^ I would get out - being lied to is bad. But I don't think the studios will bring 20-somethings in - I think it will be weekenders, travelling businessmen, Cardinals fans etc. Actually, I'd bet that these people will not use the amenities at all. And it won't hurt density much - as long as one of three studios has someone in it at all times, on average.
Hmmm....I don't think they were lied to. Unless they were promised that $129,000 condos would never be in the building. It sounds like they are adjusting to the market, in itself interesting. I don't think people are buying $129,000 condos just so they can use the pool. I wouldn't worry about that. But, I don't know enough about the condo market to know if smaller units in the lower floors effect the value of the penthouse. There are many buildings with big penthouses and small apartments on the lower floors. Seems ordinary to me. But, really I don't know.
I would disagree that folks buying these lower priced studios would be out of towners, to me if you're buying a second home it's going to be a little bit nicer of a unit, not a studio. I could actually see them going more to young professionals, but that's just my impression.
It's unfortunate that your friends' parents were under a different impression or feel lied to. I would only tell them to get out if the thought of younger professionals hanging around the pool bothers them, or if they think these lower priced units will truly hold down their condo's value, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "something fishy is going on." Regardless, I'm happy to see smaller, more affordable units like this being offered - not the typical luxury loft or condo but also not typical "affordable" housing, simply smaller market rate units.
It's unfortunate that your friends' parents were under a different impression or feel lied to. I would only tell them to get out if the thought of younger professionals hanging around the pool bothers them, or if they think these lower priced units will truly hold down their condo's value, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "something fishy is going on." Regardless, I'm happy to see smaller, more affordable units like this being offered - not the typical luxury loft or condo but also not typical "affordable" housing, simply smaller market rate units.
I don't think it will lower the property value. As Expat stated there are buildings w/ huge penthouses and much lower priced units below. Take The Arcade for example; penthouse costs 1.6 million - 8th floor unit 169K.
I don't really think they lied, it just seems weird that they would change the development plan 2 weeks before breaking ground. Maybe they think that by adding these cheaper apartments, they will sell quicker and consequently, a higher percentage of units will be sold. My friend said that the PP was not supposed to break ground until they were 40% sold (which seems pretty high). maybe these extra units will get them to 40? 
Well two thoughts:
1. From a personal point of view, I would be kinda peeved if I were sold a bill of goods (ie. that the Park Pacific would be the elite downtown residential building with nothing but upper price units). But at the same time, it seems that other pricey buildings (such as the Arcade) have similar differentials so it doesn't seem like a huge deal. To be frank, I would think the homeless filled parks that surround the building would be a bigger drag on resale value.
2. From a downtown wide point of view, I think this is good news. Additional units that are more affordable. Seems like higher density (ie. more residents) and a wider range of prices to ensure that units in the building are purchased is a good thing. Better these 50 smaller lower price units than 15 larger empty pricier units.
1. From a personal point of view, I would be kinda peeved if I were sold a bill of goods (ie. that the Park Pacific would be the elite downtown residential building with nothing but upper price units). But at the same time, it seems that other pricey buildings (such as the Arcade) have similar differentials so it doesn't seem like a huge deal. To be frank, I would think the homeless filled parks that surround the building would be a bigger drag on resale value.
2. From a downtown wide point of view, I think this is good news. Additional units that are more affordable. Seems like higher density (ie. more residents) and a wider range of prices to ensure that units in the building are purchased is a good thing. Better these 50 smaller lower price units than 15 larger empty pricier units.
- 291
I doubt very much that PP intentionally tried to deceive this couple. It seems to me it's more a case of a couple maybe having lived in the suburbs with others of their same "class" and now they won't be happy unless they find the same kind of living downtown, so maybe they made a rash decision they're regretting now and looking for a way out.
Is this any different than the Roberts brothers initially saying their condos would start at $850,000 and now it looks like they'll start around $350,000? Demographics change and developers have to adjust to those changes to make their ventures profitable.
Incidentally, the people living in the least expensive units in my building are not 20 somethings. They range in age from 35-60. I think this couple are way off base in thinking only 20 somethings would buy the lower priced units at PP.
Is this any different than the Roberts brothers initially saying their condos would start at $850,000 and now it looks like they'll start around $350,000? Demographics change and developers have to adjust to those changes to make their ventures profitable.
Incidentally, the people living in the least expensive units in my building are not 20 somethings. They range in age from 35-60. I think this couple are way off base in thinking only 20 somethings would buy the lower priced units at PP.
This does sound fishy. If people invested several hundreds of thousands of dollars, based on the story that the building would be filled exclusively with similar units, to then have the make-up of the building changed that late in the game is disingenous at best. Not that I think the lower priced units will be a problem, I just think the developers have some explaining to do.
Everyone who thinks changing a project mid-stream should just become a developer and then develop their projects without any changes...regardless of what the market is telling them to do. If the Lawrence Group felt there is a market for some smaller units, they have every right to make changes to the plans. New condo documents always allow for such changes. This project was planned in 2005-2006 (real estate market frenzy) and they are lucky to be able to change the plans now before construction begins. Would those penthouse buyers rather live above some very expensive (relative to the rest of downtown) smaller units or above a bunch of unsold 1,500 square foot units?
- 209
I guess you're assuming that the smaller units will sell?
- 11K
AvantStL wrote:Everyone who thinks changing a project mid-stream should just become a developer and then develop their projects without any changes...regardless of what the market is telling them to do. If the Lawrence Group felt there is a market for some smaller units, they have every right to make changes to the plans. New condo documents always allow for such changes.
