What are the rents again? IIRC, they are far above the average rents cited by sshoe and probably not too far off the Clayton/mid-County rate. Anyone know the rates for Metro Lofts?
According to a quick search, Aventura 1 bdrms actually start a bit higher than Metrolofts; 2 bdrms start a bit lower but have smaller sq. footage
Aventura pricing:
http://www.trulia.com/rental-community/ ... -MO-63110/
MetroLots pricing:
http://www.metrolofts-stl.com/metronew/pricing.shtml
What doesn't seem to wash? The argument that Aventura at Forest Park could not be more like Metrolofts in design and materials.
Aventura pricing:
http://www.trulia.com/rental-community/ ... -MO-63110/
MetroLots pricing:
http://www.metrolofts-stl.com/metronew/pricing.shtml
What doesn't seem to wash? The argument that Aventura at Forest Park could not be more like Metrolofts in design and materials.
Actually, this just validates my argument. Asking rents at Aventura range from $1.31 to $1.59 psf (probably even lower when they did the underwriting on this deal two years ago), while the asking rents at metro range from $1.41 to $1.67 psf.roger wyoming II wrote:According to a quick search, Aventura 1 bdrms actually start a bit higher than Metrolofts; 2 bdrms start a bit lower but have smaller sq. footage
Aventura pricing:
http://www.trulia.com/rental-community/ ... -MO-63110/
MetroLots pricing:
http://www.metrolofts-stl.com/metronew/pricing.shtml
What doesn't seem to wash? The argument that Aventura at Forest Park could not be more like Metrolofts in design and materials.
Additionally, some of the units at metro lofts are affordable and the property was partially financed using LIHTC.
Yes and no - if you compare nice parts of the TC to nice parts of STL strictly by the numbers, then yes. That isn't a useful comparison, though, because the amenities in the TC neighborhoods are generally, IMO, more numerous, there is much more greenspace and an extremely well developed park system, more density, more diversity, uniformly high level of upkeep both on buildings and infrastructure in both commercial and residential areas, and most corners of the city are safe and walkable day or night. My opinion is that to get the same quality of residence/quality of life combo here, you'll have to pay $250k to $400k - often toward the higher end of that in STL, which is about what you'd pay in the TC, but it's easier to get something toward the lower end in the TC. Rents may be cheaper, but TC rents typically cover heating costs, which is significant. That's based on having lived there for 8 years and recently gone through the process of finding a place to live here. Honestly, STL is no cheaper if you use the same standard.First off, on average, TC is significantly more expensive (avg. rent of $954 in TC vs. $696 in STL). STL's top market (Clayton/Mid-County) had average rents of $843, while the avg. rent in their top market is about $1,100. So average or neighborhood specific, it's far cheaper here.
- 2,929
I actually agree with sshoe's contentions (to a point) in recognizing that this development is speculative, that it is building in an area that has historically been socioeconomically disadvantaged and is maybe not the most inviting to those unfamiliar with the area in recent years, and that the developers are following a somewhat proven strategy of building what has worked before elsewhere. Indeed, they are building on a spot where not very many have before, and indeed building a new project on virgin ground...
That said, this building still looks ugly as sh*t.
It's comparable to something out of the lesser parts of Warrenton.
Before it's even done with the first stage, it's already looking old and run down, out-of-date before they rent the first unit.
It sticks out from the rest of the neighborhood precisely because of how ugly it is.
In fact, it's so ugly that the only possible target market they have must be from the neighboring Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
I would not want to rent there, I would not want my family to rent there, and I would not want to associate with anyone (with eyesight) who freely chooses to live there unless they were compelled to do so because there were absolutely no other buildings left within a full 2-mile radius from which to choose.
It looks like a trucker gas station and therefore should come with a combination Subway / Burger King on the ground floor, along with deals on ice scrapers and gallon jugs of no-doze. Yee-haw.
By choosing to go with vinyl siding more appropriate for a warehouse barn than standard red brick, or even concrete, the developer demonstrates a total disdain for the neighborhood in which they are building. The audacity...
And, while I sure am not endorsing criminality, it almost makes me long for the days when there was a mad arsonist running around torching apartment buildings that were under construction, because all that vinyl the color of sandy urine would look so much better in a smoldering black rubble than being visible from the highway.
But yeah, it kind of makes sense on the bottom line, even though everyone hates it.
Assuming, of course, it finds tenants wanting to pay 4-figures in monthly rent for this crapbox...
That said, this building still looks ugly as sh*t.
It's comparable to something out of the lesser parts of Warrenton.
Before it's even done with the first stage, it's already looking old and run down, out-of-date before they rent the first unit.
It sticks out from the rest of the neighborhood precisely because of how ugly it is.
In fact, it's so ugly that the only possible target market they have must be from the neighboring Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
I would not want to rent there, I would not want my family to rent there, and I would not want to associate with anyone (with eyesight) who freely chooses to live there unless they were compelled to do so because there were absolutely no other buildings left within a full 2-mile radius from which to choose.
