Azure Amenities Video
May 22, 2010 by Lucas Lechuga
Here's the video of the 3 bedroom/3.5 bath condo at Azure priced at $1,499,000. We priced it for a quick sale. The previous list price was $1,755,000. The next best priced 07 line in the building is the unit one floor above which is listed for $2,400,000.
Thank you for the shorter video- it does not compromise your efforts to show the features of the buildings, and it is easier to watch.
Well done.
Joe,
“I think the problem you keep running into is the fact that most people — maybe not hardcore r.e. types, but most buyers — consider a market’s “bottom” to be the point in time at which a piece of r.e. could be purchased at the lowest possible price.”
I agree that the market “bottom” is the point when you can get a piece of real estate at the lowest price. And the sales data shows that the point when you could get a condo downtown for the lowest price in most developments was 2nd quarter 2009.
Here is a link to a market report for the Brickell north market on condereports.com:
http://www.condoreports.com/real-estate-reports/brickell-north_market_ownership_60
Scroll down and you’ll see that prices bottomed in 2009 and went higher in 2010. If you go to each individual project in that market you’ll see that the quarter that the most of them bottomed as far as sales price was the 2nd quarter 2009.
Bulk buyers came purchased a lot of units in 2009 at prices lower than what individual buyers and investors could that set the floor. Once the sales volumes of units picked up the individual investors moved in but they weren’t able to purchase at the insanely low prices (remember Bill and Met 1?) as then their sales get recorded at the higher price.
“The Met 1 bulk buyer purchased at an average price of $250 per square foot, which is a 40 percent discount on $414 per square foot average for individual transactions with the developer in the project.”
So bulk buyers buy a bunch of units at $250 per sqft. Then months later individual investors come in and they have to pay $414. Unless these projects keep selling their units to bulk buyers then prices are going to be higher in 2010 than in 2009. The middle of 2009 (2nd quarter) will be when the lowest prices will be recorded for sales.
You guys are confused because you don’t understand median values. The median value is simply the middle value of all condos purchased that month and does not represent the VALUE . At the beginning of 2010 the sales of lower priced homes really picked up. More people were buying $100k houses and condos. But that doesn’t mean the VALUE of condos was going down. People who were purchasing condos were doing so at a more expensive price, that’s why the price per square foot was going up while the median sales price was going down.
Example.
Let’s say you sell jeans for $25, $50, $75 and $100.
If you sell 3 pair for $25, 2 for $50, 1 for $75 and 1 for $100 then the median value of jeans sold would be $25 because that is the middle value of all the jeans sold.
$25, $25, $25, ($50), $50, $75, $100
But if you raised the price of you jeans to $30, $60, $80, $110 but offered a sale that made the $30 jeans more popular so you sold 4 pair for $30, 1 pair for $60, 1 pair for $80 and 1 pair for $110 you median value would be $30:
$30, $30, $30, ($30), $60, $80, $110
So here even though prices went up the median value of jeans sold went down. It the same thing we have where a lot of condos under $250k are selling but when you look at the individual projects you see that the sales prices of what is sold is going higher and reflected in the clear increase in price per square foot.
“If you sell 3 pair for $25, 2 for $50, 1 for $75 and 1 for $100 then the median value of jeans sold would be $25 because that is the middle value of all the jeans sold.”
Come again?
25, 25, 25, 50, 50, 75, 100
50 = median not 25!
in your second example ” $30, $30, $30, ($30), $60, $80, $110″
30 is not the median 45 is the median!
It been a Long while since I did high school math, maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong
” $30, $30, $30, ($30), $60, $80, $110″
actually, I take that back because I don’t understand what you are saying above. Is that “(30)” part of the list of numbers or is it both in the list and denotes the median?
if there are 7 numbers in the list then 30 is the median but if there are only 6 then the median would be 45 not 30.
if list is
” $30, $30, $30, $30, $60, $80, $110″
then median = 30
else if list is ” $30, $30, $30, $60, $80, $110″
median =45
gixxer your points have validity but there are also counter items. is the distribution of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units the same in 2009 and 2010? not only does that skew your median, but also the $sq ft. Three bedroom units were not moving much in 2009, and they have picked up more in 2010. they will tend to have a higher $ sq ft than much less desirable 1 and even 2 bedroom units in many buildings-particularly in the time period of low ball cash only transactions. yet i still see1 and 2 bedroom units selling at some very low prices. this is seen in the case-shiller numbers for miami=which have been falling from Setpt 2009 through available Feb 2010 numbers. $ sq ft, while a useful parameter, does not normalize for variation in distribution of unit types the way you imply. case-schiller includes some of this aspect into their index.