That's all true - I just think that if I bought into a luxury building with one type of development in mind and it changed that I would want to get out.
- 729
I wouldn't worry about having more affordable units in my development. I think this may have more to do with PP getting to that 40% pre-sold goal than anything else. And if that is true, that would be a bigger concern than having more affordable units in the building. If the building is not selling...could be a red flag.
Anyone have up-to-date sales numbers?
Anyone have up-to-date sales numbers?
I believe the areas in question are a part of the development that were originally set to be left as an unfinished space to be completed later that the lawrence group must have decided to move up in schedule.
- 2,386
Has anyone been able to get by to the sales office and check if these condos are actually up for sale? I was in there earlier in the week (monday) and the boards that showed the available units for both Park-Pacific and City-side were the same as they had always been. Didn't see a mention of an extra 30 units anywhere that I saw.
Unless it said in the bill of sale that the entire building would be filled with elite snobs then I don't see how the owner would be liable for having cheaper units.
What is the big deal? 120k isn't section 8 housing. I am guessing people like myself would buy in: recent college grads, artist types, or people who don't need a huge place. We are looking for a diverse downtown, right?
If someone has a problem with sharing amenities with those oh so dirty 120k plebs then perhaps move to a gated community.
What is the big deal? 120k isn't section 8 housing. I am guessing people like myself would buy in: recent college grads, artist types, or people who don't need a huge place. We are looking for a diverse downtown, right?
If someone has a problem with sharing amenities with those oh so dirty 120k plebs then perhaps move to a gated community.
- 623
Jeez, I thought they canceled the infinity pool until I went back to find what the original "lie" was.
It was definetly not a lie, because my wife and I visited that property over a year ago just after the grand opening, and we asked about this specific issue.
We noticed all the units were on the west side, and asked what was going on with the remaining spaces to on the east side of the hall, since that side of the building had minimal windows. They said they were going to see how things go and then possibly add additional smaller units. All we had to do was ask. And I was just looking, not investing in an $800,000 penthouse.
Due to the floorplan and window issues there is no way they could be top of the line units. As it is these units are priced about average for the rest of the building on a per square foot basis.
One other thing, are the people buying $2.5 million units at the Chase complaining about riff-raff buying the $400,000 units? No. These people need to get over themselves.
It was definetly not a lie, because my wife and I visited that property over a year ago just after the grand opening, and we asked about this specific issue.
We noticed all the units were on the west side, and asked what was going on with the remaining spaces to on the east side of the hall, since that side of the building had minimal windows. They said they were going to see how things go and then possibly add additional smaller units. All we had to do was ask. And I was just looking, not investing in an $800,000 penthouse.
Due to the floorplan and window issues there is no way they could be top of the line units. As it is these units are priced about average for the rest of the building on a per square foot basis.
One other thing, are the people buying $2.5 million units at the Chase complaining about riff-raff buying the $400,000 units? No. These people need to get over themselves.
- 11K
Doug wrote:
What is the big deal? . . . . I am guessing people like myself would buy in
- 209
There is a pretty substantial difference between $400,000 and $129,000 for a "luxury living" development.
If you are getting 500 Sq. Ft., that is still $258 a Sq. Ft. Way out of my price range, as a very recent college grad. Now if they were 900- 1000 Sq. Ft. I would be all over that. I consider $258 a Sq. Ft. to be pretty expensive.
^ true, however - price is predicated on space and amenities. For example, a studio (400 sqft) would be smaller, however the upgrades could be plentiful (exquisite flooring countertops, fixtures, etc)....I believe you could still consider it "luxury" living (in a smaller space that costs less)...IMO
- 8,908
appraisalman wrote:There is a pretty substantial difference between $400,000 and $129,000 for a "luxury living" development.
but if the units are smaller, then there would be little change in the $/sf.
- 11K
MattnSTL wrote:If you are getting 500 Sq. Ft., that is still $258 a Sq. Ft. Way out of my price range, as a very recent college grad. Now if they were 900- 1000 Sq. Ft. I would be all over that. I consider $258 a Sq. Ft. to be pretty expensive.
? I wish my budget worked on a sq ft/$ scale! I think the point is that $130K is affordable to more people while $300K is less affordable regardless of the sq ft.
If you ask me, more developments should include a wide range of income levels such as this. It increases density and diversity in an area that might be convienient for someone but would normally be out of their price range. Its not as though the people paying the higher prices will not get what they paid for simply because there are more cheaply priced units in the building. Ecssencially it sounds like those who pay the big bucks don't feel that those with more limited means deserve to be in THIER building useing THIER pool. It is the same reason that low income housing is aways grouped in certain areas around cities, "We'll give them that area, and then they'll be out of ours."
- 729
MattnSTL wrote:If you are getting 500 Sq. Ft., that is still $258 a Sq. Ft. Way out of my price range, as a very recent college grad. Now if they were 900- 1000 Sq. Ft. I would be all over that. I consider $258 a Sq. Ft. to be pretty expensive.
That is expensive no matter how you cut it especially when you consider that there are a lot of lofts going for sub $200 a SF. But with the Park Pacific, The Arcade, The Alexa, The Robert's Tower and to some extent The Syndicate, $258 a SF will proababy be about average for the luxury condo market. A few more years from now we might look back and remember $258 a SF being a bargain.