Marina Blue 2 Bedroom on the 54th Floor – Video
April 13, 2010 by Lucas Lechuga
Out of curiosity, I wanted to see just how well priced this listing is compared to other recently built large 2 bedroom condos not only in Downtown Miami but also Brickell and Brickell Key. I did a search in the MLS using the following criteria:
- 2 Bedroom
- Minimum of 1,600 square feet
- Located in Downtown Miami, Brickell or Brickell Key
- Building completed in the year 2000 or later
Our listing is the third best priced condo in those areas using the above search parameters and it's not a short sale or foreclosure. The best priced listing is a short sale at Courts at Brickell Key with 1,626 square feet of interior and an asking price of $499,000. The second best priced unit is a foreclosure at Ten Museum Park with 1,794 square feet of interior and an asking price of $531,000. Neither has a view that even compares to unit 5404 at Marina Blue. Take a look at the video below to get an idea of what it feels like to live in the sky and enjoy one of the best views in Miami.
Below is the floor plan for unit 5404:
Be sure to also take a look at the video tour of the amenities and common areas at Marina Blue.
If you're a buyer and would like view this 2 bedroom condo in person, please call 305-428-3860 to schedule a showing. Broker participation is welcome.
what are the fees
An interesting use of space.
The vessel sinks are an interesting choice.
scriv
Condoreports says that HOA fees are $924. It seems to me that the price of these these units at Marina Blue are going up. There are 4 of these units with 1,663 sq ft.
Unit 5302 was bought for $446k in 02/09 and then bought for $485K in 09/09.
Unit 5404 was bought for $339K in 02/09 and is for sale at $530k now, 04/10
Unit 5504 was bought for $345k in 03/09 and then bought for $411k in 07/09.
Unit 5604 was bought for $365k in 07/09 and then bought for $510k in 02/10.
Out of the the ten 2 bedroom units sold between now and December ’09, all but one of them has sold for higher than their previous sale. And the one that sold for less was originally purchased back in ’08, the rest were previously purchased in ’09.
It looks like the recent bulk purchasers are making a killing. Jorge Mattos of 21 Marina Blue LLC paid $196 per square foot for 21 units last year and now the average is about $280.
Since December ’09 an owner listed at Bluemar has sold 6 properties for a total of $2,453,000 that were purchased for a total of $1,757,362 in 07/09. That’s about a 40% profit in 9 months
Marina Blue clearly bottomed in mid to late 2009.
That’s correct. The HOA fees are $924 per month.
Keep telling yourself that Miami condos have “bottomed” Gixxer.
That kitchen is tiny. The island has the dishwasher and sink, so all the storage is located beside the stove and the cabinets above the stove. I guess if you sell yourself the myth that you will never need to cook because you’re living a chic cosmopolitan lifestyle, you won’t miss the storage space or counter space. This kitchen is not functional for a 1,600 SF unit. Meh!
Again another person who wants to make broad generalizations and isn’t smart enough to look at specifics. You keep lumping all Miami condos together and I’ll keep looking at each condo and neighborhood separately.
Case in point. Here is information on Miami home sales from the 4th quater ’09:
All Homes (Miami-Dade)
Median $170k
%chg -26.1%
$/Sqft $114
Sales 7,929
%chg 30%
So the median value for all Miami-Dade homes was down 26.1% and sales were up 30%.
33131 (Brickell)
Median $275k
%chg 7.8%
$/Sqft $224
Sales 236
%chg 54.2%
But when we look just at Brickell the medain value was up 7.8% and sales were up 54.2%
The Miami market and Downtown market are not the same.
Assuming those numbers are accurate, the price blip up in Brickell Q409 is probably a reflection of the new construction starting to get absorbed. If you backed out the new construction, the market was probably negative like every other area in the country. Still with only 236 sales, I wouldn’t try to read much into it.
Very interesting potential new avenue of condo deposit recovery:
Drew:
Great find!