Gixxer 1000 said: “The main person who I seem to argue with the most is Joe who doesn’t live here while I’m currently in the process of moving here now. I’m sure I have been to Miami more times in the last few months than him. I don’t see how arguing with Joe who is arguing that prices are plummeting deters someone who doesn’t live here. …”
– See, this is why we argue: Because while you claim to love “facts,” you use a lot of FICTION in your comments.
For one thing, I lived in Miami FOR YEARS before leaving for a 1-2-year business deal. While I’m not in Miami at this particular moment, Miami is still home for me, and I’m quite sure my YEARS of living there still trumps the little actual knowledge you gained on your ADMITTEDLY brief visits.
For another, please point out where I’ve been “arguing that prices are plummeting.” You can’t, because I haven’t been. All I’ve said is that I’m not convinced the high-end market has hit its bottom, and that even if the Miami market has bottomed, bullish price INCREASES are highly unlikely over the next few years (contrary to your claims/projections that r.e. appreciation has already returned, or will soon return, to at least the historical 3-4% per year average).
Bottom line, if you want to argue less, don’t create so much fiction that demands a reply.
will buyers still be there when the dow is back around 7,500-8,400
the euro is history, and if a miami condo is worth 500, ooo $$ and a few years
later- a dollar is worth 50 cents = is the cond0 worth 500,000 or 250,000
???
just curious
Regarding the euro,
If you think it may get to parity with the dollar (from 2002-2010 the Euro has ranged from 85c-$1.60 to the US Dollar with it being around $1.30-$1.45 in 2009), that means a Euro-zone investor/owner will in effect be paying approx 30% more for monthly Mortgage/HOA/Property taxes versus 2009.
Something to chew on.
Gixxer:
Finally! While I generally scan the statistics you post, relying on the theory that numbers that are purely repeated are of little value – – we now have an additional reason to ignore the statistics you post: you don’t understand them. In the alternative – – and I want to be fair – – based on your analogies, your statistical analysis is wrong.
You can’t argue make the argument that a “bottom” has developed in the real estate market predicated on an analogous range definition that only focuses on the MEDIAN value (your first “jean” example, “$25, $25, $25, ($50), $50, $75, $100”- – ps: my math is a bit rusty but I believe that the MEDIAN is ((7 numbers in the range +1)/2=4) and thus 50 ) or the MEDIAN (your second example,$30, $30, $30, ($30), $60, $80, $110″ : $30 was the MEDIAN – – THE MIDDLE VALUE (((7 numbers +1)/2=4) so the 4th value in the range is the MEDIAN; http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm).
If you are going to to quantitative analysis, GREAT! Go for it. But you cannot make an argument based on incomplete or faulty data set analysis. But….thanks for sending me back to 9th grade precalculus: I enjoyed the trip down memory lane.
I love it when people, you and others, argue the numbers because numbers do not lie. Numbers are cold. Numbers are clear. Numbers are brilliantly concise. I love numbers!
But you can’t argue that real estate prices have bottomed like this my friend. There are so many additional variables to factor in (e.g.: currency market instability, Chinese drywall repair costs, bracket creep/migration, depreciation, supply and demand, etc.)
I have said it once. I will say it again. Do the math!
scriv
gables,
“is the distribution of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units the same in 2009 and 2010?”