It looks like a trucker gas station and therefore should come with a combination Subway / Burger King on the ground floor, along with deals on ice scrapers and gallon jugs of no-doze. Yee-haw.
By choosing to go with vinyl siding more appropriate for a warehouse barn than standard red brick, or even concrete, the developer demonstrates a total disdain for the neighborhood in which they are building. The audacity...
And, while I sure am not endorsing criminality, it almost makes me long for the days when there was a mad arsonist running around torching apartment buildings that were under construction, because all that vinyl the color of sandy urine would look so much better in a smoldering black rubble than being visible from the highway.
But yeah, it kind of makes sense on the bottom line, even though everyone hates it.
Assuming, of course, it finds tenants wanting to pay 4-figures in monthly rent for this crapbox...
Good post.gone corporate wrote:I actually agree with sshoe's contentions (to a point) in recognizing that this development is speculative, that it is building in an area that has historically been socioeconomically disadvantaged and is maybe not the most inviting to those unfamiliar with the area in recent years, and that the developers are following a somewhat proven strategy of building what has worked before elsewhere. Indeed, they are building on a spot where not very many have before, and indeed building a new project on virgin ground...
That said, this building still looks ugly as sh*t.
It's comparable to something out of the lesser parts of Warrenton.
Before it's even done with the first stage, it's already looking old and run down, out-of-date before they rent the first unit.
It sticks out from the rest of the neighborhood precisely because of how ugly it is.
In fact, it's so ugly that the only possible target market they have must be from the neighboring Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
I would not want to rent there, I would not want my family to rent there, and I would not want to associate with anyone (with eyesight) who freely chooses to live there unless they were compelled to do so because there were absolutely no other buildings left within a full 2-mile radius from which to choose.
It looks like a trucker gas station and therefore should come with a combination Subway / Burger King on the ground floor, along with deals on ice scrapers and gallon jugs of no-doze. Yee-haw.
By choosing to go with vinyl siding more appropriate for a warehouse barn than standard red brick, or even concrete, the developer demonstrates a total disdain for the neighborhood in which they are building. The audacity...
And, while I sure am not endorsing criminality, it almost makes me long for the days when there was a mad arsonist running around torching apartment buildings that were under construction, because all that vinyl the color of sandy urine would look so much better in a smoldering black rubble than being visible from the highway.
But yeah, it kind of makes sense on the bottom line, even though everyone hates it.
Assuming, of course, it finds tenants wanting to pay 4-figures in monthly rent for this crapbox...
- 8,912
Calling the guys that designed this architects is insulting to the industry
There needs to be like a Minecraft plugin for designing these kinds of apts.
gone corporate wrote:I would not want to rent there, I would not want my family to rent there, and I would not want to associate with anyone (with eyesight) who freely chooses to live there
Hmmmmmmm.....gone corporate wrote:Wow... How the living hell are we going to get City-County merger underway when we can't even have peace between Mid County and the City? Why do we need to flare up so much
- 2,386
^You lack reading comprehension if you are trying to associate those two comments which you have taken extremely out of context.
This has turned out worse than I thought it was going to be when I saw the revised renderings.
Please, go back and look at the original renderings for this project. This is the biggest screw-job the city has endured since the last time Biondi opened his lying blow hole. Absolutely disgusting.
This has turned out worse than I thought it was going to be when I saw the revised renderings.
Please, go back and look at the original renderings for this project. This is the biggest screw-job the city has endured since the last time Biondi opened his lying blow hole. Absolutely disgusting.
- 8,155
I am not quite sure what your argument is.... are you saying that with the rental rates I posted, that there is no way that the Aventura could not be more like the Metrolofts? That what was chosen was the only way to proceed? And if LIHTC are key to projects like Metrolofts, why not use them here?sshoe wrote:Actually, this just validates my argument. Asking rents at Aventura range from $1.31 to $1.59 psf (probably even lower when they did the underwriting on this deal two years ago), while the asking rents at metro range from $1.41 to $1.67 psf.roger wyoming II wrote:According to a quick search, Aventura 1 bdrms actually start a bit higher than Metrolofts; 2 bdrms start a bit lower but have smaller sq. footage
Aventura pricing:
http://www.trulia.com/rental-community/ ... -MO-63110/
MetroLots pricing:
http://www.metrolofts-stl.com/metronew/pricing.shtml
What doesn't seem to wash? The argument that Aventura at Forest Park could not be more like Metrolofts in design and materials.
Additionally, some of the units at metro lofts are affordable and the property was partially financed using LIHTC.
Sure chief, sure, whatever you say.newstl2020 wrote:^You lack reading comprehension if you are trying to associate those two comments which you have taken extremely out of context.
- 2,386
^You can chief me all you want. Doesn't change the fact that your post makes no sense.