Having glanced at the statute (Florida Statute 718.202), it appears to be a rather strong argument. If this case is upheld on appeal, assuming Swire appeals, it could be tremendously painful for developers. It will be interesting to see how this case and the law it interprets develops.
I found Florida Statute 718.202(5) of the statute particularly powerful.
“(5) The failure to comply with the provisions of this section renders the contract voidable by the buyer, and, if voided, all sums deposited or advanced under the contract shall be refunded with interest at the highest rate then being paid on savings accounts, excluding certificates of deposit, by savings and loan associations in the area in which the condominium property is located.”
Wow! BOOM….TO THE MOON!
For those interested, here is a link to the statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0718/Sec202.HTM
Best regards.
scriv
Miami-Dade saw 19,918 foreclosures — up 0.8 percent versus the previous quarter and up 60 percent versus last year. By that measure, one out of every 49 properties in the county is in some stage of foreclosure
Good Job Drew-This would be a landmark!!!!
Conclusion of the article:
While the foreclosure numbers may look grim, they don’t tell the whole story, said Andy Weiser, a Broward real estate agent. While western and central Broward County may be reeling, the eastern parts of the county are showing signs of recovery, he said.
He said many sellers are standing firm on their prices and, in some cases, bidding wars are breaking out.
“People realize that prices have leveled and because of that buyers are a lot more reasonable today than they were six months ago. We are beyond the bottom feeding stage.”
A nice long article to get everyone up in a whirlwind. “OMG foreclosures are crazy, houses will be free in a year”. And then the article ends saying that prices have LEVELED.
There also seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout South Florida. The “eastern” areas seem to be showing signs of recovery. I wonder what could be to the east that would cause this to happen???? And what do you know, downtown is to the east as well.
Scriv-
Did you read the Opinion? Quite a thorough analysis.
Of importance is that this ruling only applies to buyers who have not already defaulted under the purchase agreement. I suspect that many of the deposit-recovery lawsuits were filed on a reactionary basis, i.e. the buyer may have defaulted (or the developer alleged a default) for failure to close, and the buyer’s suit followed, based on a varierty of theories. But in this case it looks like the buyer’s diligence didn’t put him in a position where the developer could allege breach.
Frankly I’m surprised that this legal argument hasn’t been used by plaintiff lawyers earlier…..
Does the video show the living room without the master bedroom wall in place??
I looked at Marquis the other day and wonder how the “private” elevator that stops at all 65 floors works. If 3 people are waiting in the lobby to go up does only 1 at a time go or do all 3 ride and have a look inside the others apartment as they get off.
The individual lobby on the units floor seemed strange in that had to be used as a regular interior household hallway. In some units a bedroom door is directly across from the elevator and the rest of the apartment is like down a hall off this lobby. Seemed scary to have a kid sleep across from the elevator. I would have thought there would have been a secure entry door to the apartment off the lobby.
I wonder what will happen to the inventory the developers are still holding on to if they have to pay all that deposit money back???
Gixxer, please note it is a real estate agent who is stating things are showing signs of recovery on the eastern side. remember, its always a great time to buy and prices never fall.
My subjective take from what I see here in my building on the ocean in Miami Beach is that Gixxer is right. A 2 br/ 2ba 1530 sq ft apt sold here for $650 a sq ft in 2009. One apt in that same line just sold for $850 a sq foot last week and another is in contract for $785 a sq ft. The higher priced one is on the south side of the building and the lower priced one is on the north but neither one has unobstructed views. The highest price ever for those units occurred about 4 years ago and was just over $1,000 sq ft. You can’t get any further east than where we are and I think our prices pretty much bottomed out last year.
miami2009,
no wonder you will continue to be miami2008 then 2009 and fill in the blanks. You wont buy a thing. do you have any more wierd ideas that developers will give you a condo for nothing? Other than ICON and Paramount and to a lesser degree, everglades and marquis, there are not many developer held units in miami.
