TheNiche

...so you liked them at first, but seem to have stopped liking them when they were duplicated. Now you don't like them because they've been modified. Is that right?

By itself, JPMCT is nothing much worth comment. However, it adds a positive sort of imbalance to our skyline from many angles that translates to the illusion of greater total mass. Furthermore, it does so in a way that a more slender, more sleek, or a terraced building simply could not. The first rule in artistic design is that a peice must acknowledge and be designed in the context of its site. With that in mind, I believe that JPMCT fits in (and juxtaposes) expertly.

Yeah, I'm gonna back off on this one. I was only going off of memory, but the evidence appears otherwise.

Why not thin out the herd?

Yep, but that wasn't disputed. What was at issue was whether the change attributable to the LRT would have been for the better or worse. Ridership in that neighborhood would've been very low and I think that by the end of the debate, there wasn't even a stop planned in AO. If the net difference between now and five years from now is that the lanes have been narrowed, turns across the median have been made more difficult, and that there is a train that regularly blows a whistle that can be heard for up to a half mile at night, and there is no access point within walking distance, then would you honestly expect the AO crowd to be on board with the idea?

I am less convinced that there are as many hypocrites in the world as there are self-absorbed control freaks that think that everybody should want to be like them.

It isn't a native species, but yep, there is apparently a small population of them in the East End that's been around for quite a while. I'd heard it from a long-time resident of the area but was skeptical until just now.

To further clarify, Duany is not against development located in the suburbs so much as he is against the style that prevails there. Most of what he does is low- or medium-density stuff, and he's A-OK with that. And he'll be the first to admit that what he wants is not cheap.

No, that would create ambiguity regarding what "it" was that is being constructed and who is doing the constructing. Is the Wal-Mart store constructing itself before it exists, or is it constructing something else--if so, then what is it constructing?

Wow, I'd overlooked this thread the first go-round, but that is one awesome home. Great lines, cool pool. It says that a previous owner had covered it with a subfloor and used it as a "sunken living area". That had to have been interesting. By the way, folks, I'm thinking that the best way to handle the pool area would probably be zoned AC coupled with a good dehumidifier.

Yep, probably.

I can't say that I disagree...but there are a lot of crazy people in the world, so that's that.

Then you need to redesign your poll. The option stated for Kotkin in the poll is "Don't attract creative class." But that is different from what you just stated above, with "don't go after the Creative Class". What is stated above accurately reflects Kotkin's views; the poll does not. You don't have to go after them to attract them.

Jeebus is right. Malls target window shoppers and impulse buyers. The closer to ground-level is a store, the more visible it is, the higher the rent that can be attained. With each additional level, the amount of rent that can be charged decreases even though the cost to build that floor and keep it cool increases. Typically, anything higher than the second floor of a multilevel mall will be occupied more by tenants such as legal, medical, dental, or financial services, and even some office users--tenants that don't rely on visibility to generate customers, but even then, there tends to be greater vacancy on the third level than in other parts of malls. So it costs more and the space generates less revenue. This is why malls are typically one or two stories at the most. You may view it as a waste of land, but I see overbuilding a mall as a waste of steel, concrete, electricity, among other materials, as well as human labor. And this is a case where walking (a healthy activity) is preferred by people and is discouraged by multi-level malls with smaller floorplates. You may be hard-pressed to get an urbanist on your side, here. ...but what really gave Memorial City the advantage and killed off T&C was that it was in the armpit of the I-10 & Beltway 8 interchange that is presently being rebuilt. Poor visibility and mediocre access from the feeder unless you knew exactly where you were going.

Their viewpoints are not necessarily incompatible. Framing their views as urban vs. suburban is a complete misreading of either person. Framing their views as "attract Creative Class" vs. "don't attract Creative Class" is also a misreading of the issue.

Oh, ok. Well then they suck too.

Remember that a critical part of the business model of a big chain is consistency. People traveling to other cities find themselves in unfamiliar environs, so when many are booking a hotel, it is nice to at least be assured that a certain comfort level can be attained. The chain is also largely uninterested in exceeding that standard in any significant way because it only creates unrealistically high expectations for their other hotels and makes average hotels seem subpar. So you might even see a chain that would want to replace existing high-end finishes to ensure consistency between hotels. The very same kinds of principles apply to fast food chains. They'll demolish and rebuild a proprietary format before converting an already built-out but vacated restaurant that is sitting idle, even if it would save money up-front. ...and believe it or not, I know people who will eat at Olive Garden before they take a chance on a highly-recommended non-chain Italian restaurant.

