BrickellHouse Floor Plans, Info and Pricing
October 21, 2011 by Lucas Lechuga
BrickellHouse is now accepting reservations. The 374-unit condo development will be located directly west of Jade and north of Emerald at Brickell at 1300 Brickell Bay Drive. BrickellHouse has several appealing features but there are two which will also make it rather unique. One, it will allow daily rentals but will not be considered a condo-hotel. The building will have on-site maintenance and housekeeping staffs as well as an in-house management program for owners who wish to rent their units on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Owners will obviously first need to finish and furnish their decorator-ready unit in order to be included in the leasing program. You can read more about this program in the BrickellHouse brochure. The second unique aspect of BrickellHouse is the parking. The building will have a fully-automated parking garage.
The 46-story high-rise will have an array of lavish amenities which include:
- rooftop pool and sundeck
- fully equipped, state-of-the-art fitness center
- luxury health spa with sauna, steam and private treatment rooms
- High-definition theater room with 10-foot screen and theater-style seating
- Private owner's lounge with event bar, catering kitchen and daily world newspapers
- Resort deck with putting green and summer kitchen
- 50-foot-long lap pool with poolside cabanas and heated Whirlpool spa
- Resident club room with conference and meeting rooms
- 24-hour concierge and security
- 24-hour guest valet parking
Additionally, Meat Market, a steakhouse on Lincoln Road in South Beach, has already signed on to occupy part of the retail space on the ground level of BrickellHouse.
BrickellHouse will be comprised of studio, 1 bedroom/1 bath, 2 bedroom/2 bath and 3 bedroom/3 bath units. The spreadsheet below will show you the approximate interior and exterior square footage for each. You can also refer to the BrickellHouse floor plans where you will also be able to view layouts for the BrickellHouse penthouses.
A full price list has not been released but the pricing below will give you a general idea for what one might be able to afford at BrickellHouse. Contact us if you have an interest in purchasing a unit at BrickellHouse and we will be able to get you pricing for other units.
Studios
- Unit 2212 (S3) - $163,900 west view
- Unit 1906 (S1) - $197,900 eat view - (420 sq ft under a/c)
1 bed/1 bath
- Unit 2507 (A7) - $276,400 east view
- Unit 2511 (A5) - $273,900 west view (790 sq ft under a/c)
2 bed/2 bath
- Unit 2507 (B4) - $435,900 east view
- Unit 2002 (B5) - $331,900 west view (1,116 sq ft under a/c)
2 bed + den/2 bath
- Unit 3008 (B1) - $424,900
3 bed/3 bath
- Unit 3002 (C1) - $683,900 (1,451 sq ft under a/c)
Contact us at 305-428-3860 or info@miamicondoinvestments.com to learn more about BrickellHouse.
Hola amigos. Passing through and looks like some old timers crawled out from wherever they were hiding. Maybe it’ll be worth checking this site out again for some laughs and general bullshit. Word to your moms!
Automatic Valet looks good and saves space. But if you want your car in a jiffy, you will have trouble. Any place in Miami or NY that has these in their building? I don’t know of any or seen any. NYC parking garages have these lifts but nothing like the pics.
Re “Automatic Valet” –
I can see the headlines now: Condo residents trapped! Parking garage conveyor belt/hydraulic pump broken; condo association has no money to make repairs. “Well, I guess I’ll have to hitch-hike to Doral,” says one disgruntled resident who can’t access his vehicle. “I wish my Brazilian landlord would have paid his maintenance fees,” said the man as he walked towards the 836 West entrance ramp.
Drew, we have public transportation in this city, which I am sure you are well aware of. You should fix the pump and the conveyor belt inside your head first, which appears starved for maintenance fees of its own.
On the other hand, thanks for another reliably moronic comment. For your usual lack of knowledge and common sense you manage to compensate with plenty of entertainment value.
Great use of metaphor. Hilarious. I’m sure you’re a real hit at cocktail parties.
