course, track you down, and solicit your opinion as to what they should do with THEIR PROPERTY.

Thanks for going to the effort of responding, however pointless.

I am for preservation of any history we can, especially brick buildings in this part of town. I don't care who owns it, I don't have to like it. If you aren't ok with opinions, you may not be in the right place.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their tax credit should be revoked and given to someone who actually plans to build. I thought there was a certain timeframe that construction needed to begin.

 

According to the Chronicle, there is a timeframe within which construction must be completed:

 

In order to receive the reimbursement, the developers have one year from the date they sign the incentive agreement to get the project into the city permitting department, after which time they have three years to get a certificate of occupancy.

 

So, if this does not get going soon enough, Camden will lose the tax credit. Link below:

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/New-apartments-add-to-downtown-boom-6013209.php?t=bd840817c3&cmpid=twitter-premium

Edited by houstontexasjack
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Chronicle, there is a timeframe within which construction must be completed:

In order to receive the reimbursement, the developers have one year from the date they sign the incentive agreement to get the project into the city permitting department, after which time they have three years to get a certificate of occupancy.

So, if this does not get going soon enough, Camden will lose the tax credit. Link below:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/New-apartments-add-to-downtown-boom-6013209.php?t=bd840817c3&cmpid=twitter-premium

So this essentially forces Campo's hand to build & complete within 4 years rather than delay like he's doing at the Midtown Superblock. The question for me then becomes if Camden loses the tax credit because Campo holds on the project and the Downtown Living Initiative caps out, could the lost Camden credit be given to another developer or is it just a lost opportunity at that point.

Edited by tigereye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this essentially forces Campo's hand to build & complete within 4 years rather than delay like he's doing at the Midtown Superblock. The question for me then becomes if Camden loses the tax credit because Campo holds on the project and the Downtown Living Initiative caps out, could the lost Camden credit be given to another developer or is it just a lost opportunity at that point.

 

I posted this in another thread but it becomes a lost opportunity:

 

"In the event that an approved project is cancelled for any reason, the units previously assigned to that project by the Board will not be reassigned to other approved or unapproved projects"

 

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2015-01-12/150112_HDMD_DLI_Cap_Memo.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread but it becomes a lost opportunity:

"In the event that an approved project is cancelled for any reason, the units previously assigned to that project by the Board will not be reassigned to other approved or unapproved projects"

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2015-01-12/150112_HDMD_DLI_Cap_Memo.pdf

Absolutely stupid.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread but it becomes a lost opportunity:

 

"In the event that an approved project is cancelled for any reason, the units previously assigned to that project by the Board will not be reassigned to other approved or unapproved projects"

 

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2015-01-12/150112_HDMD_DLI_Cap_Memo.pdf

 

 

Absolutely stupid.

 

Yeah, it's kind of hard to think of a better word for it.  That is such a bad policy it's a little hard to believe it's true.  Even coming from government, that is surprisingly brain-dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

downtownian, on 14 Jan 2015 - 1:14 PM, said:

I posted this in another thread but it becomes a lost opportunity:

"In the event that an approved project is cancelled for any reason, the units previously assigned to that project by the Board will not be reassigned to other approved or unapproved projects"

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2015-01-12/150112_HDMD_DLI_Cap_Memo.pdf

Theoretically I suppose Camden could have come up with a project comprising many, many more units just to reduce the competition's economic incentive to build. Self preservation of their rental assets already in place. File a form for the grant, never build the project, and suddenly hundred, if not thousands, of units will likely not be built. Less competition = higher rents. How many units would a 101-story building have held?....

Edited by Sparrow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before too many people grab their pitchforks, it should be noted that all that has been reported about the Camden downtown project is that they are "not prepared to start that now".  AND that they are "just designing it".  They will see how the market unfold and see what happens to construction and rents.  Nothing nefarious or evil about any of that.  Keep in mind that they have a pretty good incentive to aim for a certificate of occupancy within three years.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before too many people grab their pitchforks, it should be noted that all that has been reported about the Camden downtown project is that they are "not prepared to start that now".  AND that they are "just designing it".  They will see how the market unfold and see what happens to construction and rents.  Nothing nefarious or evil about any of that.  Keep in mind that they have a pretty good incentive to aim for a certificate of occupancy within three years.