Makes sense. Hotels (especially failing boutique hotels in the CBD) aren't my specialty, so I greatly appreciate the elaboration and clarification.

They try to seperate LRT vehicles from traffic except at intersections, but it 1) takes away lanes from drivers, and 2) disrupts the grid.

True, true. ...on the other hand, mangement of publicly-traded companies aren't very keen on short-run hits for the very reason that you state--meeting quarterly profit goals--even if the divestiture does build long-term value.

Deep pockets can change the economics of a project because there's less risk of a single property inducing a state of financial distress with the owner. Financing is easier to arrange and is usually less expensive. The tax benefits to holding onto a money-loser that I mentioned in one of the above threads may not apply for a single hotel if it's not its own corporation.

I agree that it still seems odd that these same circumstances apply to all four hotels...but of course, unless someone on HAIF is good enough to go through the tax accounts and see whether any of them have indeed been sold, it isn't conclusively proven that all of the original owners are still around. It may be that there has been a change, even if not outwardly perceptible. And while you were typing your response, I anticipated your suggestion about joining a chain. See the 'EDIT' above. Yeah, I'm still not very sure where that figure came from. I don't doubt that renovation costs are substantial, but $50k per room sounds a bit much unless there's something we're leaving out. TNJ, any comment? I think that there's a lot of speculation regarding the operating characteristics. I don't doubt that the owners have lost or are losing money, but the nature of how that breaks down is founded on a lot of speculation in this thread. We just don't have a lot of the facts, and some of the 'facts' that we think we have uncertainty exposure. I was brainstorming before, and I'm brainstorming now. It's all theory. Good question, but I'd think that the issue is probably between realizing a big up-front capital loss and realizing a string of smaller losses over time. If any of the loans were made while interest rates were really low and they're on a fixed-rate note, it may be to their advantage to keep paying money on cheap debt. ...besides, it just occurred to me--if operations are generating good cash flow but debt-related expenses are creating a net loss in each tax period, then there are no income taxes owed. A prospective owner, buying at the present value of cash flows such that there should be a net profit would have to pay income taxes, which would mean that the present owner has a tax advantage over a new owner.

Yeah, if you're lucky, an FSBO can save the seller a full 6%, but that is pretty rare. In any case, it does give you a lot of flexibility in offering concessions to get the house sold and still come out ahead. And if a buyer is approaching you cold, offering to grant the seller the equivalent of 103% of market value if the seller were to use a Realtor, it can be compelling.

Houston19514, I get what TNJ is saying now, and I think that there's something to it. It certainly sounds plausible, anyhow. Put yourself in the position of a prospective buyer of one of these boutique hotels. If not for the debt service that is tied to their development, they would be profitable. And as a buyer, you aren't at all interested in compensating the current owner for their bad investment--only in the cash flows from operations that can be realized by a purchase of the facility. So the current owner has made a terrible investment, and when he sells the hotel, he will realize a huge capital loss at present that reflects the bad investment. He'll probably be upside down on the note at this point and have to make a big cash outlay, too. But if the interest rates on his loan are reasonable, the owner also has the option of providing cash infusions each month, spreading the financial loss out over time so that the present value of the loss is reduced. Additionally, the owner and many prospective buyers may feel that even though the owner is incurring an unavoidable financial loss, that he is operating the hotel more efficiently than someone else could, and that going forward from present his cap rate would be higher than someone else's. So to summarize, the redevelopment of these boutique hotels was a mistake, but rational owners make decisions without factoring in sunk costs from the past. It's all about the present. Am I on the mark, TNJ? EDIT: That explanation may also dovetail to explain why repositioning as a national chain may not be viewed as viable. If operations by themselves are bringing in positive net cash flow, then the value of converting to a chain would be the difference between the present value of cash flows from the converted hotel (including any new debt service) and the current present value of cash flows (excluding old debt service or perhaps just the interest expense at most). Conversion may not be worth the cost.

...by Kinkaid's definition, yes. And I agree. It is hilarious.