So as long as there’s public transportation, who cares about broken car elevators, huh? “Sorry, resident, your car is stuck in the garage because the association can’t afford to fix it. But there’s a bus stop across the street.”
Great argument there, dipsh*t.
Drew,
Automated parking garage systems are redundant where you have multiple elements controlling the same process to provide an alternative in case of failure. Pretty much all major componets have at least one back up system and in some cases up to four.
The result is a system that is so reliabe that they are now building stand alone parking garage for public use. Were talking about random people driving in and parking car their cars. You can’t have a system that can simply brake and a person who needs to retrieve their car is SOL.
I Think this is the future. This is how all parking garages will be built due to lack of space. Tokyofication? You can fit as many cars in 3 floors as you are able to do in 9 to 12 decks of parking garages you see in Miami downtown buildings.
Since we are talking about garage, let me ask you a question. What is the rational for valet service other than for hotel quests and condo guests? If you are a condo owner and paying fees for your second or third garage space, why can’t you park the car yourself in an assigned place or whatever, instead of being dictated to use valet service? Doesn’t this also help defray costs – fewer valet staff, perhaps? (Hope I spelled the word “defray” and the diction is correct) Am I missing some point here? Thanks
The rationale: its more cost-effective for the developer – cram more cars in less space (and build more sellable square footage), disregard handicapped space quotas, significantly cut back on other parking garage features (lighting, security cameras, etc).
Also a marketing ploy – buyers initially think it sounds great…but in reality it sucks.
Once the association is turned over to the owners, the developer doesn’t care about the valet co. contracts/staffing concerns.
I don’t understand the rationale of people here to try and paint EVERYTHING as negative.
First off developers are supposed to “cram more cars in less space”. There is a zoning code that dictates how many parking spaces must be built and to what size. So if regulations say they shouldn’t build more and the market doesn’t dictate they build more then why should they? To please some random idiot on a blog.
In most cases if you have an assigned parking spot then you park it yourself unless you’re talking about a really high end building. An acquaintance I know self parks at Apogee because he doesn’t like someone else parking his car and doesn’t seem to have a problem.
Were talking about urban areas. In a lot of situation there simply isn’t room for guests or that second or third car. In my building I self park the first car and I pay valet for the second that is parked in a garage next door. And it doesn’t really suck. I simply call the front desk 15 min before I’m ready to leave and by the time I get downstairs my car is waiting.
Developers aren’t here to care about you there here to build a project at a profitable price. If people were willing to pay extra for unit so that it could be sold with 2 or 3 or 20 parking spaces then they would do so. But clearly given the option between the two most people choose less parking.
Also handicap spaces are calculated from the total number of spaces and therefore will be the same regardless of valet.
How are the schools in this neighborhood?
Gixxer, developers build to the requirements of the initial buyer in a condo. In the past, this has often been an investor who has absolultely no intention of living, or even renting, in that building. They do not care about parking, so neither does the developer. The gripes come from the end users a few years down the road, who have to deal with lack of parking, or pay to park in their own building. Economically it is not a burden, but the psychology is really bad. I would never buy a condo without at least one spot, and you really have a hard time getting my attention without a second spot as well. Since I am not from Manhattan, like many others, this is a common view of the parking world! And it does result in a bit of a black eye a few years down the road for a developer who creates parking issues in their buildings.
Again I really don’t see how that is the developers problem. First off as I pointed out earlier there are zoning requirements that dictate how many park space they HAVE to build. They are simply following the rules. If more parking is required then people should either argue for a higher requirement in the zoning or pay more for it.
Obviously the market is dictating that they don’t care about parking as much as you indicate. No one is forcing the end user to buy the condo. In your scenario the developer builds it knowing the investor will buy it and the investory buys it knowing the end user will buy it. So the end user is still dictating the market. If they are willing to pay more for parking then developers would build more parking. And in some cases they do.
“Since I am not from Manhattan, like many others, this is a common view of the parking world!”
This goes to show how out of touch people on this forum are. This IS NOT a common view of parking in the world in URBAN areas. Were not talking about the suburbs. The parking requirements here are a lot better than Manhattan as its an extreme cases. The parking requirement is 1.5 parking spaces per unit, plus an extra 10% for visitors. The parking here is no different than any other major city.