I'm saying that $.10 psf less at Aventura makes it more difficult to build to the level that is metro lofts. For a 100,000 sf building, that could easily equate to an additional $1.7 million in value. That being said, there are other factors involved that may have contributed to Aventura's "scaling back." Site acquisition and prep costs could have been higher at Aventura than Metro Lofts. I don't know those specifics, but I do know for certain that the developers were originally trying to underwrite at higher rents similar to metro lofts, but were unable to given the increased risk at this location. This is why we often see a significantly different end-product than the original concepts and renderings.roger wyoming II wrote:I am not quite sure what your argument is.... are you saying that with the rental rates I posted, that there is no way that the Aventura could not be more like the Metrolofts? That what was chosen was the only way to proceed? And if LIHTC are key to projects like Metrolofts, why not use them here?sshoe wrote:Actually, this just validates my argument. Asking rents at Aventura range from $1.31 to $1.59 psf (probably even lower when they did the underwriting on this deal two years ago), while the asking rents at metro range from $1.41 to $1.67 psf.roger wyoming II wrote:According to a quick search, Aventura 1 bdrms actually start a bit higher than Metrolofts; 2 bdrms start a bit lower but have smaller sq. footage
Aventura pricing:
http://www.trulia.com/rental-community/ ... -MO-63110/
MetroLots pricing:
http://www.metrolofts-stl.com/metronew/pricing.shtml
What doesn't seem to wash? The argument that Aventura at Forest Park could not be more like Metrolofts in design and materials.
Additionally, some of the units at metro lofts are affordable and the property was partially financed using LIHTC.
LIHTC are not necessarily keys to projects, but they can enhance them. I also have no clue whether or not the developer was interested in using LIHTC. Obtaining them is a competitive process and not all local politicians want additional affordable housing in their wards. I think having affordable units as a small component of metro lofts was a good idea and probably should have been considered here.
I don't want to seem like I'm entirely defending this project, because I agree, it's a POS. But as I previously mentioned, I feel as if there is this prevailing notion that STL's developers "don't get it" or "our leaders lack vision." Some of this is very true, but there are also significant market constraints that need to be considered.
- 8,155
Much appreciated. I wasn't exactly thinking a carbon copy of Metrolofts, just that something more like it and less POS was possible.sshoe wrote: I'm saying that $.10 psf less at Aventura makes it more difficult to build to the level that is metro lofts. For a 100,000 sf building, that could easily equate to an additional $1.7 million in value. That being said, there are other factors involved that may have contributed to Aventura's "scaling back." Site acquisition and prep costs could have been higher at Aventura than Metro Lofts. I don't know those specifics, but I do know for certain that the developers were originally trying to underwrite at higher rents similar to metro lofts, but were unable to given the increased risk at this location. This is why we often see a significantly different end-product than the original concepts and renderings.
LIHTC are not necessarily keys to projects, but they can enhance them. I also have no clue whether or not the developer was interested in using LIHTC. Obtaining them is a competitive process and not all local politicians want additional affordable housing in their wards. I think having affordable units as a small component of metro lofts was a good idea and probably should have been considered here.
I don't want to seem like I'm entirely defending this project, because I agree, it's a POS. But as I previously mentioned, I feel as if there is this prevailing notion that STL's developers "don't get it" or "our leaders lack vision." Some of this is very true, but there are also significant market constraints that need to be considered.
- 2,386
^I would think that would be per month. So if you take that out to say a 15 year loan for the property that would make it around $1.7m less in rental intakes.
I think that was what SShoe was talking about.
I think that was what SShoe was talking about.
- 11K
^ Ah. I need to look into Metro Lofts financing. Likely tax abated, but I know Aventura is tax abated for 10yrs, keeping property tax at ~$0. Not sure how much that is worth.
It's an additional $120 K in annual rent ($10k per month). Capitalized at 7.0% (120k/0.07) = $1.7 million in additional value, or an extra $17 psf in higher construction costs.Alex Ihnen wrote:I'm confused. $0.10 psf for a 100K sq ft building = $10,000.
100 units at +/-1,000 k per unit in taxes = $100,000 in annual savings for 10 years, However, the contributing value would need to be discounted back to present value, so it'd be under $1 million.Alex Ihnen wrote:^ Ah. I need to look into Metro Lofts financing. Likely tax abated, but I know Aventura is tax abated for 10yrs, keeping property tax at ~$0. Not sure how much that is worth.
>>Past Tower Grove South Resident - Future Soulard Residentnewstl2020 wrote:^You can chief me all you want. Doesn't change the fact that your post makes no sense.
Gladly. How's the weather in Wisconsin been, chief?
- 2,386
^There's no reason to go OT on this thread, so unless you would like to explain how stating you wouldn't want to associate with someone who chose to live in a development with this low of architectural standards has anything to do with a comment regarding regionalized infighting between city and county residents, you can probably go ahead and move on.
- 1,320
^
^^
If there were enough room available on the Aventura parking lot, I'd suggest you take this outside and settle it.
^^
If there were enough room available on the Aventura parking lot, I'd suggest you take this outside and settle it.
- 8,912
newstl2020 wrote:^There's no reason to go OT on this thread, so unless you would like to explain how stating you wouldn't want to associate with someone who chose to live in a development with this low of architectural standards has anything to do with a comment regarding regionalized infighting between city and county residents, you can probably go ahead and move on.
Keep Calm and NextStl On