I guess we will still be seeing maim2014, miami2041 and so on , on this site for many more years to come.
gixxer,
the reason Eastern Miami Dade is holding well cause the proximity to water, views conveniences and South Beach. If one wants to live in Doral, no contest. But Easy of I95 is desirable to very desirable now.
Drew:
I have not read the opinion yet. I skimmed a bit of it and agree that the judge’s analysis was quite thorough. But this is not surprising. It had to be.
I appreciate your observation that the judge limited the remedy to cases where the buyer has not breached the agreement. Again, I have not read the case yet….I will, promise ….but this is significant and I think a good public policy argument. In limiting the remedy as it did, the court has fused the statute’s rule with the “clean hands” equitable maxim (“he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands.”) This is good public policy because a buyer who, for example, bought 20 condos in South Florida only to find that he/she could not afford it and defaulted on their contract should not be able to walk away from the mess they made scot-free. Aequitas sequitur legem (“equity follows the law.”)
Unfortunately, in the interim, I imagine that this decision will open the proverbial “flood gates of litigation” as bad-faith buyers/investors will flock to courts seeking to get their deposits back using this rule.
I agree, it is puzzling why this statutory provision has not be used until now. On one hand it is not at all surprising because there are a lot laws on the books that are rarely or never used. That said, however, the delay may also be attributable to the fact that, based on the court’s crafting of the rule, it took time to find a proper plaintiff, with proper facts, who could actually assert the claim.
Then again, I did a quick search and found another case where a court touched on the issue: Hardwick Props. v. Newbern, 711 So. 2d 35 (1998). Also on point are TRG-Brickell Point NE, Ltd v. Wajsblat, 2010 WL 785854, (Fla. 3d DCA Mar 10, 2010), Terra-Adi Intern. Bayshore, LLC v. Georgarious, 20 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
Happy Friday!
scriv
Why bother, forgot to take your meds I see. Well not sure how you got all that from my post but I visit Miami several times every year. Looking for a second home so I am in no rush to buy. So far, renting has been the ticket for me. My family and I stay in some of the nicest buildings in Miami/South Beach for a fraction of what it would cost to purchase. Our last stay was in Continuum II in a unit I could not afford even if the owner gave it to me for free. So what’s the point???
Is it me or is there only 2 or 3 people on the blog with several different handles???
why bother,
I was being facetious when I made the statement. I’m perfectly aware that there is an ocean east of Southeast Florida. That was the whole point. The oceanview market has a lot more buyers. Getting an international buyer to purchase a unit in Brickell with water views and a short ride over the causeway to the beach is a much easier sell than in Coral Gables or Dadeland. A rising tide lifts all ships, but when the water retreats you’ll see the bottoms are very different
I agree with you about the deposits. I work for a GC/Developers so I admit I’m a bit biased and I don’t see this standing on a technicality. If the developer had the right to spend the money who cares if it was in two escrow accounts or not. But regardless of what I think I don’t see how this would in anyway affect market prices. Worst case scenario is that a few developers have to pay back this money and some of them can’t foot the bill. This however has nothing to do with market prices.
The same thing goes for future foreclosure/short sales. Before there were no buyers and no sales to compare them to so many people were able to sneak away with some great deals. Those days seem to be over. There aren’t enough to flood the market as inventory has been pretty stable and declining slightly. New home sales seem to be the biggest loser as there will be a steady supply of cheaper existing homes.
Miami2009,
why bother’s point was that even if some developers have to give back deposits its not going to affect the inventory. Let’s assume the worst and say the developer doesn’t have enough money to pay all the money and goes bankrupt. Another investor steps in and buys the units at market price and then rents them while they sell a few off at a time. While it would be bad for the few developers it would actually be better for the market with the units being moved into ownership at sustainable prices.
Richard , what else did you think of Marquis in terms of the lobby, pool, fit&finish, etc? Could u hear the highway outside? Are they willing to do deals there or are they on still on Mars in terms of pricing?
gables,
I try not to discredit information just because I don’t like where it came from and instead just look to verify it. Here again in 4th quarter information for all three Southeast Florida counties.