I have witnessed at first hand. Think of the plight of some residents. They have to unload all their grocery bags at the lobby area and carry them to their unit via an additional valet service or carry them by themselves in a huge shopping cart provided at the front desk. This is only because they cannot take their car all the way to the floor of their unit unlike the primary resident(s). This just does not make sense to me since they are paying for their garage space.
The reason that residents do this has NOTHING to do with valet or the number of parking spaces.
No matter how many parking spaces you build your never going to have parking spaces above a certain level. So all the units above around the 15th level are NEVER going to have a parking space on the same floor as their unit.
Once again people complaining without thinging things through. Would you really want to drive up 30 floors to park near your unit everyday?
Gixxer, it is not the developers problem unless they are concerned about long term reputation. I am not saying a developer has to do any of this. But if they don’t, i can certainly sh!t on their ability to identify and address an owners long term desires. obviously you have not been taught to worry about long term reputation, just profit today. and you are not alone. but i can certainly sh!t on that viewpoint as a consumer.
“The parking here is no different than any other major city”. No kidding. That does not mean it is good, or that all the other cities have created good parking environments for residents. Typical shortcuts by developers, like parking, lack of good soundproofing, etc simply reduce the standard of living in a building or area. It doesn’t mean people will not buy, but it does mean a building or area’s potential is not fully reached. And that can result in a sh!tty reputation. nobody said the developers need to only build to code-they are allowed to exceed it!
Again you seem to not understand how a free market works. Developers do exceed the code when there is a willing buyer that is able to pay for it. 700 Bicayne will likely have numerous 3 bedroom units with additional parking spaces because the developers have identified a market for that product.
Let’s say a developer knows he can only sell a unit with one parking space for $250 SF and he can get $300 SF if he builds two parking spaces. But it takes an additional $75 SF to build the additional space. He’s not going to spend an additional $75 SF to make $50 SF. That’s not the developer making the decision to build less parking that is the market not WILLING to pay for additional parking.
Developers aren’t here to determine peoples long term desires. If people want more parking in downtown cities then they should pay for it, now.
The same thing goes for your other “shortcuts” by developers.
A developer develops two identical buildings side by side. He spends an extra $30 SF on things like soundproofing. Now soundproofing is something you don’t really see when you buy so its NOT AS IMPORTANT TO THE BUYER upfront. So the real estate agent says I have these two identical units. One is $250 SF and the other is $280 SF with the extras. The developer doesnt even charge more than his cost as he just wants to recoup the extra cost. So the buyer looks at the two units and says heck since they look the same I want the one for $250. So after all the units at $250 sell the people looking at the $280 SF units say since these units look exactly like the units that sold for $250 SF we’ll only pay $250 SF. So the developer takes a $30 SF loss on those units. He might get maybe just a couple units that will sell at $280 SF allowing him to recoup the costs. So the next time around the developer only builds the $250 SF units without the extras.
Then you call the developer cheap and say they take shortcuts when its clearly the consumers who are cheap. Developers build what people are willing to pay for not what the want.
Furthermore building 2 and 3 parking spaces per unit is just bad city planning. It encourages car uses instead of public transportation like in manhattan. Its just the nature of people, they rather do whats easier for them even though its bad for everyone overall. Its why the zoning system incentivises developers to build less parking.
Of course cities have poor parking environments, the higher densities and proximity to other things makes walking and public transit more practical and therefore multiple vehicles per household more of a luxury.
Interestingly enough if they were to build endless amounts of parking downtown then you’d be here complain about the traffic.
To put it in perspective your argument would be like me going out to the suburbs and complaing that developers cut cost and build these long spread out shopping centers with a sea of parking because I’d rather walk from Lowes to TJ Maxx.