The short answer is yes. If you go to condoreports.com and look at the current sales for this quarter you get 156 1-bedrooms, 182 2-bedrooms and 43 3-bedrooms. So 3-bedrooms make up about 11% of sales which is not statistically different than the percentage of 3 bedrooms sold in 2009. Also your theory that 3 bedrooms sell for more per square foot than 2 bedrooms isn’t necessarily true. 2 bedrooms are the most desirable and usually get the most per square footage which is why when developers build projects the makemore of the units 2 bedrooms. Take a look at all these buildings and you’ll see that 2 bedrooms sell for more per sqft than 3 bedrooms:
1060
Vue
Club at Brickell Bay
1800 club
50 Biscayne
Epic
Wind
Unit that have more than 2 bedrooms sell for more per sqft usually when they are penthouse units and therefore provide extra amenities (rooftop terrace, 2-levels, etc.). If you take the penthouse units out of the equation then 2 bedrooms sell at the highest price per sqft on average. But regardless, 3 or more bedrooms still make up such a small percentage of the sales and therefore aren’t the reason for the price increases. You can also follow the sale of 1 and 2 bedrooms in 2009 and find the same or similar units selling for more now (hence DJ and Owner@infinity).
“$ sq ft, while a useful parameter, does not normalize for variation in distribution of unit types the way you imply. case-schiller includes some of this aspect into their index.”
I agree with this statement. Which is why I’m trying to look at multiple points of data. Pricer per square foot, median sales price, home price index, sales in specific zip codes, etc.
While we are generalizing about the entire market I think it’s clear that most people are only concerned with condos in either downtown or Miami Beach. Case Shiller is concerned with the entire Miami metro area. I’ve posted the sales by zip code and you can see that place downtown and in Miami Beach have already posted year over year increases of 5%- 13%. While there are places in Hialeah that are still posting 40% year over year decreases. Case Shiller has to average all of those to provide one number for all of Miami. But what do you think Case Shiller would look like if it was only focused on downtown condos???
In the 4th quarter 2009 there were only 2 zip codes that posted year over year increases. In the 1st quarter 2010 than number is closer to 20. By the 2nd quarter 2010 I expect enough zip codes will have posted year over year increases so that the average for the entire area will be up year over year, but that is just my guess. But its clear that certain neighborhoods are ahead of the curve while other neighborhoods are behind the curve.
Joe,
I agree that the use of the word “plummeting” was an exaggeration. Although you have said that prices have not bottomed. So if prices have not reached their lowest point then I would think I’m correct in assuming that you think prices are going lower.
But it seems that now you seem to be saying maybe the market has bottomed except for the high end market?
“bullish price INCREASES are highly unlikely over the next few years (contrary to your claims/projections that r.e. appreciation has already returned, or will soon return, to at least the historical 3-4% per year average).”
I’ve repeatedly said that I do not expect bullish price increases. How is the historical AVERAGE a BULLISH price INCREASE?????
Maybe we are somewhat guilty of reading into what the other person is saying as people tend to generalize. So to be clear my position is that the bottom of the the market was probably sometime in the 2nd quarter 2009. I do not expect any bullish price increases. I’m expecting an average of maybe a 1% – 2% increase on average for the entire market this year and then next year to get back closer to 3% – 4%. Although with that said my primary focus is downtown and Miami Beach. Part of these areas (Brickell) have already posted a 13% year over year increase. Much of this has to do with the fact that bulk buyers were able to purchase at insanely low prices that aren’t accessible to most people. As more and more people come back to the market and purchase at non-bulk prices this is what caused the price increases. Now you can argue that prices never really increased to the average buyer because they never had access to the bulk prices but regardless prices did increase. Months ago we argued about whether these bulk buyers would be successful and I think its clear that they were. They are now selling the units to individual investors at non-bulk (higher) prices. 2009 will most likely be when the lowest prices for most these condos were recorded.
Gixxer,
“The short answer is yes. If you go to condoreports.com and look at the current sales for this quarter you get 156 1-bedrooms, 182 2-bedrooms and 43 3-bedrooms. So 3-bedrooms make up about 11% of sales which is not statistically different than the percentage of 3 bedrooms sold in 2009. Also your theory that 3 bedrooms sell for more per square foot than 2 bedrooms isn’t necessarily true. 2 bedrooms are the most desirable and usually get the most per square footage which is why when developers build projects the makemore of the units 2 bedrooms.”
First, where do you get the numbers that the distribution of units is the same for 2009 as 2010? Did not see those in condoreports-please let me know where this aggregate historical data is-very interested.