 

I have a problem with the DLI being structured as a free call option to developers - if downtown residential looks good over the next few months, they build; if not, they don't build and it doesn't cost them anything other than having to go through the relatively costless application process. I would have preferred that the incentives were granted to developers who committed to build downtown or pay a penalty or that it was only granted to projects that broke ground. It seems like all you need for approval is some designs and land.

 

Not trying to demonize the developers - if I owned a block, I would have submitted a random residential proposal for it (maybe even a proposal for 5,000 units on my one block just so I could have the free option).

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with the DLI being structured as a free call option to developers - if downtown residential looks good over the next few months, they build; if not, they don't build and it doesn't cost them anything other than having to go through the relatively costless application process. I would have preferred that the incentives were granted to developers who committed to build downtown or pay a penalty or that it was only granted to projects that broke ground. It seems like all you need for approval is some designs and land.

 

Not trying to demonize the developers - if I owned a block, I would have submitted a random residential proposal for it (maybe even a proposal for 5,000 units on my one block just so I could have the free option).

 

 

So, you've already conceded that it requires more than just the relatively costless application process.  They also had to invest in land and designs. 

 

Only granting the benefit to projects that break ground is inherently unworkable.  Nobody will ever break ground without the incentive agreed and in hand.

 

Allowing one year to permitting and three years to Certificate of Occupancy might seem a little generous at first blush, but the permitting process has been holding up a lot of projects recently, so one year to permitting is not giving a whole lot of wiggle room.  That only allows an additional 2 years for construction.  Again, not really all that generous, especially if you want high-rises (other than SkyHouses).

 

As has been mentioned earlier, I can see no reason to not reassign canceled project units.  That rule is inexplicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you've already conceded that it requires more than just the relatively costless application process.  They also had to invest in land and designs. 

 

Only granting the benefit to projects that break ground is inherently unworkable.  Nobody will ever break ground without the incentive agreed and in hand.

 

Allowing one year to permitting and three years to Certificate of Occupancy might seem a little generous at first blush, but the permitting process has been holding up a lot of projects recently, so one year to permitting is not giving a whole lot of wiggle room.  That only allows an additional 2 years for construction.  Again, not really all that generous, especially if you want high-rises (other than SkyHouses).

 

As has been mentioned earlier, I can see no reason to not reassign canceled project units.  That rule is inexplicable.

 

I agree that the cost of the option is: 1) Application process; 2) Owning the land (if you own the land already, this is free. Mine as well apply for this incentive); 3) Designs. Not really sure how much this costs - does anyone know?

 

I like the idea of a fine if the project does not go through - call options have economic value so developers would still apply for the incentives even if there was a fine. You just need to set the fine low enough so that it does not discourage developers from applying but high enough so that only serious developers get the incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the cost of the option is: 1) Application process; 2) Owning the land (if you own the land already, this is free. Mine as well apply for this incentive); 3) Designs. Not really sure how much this costs - does anyone know?

 

I like the idea of a fine if the project does not go through - call options have economic value so developers would still apply for the incentives even if there was a fine. You just need to set the fine low enough so that it does not discourage developers from applying but high enough so that only serious developers get the incentive.

 

There is zero evidence that anyone other than a serious developer has applied for any of these incentives and it is unlikely one would do so.   The "fine" for not proceeding is already substantial, as you've already discussed but somehow don't seem to absorb:  1) investment in the land, 2) investment in design, and 3) the (not-really cost-free) application process.  Plus, if you don't proceed, you forego the opportunity to get the $15,000 per unit incentive.  That is plenty of disincentive to keep away non-serious developers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...