All Homes (Miami-Dade)
Median $170k
%chg -26.1%
$/Sqft $114
Sales 7,929
%chg 30%
Miami-Dade zip codes that were higher:
33149 (east)
33129 (east)
33131 (east)
33194
All Homes (Broward)
Median $130k
%chg -30%
$/Sqft $98
Sales 9,243
%chg 77.8%
Broward zip codes that were higher
33442 (Deerfield Beach)
33305 (east)
33308 (east)
33323 (Weston)
33331 (Weston)
33327 (Weston)
All Homes (Palm Beach)
Median $168k
%chg -18.4%
$/Sqft $102
Sales 6,187
%chg 33.3%
Palm Beach zip codes that were higher
33430 (Boca Raton)
33434 (Boca Raton)
33486 (Boca Raton)
33487 (Boca Raton)
33498 (Boca Raton)
33467 (Lake Worth)
33408 (east)
33404 (east)
33405 (east)
Marquis pricing has come down quite a bit. 375k starting price for 1400 sq feet of great finishes (1 bed room) before negotiations is not bad at all. I am still planning on renting at Marquis for a year to see how i like the building and quite possibly buying there or at 900 where i currently reside after my lease is up in 2011.
Drew:
Thanks again for finding that article and the court’s decision.
I enjoyed reading EVERY paragraph of the court’s decision, particularly because of the particular development at issue in the dispute.
I would propose that this case is required reading for all (pop-quiz on Friday!) and that several points are important or stand out as I read the decision:
1. This decision is brilliantly written and the precision of language employed is something that sets this case apart from other Florida cases I have read.
2. This case is not so much about Swire’s liability as it is about the liability of the escrow agent, Lawyers Title Insurance Company. (See page 10, ¶2) While Plaintiffs’ claims against Swire were resolved by summary judgment motion (see page 2), the court gave Swire a third bite at the apple. (Page 10) Given that this decision was on the record and no additional evidence was submitted, the facts here seemed rather fatal. This could explain why, until now, there seems to be a lack of similar cases: they needed just the right plaintiff with just the right facts to bring this case.
The defendants’ arguments, distilled to their essence, were essentially, “yeah, “technically” we violated the statute, but we believe we are entitled to cure.” But as the court clearly points out, neither the statute nor the case law applying it permit a defendant to cure their performance and, more detrimental to defendants’ claim, was that even if they were entitled to cure, the defendants’ admitted they could not cure their performance because the funds at issue here had already been disbursed. (P. 35, note 19)
3. This decision preserves the rule of law as defined by the plain meaning of the statute. Defendants’ attempted to prove that somehow an alternative, and more liberal, theory of statutory interpretation, appealing to the legislative history, was appropriate and lead to a different result. But the court’s detailed examination and analysis of the legislative history proved that both the plain meaning of the statute and analysis of the legislative history lead to the same conclusion. The clarity of the statutory language prevailed. (p. 12, note 4)
Thus, this decision preserved the underlying policy and rule of law, protecting buyers from developers’ “mishandling” of their deposits and providing a much-need private enforcement mechanism. (pp. 37 & 40, note 21)
Again, I argue that this case is a MUST-READ. It is well written and the analysis is superb!
4. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR SHODDY ACCOUNTING IN THE WORLD OF CONDO DEVELOPMENTS. Bad accounting is one of the issue that tilted the scales of justice in plaintiff’s favor. (See. P. 30, note 18; p. 7, note 2)
5. Curious note 22 on page 40. I am not sure what to make of this note. This is the longest footnote in the decision. It seems to be saying that defense counsel erred by not arguing or presenting evidence of plaintiffs’ default. The third paragraph directly addresses the impact of this kind of evidence on the outcome of the case at bar. But was the court implying that defense counsel committed malpractice? Or is the court responding to and answering the question/issue it raises on page 11, note 3: specifically defining what defendants in these similar cases should do? Honestly, I have no idea. NEAT STUFF NONETHELESS!
scriv