According to the aggregate North Brickell data, psf for a 2B is $379 and for 3B+ $$434 in 2nd quarter 2010. For downtown, 2B is $257 and 3B+ is $326. Three bedrooms on average have a higher sale price right now (my belief is they had fewer investors with shallow pockets than 1 and 2 B units.) You cherry picked some buildings. The discussion was related to how 3B can affect median and avg prices in the area. Considering a 3B can be multiple sq ft of a 1 and 2 B, takes only a few transactions to skew your data from historical patterns.
“But what do you think Case Shiller would look like if it was only focused on downtown condos???”
From condoreports, downtown and north Brickell historical psf
2005 $290 $395
2006 $337 $486
2007 $350 $463
2008 $386 $353
2009 $279 $255
2010 $257 $331
Downtown has fallen through 2010. North Brickell shows a rise in 2010. Considering the number of unites associated with luxury buildings which have opened in Brickell, guess you may want to be cautious of that rise. As I posted a couple of months ago, most of the data i saw from Lucas’ site saw buildings in Brickell basically even (some up some down, but average even) over the past year when looked at in psf. A case-schiller for brickell would probably behave the same.
gables,
“First, where do you get the numbers that the distribution of units is the same for 2009 as 2010? Did not see those in condoreports-please let me know where this aggregate historical data is-very interested.”
Go to the building list and then click on each individual building. Then you can go to “Recent Sales Activity” where you can look at sales for the current quarter and sales for the previous 4 quarters. Simply compare the previous 4 quarters to this quarter.
Example. 50 Biscayne
Current quarter 3 bedroom sales: 3
Past 4 quarter 3 bedroom sales: 13
If you look at the sale dates of the individual unit you can see that there are about 3 per quarter. Just repeat the process for each building. Time consuming but you’ll see there isn’t a significant increase in 3 bedroom units.
“The discussion was related to how 3B can affect median and avg prices in the area. Considering a 3B can be multiple sq ft of a 1 and 2 B, takes only a few transactions to skew your data from historical patterns.”
I know and the point I was making was that the MAJORITY of 3 bedrooms are not more per sqft than 2 bedrooms. There are only a few 3+ bedrooms (usually penthouses) that are a more per sqft. So 3 bedrooms only make 11% of the market and if most of these three bedrooms are not more per sqft than 2 bedrooms then the number of 3 bedrooms that could be trending prices up is even less than 11%.
“According to the aggregate North Brickell data, psf for a 2B is $379 and for 3B+ $$434 in 2nd quarter 2010.”
I agree, but there was only 11 3 bedrooms sold in this area. If you go in and take out the couple extreme cases like the 4 bedroom at Jade then the averages start to move back in line.
So I agree with you in the sense that a few transactions can skew the overall when we are using averages instead of medians. Again which is why I try to use as many different points of data as possible.
But even if there are more people who have money to purchase more expensive 3+ bedroom penthouse units like the one Lucas talked about for $11m, doesn’t that say something about the market at. You can argue that the reemergence of these transactions is skewing the data up or you could argue that the absence of those transactions had been skewing the data down.
“As I posted a couple of months ago, most of the data i saw from Lucas’ site saw buildings in Brickell basically even (some up some down, but average even) over the past year when looked at in psf.”
A few months ago Brickell would have be even because prices didn’t start going up until 2010. The earliest that you would have really seen price up would have been at the end of the first quarter which would have been in April.
But again zip code 33131 which covers Brickell AND the main buildings downtown, like Met 1, Epic, 50 Biscayne, Wind, Ivy, Mint, basically everything up to NE 1st st posted a 13.6% year over year increase.
From what I can tell its become clear that Brickell and the condos downtown along the river have become the most desirable area. Once you start going north of that it depends more on the individual building.
“A case-schiller for brickell would probably behave the same.”
When you average the entire area of Miami the entire area posted a 11.9% decline for the first quarter 2010. I have a hard time believing that a case shiller index that covers all of Miami, including areas that are currently posting almost 40% declines would be the same if you dropped the areas posting the declines and only used Brickell and the southern portion of the CBD downtwon which is posting an increase.
Gixxer, in north Brickell 12 3B+ units were sold (2.5% of total inventory), 10 of which sold for higher than $440 sq ft. The 2B sold 94 units 0f 3239 total (2.9%) for an average $369. There exists a distinct difference in psf between the types of units. Many 3B+ are luxury units-that is why they dont exit in many average buildings. Based on number of total units and average price, market cap of 2B is $42.6 million and 3B is $10 million. Three bedroom units have a distinct influence on prices in the area.
“A case-schiller for brickell would probably behave the same.”
Gixxer, please read the post. Behavior is the same as the trend i noted, which is that according to numbers Lucas provides on his web, most buildings in Brickell show basically no change in psf over the past year on average. From condoreports numbers i posted, downtown and brickell diverge in 2010. Case-schiller would behave the same as Lucas numbers, which is basically holding steady over the past year.
“But again zip code 33131 which covers Brickell AND the main buildings downtown, like Met 1, Epic, 50 Biscayne, Wind, Ivy, Mint, basically everything up to NE 1st st posted a 13.6% year over year increase.”
As has been pointed out, many recent luxury buildings have opened recently. Since they are superior to existing buildings, they sell for more and move the average price up. That does not mean values are increasing. It just means the luxury buildings are dominating the statistics. Individual units in Brickell and Downtown certainly did not rise 13% year over year. You are not reporting a housing index.
You said “A few months ago Brickell would have be even because prices didn’t start going up until 2010. The earliest that you would have really seen price up would have been at the end of the first quarter which would have been in April.”
Then by your statements, that 13% rise basically occured in the past couple of months? Your comments do not make sense.
gables,
“Many 3B+ are luxury units-that is why they dont exit in many average buildings.”
That’s exactly what I’m saying. There is a difference between a 3B and a 3B+ luxury unit.
“Based on number of total units and average price, market cap of 2B is $42.6 million and 3B is $10 million. Three bedroom units have a distinct influence on prices in the area.”
I agree with this as well. But to see how the higher priced 3 bedrooms units were trending the market up you would need to look at the 3 bedrooms that are selling at a significantly higher price per square foot.
For example lets look at the $10 million and see how much of this ten million comes from higher priced 3 bedrooms. This $10 million is made up of 12 sales the majority of which are at Icon. If you look at the 9 sales at Icon they were at an average of $442 per square foot. But the in the same period Icon sold 58 2 bedroom units at an average of $445 a square foot. So how does Icons $740k share of the $10 million market cap trend it up when its actually at a lower price per square foot then its $32m share of the of the $42 million 2B market cap. This entire market is about $157 million and Icon is about 70% of that at $110 million. And at Icon the one bedrooms sell for more per square foot than 2 bedroom and 2 bedroom sell for more per square foot than 3 bedrooms. Your simply applying averages wrong. Out of the entire $157 million, 3 bedroom luxury units make up one sale that would trend it higher an that would be the 1 unit at Jade for $2 million which is 1% of the market. Icon is trending the market up not 3 bedrooms.
“As has been pointed out, many recent luxury buildings have opened recently. Since they are superior to existing buildings, they sell for more and move the average price up. That does not mean values are increasing. It just means the luxury buildings are dominating the statistics. Individual units in Brickell and Downtown certainly did not rise 13% year over year. You are not reporting a housing index.”
I totally agree. I’m not saying that the value of these units are going up 13.6% and didn’t mean to imply that they did. I’m simply saying that in this area the median price is going up while in others the median price is going down. Selling newer units are a higher price could certainly be a factor (as in Icon being 70% of the market), but again the fact that people are willing to spend more for higher priced units says something about the area. People are willing and able to spend $445 for the area. There can only be so much of a gap between Icon and say Infinity. As pricing in Icon stabilizes and slowly moves upward, in theory Infinity should follow, which it currently is.
folks:
the second and most vicious phase of credit crunch is upon us..US treasury @3% is downright signalling deflation-depression and this in the face of rampant toxic mortgage bonds that infest fed’s balance sheet..
20 yrs of credit orgy is over. This is not limited to Miami or sofla..The blood that will flow on the street will smell & stench…
You have seen nothing yet.
Mark my work…True hardship is ahead not behind…
gixxer, as you stated (rather long winded), Icon is skewing the Brickell numbers at all levels (1B, 2B and 3B). Statistically prices will rise in the area. But look at the individual sales of most buildings in Brickell-they are flat over the past year (which in real dollar terms is a decline with inflation-although rather tame). remember many of the people buying in Icon because they have enourmous money tied up in deposits. Developers dropped prices to get them to buy.