Gixxer, I understand how a free market works. And I understand the economics of why a developer will build for sale today rather than what an end user might actually want tomorrow. But that does not change the fact that in 5 or 10 years, when people in the building are griping about the lousy parking in the building, they will blame the developer who designed the sh!tty parking layout. they are not going to say “gee, our parking is piss poor because developer xx decided the consumer demand for new product in 2011 only dictated a need for 1 spot per unit to complete preconstruction sales”. they are going to say “developer XX did a real sh!tty job of designing this condo parking. i wouldn’t buy another XX developed property again”
Just curious, what do you think the current residents of ten museum park think of their developer, with its parking situation?
gixxer, if you want a sterling repuation over your career, do not let the bean counting dictate all of your decision making. you may make money doing so, but people will call you a creep behind your back. respected business people know that profit is critical, but the ideology of maximum profit can put you on thin ice when it tarnishes your reputation.
Gixxer (aka “this blog is my life”) obviously needs a life to repeatedly defend obvious parking problems. The bottom line is a valet set up (esp with tandem and/or stacked) saves the developer tons of money and sometimes is initially perceived as a luxury until people actually LIVE the mandatory valet service. I personally don’t want to have different people driving my vehicle….I’ve witnessed valets driving…nor do I want to have to pay (and tip) to wait for my vehicle. Plus you gotta lock up your stuff just in case. WHAT A PAIN! Zoning mandates MINIMUM parking requirements which developers (especially the bad ones) don’t have to exceed. The s.f. price for a parking space is nothing compared to a condo unit so developers will want to put in as many condo units as they can with the minimum parking spaces (even if additional spaces are sold). A sure sign of a “bad” developer is how they addressed parking……such as ONE valet only space (no option to buy for more since there aren’t any more) for a three bedroom is NOT responsible. But sometimes buyers don’t realize that and investors in the past didn’t care… Valet parking is like having to go down to the well to draw your water…it ain’t a luxury if you actually live there.
Gixxer, (I just came back from the Spa.) It is so funny. I was just realizing that that no elevator goes up that high and how dumb I was to make the comment. I am just still learning about the condo living. I just wanted know why not all residents self-park their own cars. I will find that out sooner or later or one way or other. Thank you
No problem, and don’t worry many people are in your shoes. That is part of the problem and why you see people like gables making comments that basically all cities have bad parking. People have become so accustomed to cars and the way things work in the suburbs so they have to adjust to how things are in the city.
Gixxer, you seem confused by public transit and parking. for one thing, miami does not have a public transit system which eliminates the need for a car. you may be able to minimize your use of a car in some circumstances-such as taking the metro from brickel to um. but living in miami certainly requires a car to take advantage of all it has to offer. and you need a spot to park your car. there are very few cities in the us which allow one to live without a car, and maintain an upscale standard of living. miami is not one of them. i’ve lived in the urban environment, so i understand the issues. and a $10 parking fee for friends to come by and visit really sucks.
I don’t think I was talking about eliminating a car. The argument here is about have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. parking spaces. The current code most of downtown is 1.5 parking spaces plus an additional 10% for visitors. So given that about 50% of units are 1 bdr and the rest are 2+ bedrooms that basically boils down to 1 car for a 1 bedroom and 2 cars for everything else which isn’t that bad for downtown.
I know more than a handful of young professional couples that have only 1 car per household. One guy lives and works in Brickell, while his wife doesn’t. Another couple lives in Coral Gables and one drives while the other takes the metro to Brickell to work. Another couple just moved back from South Beach and they live in CBD around the corner from his office.
Are you starting to notice the theme here. Usually people that are attracted to the higher prices downtown usually do so because they also work downtown. Many times the higher rent is offset by the reduced cost of owning and maintaing the 2nd vehichle.
And as far as South beach I personally don’t even know one couple that lives there and ownes two vehicles.
So it seems you’re not really that familar with urban living. In NY I had to park a vehichle blocks away at a price of $400 a month. So being able to pay $150 to not only park, but have a guy drive it back and forth between the garage next door whenever I call seems pretty good to me, especially in the middle of the fiancial district.
And as far as guest paying to park, what do you expect when you live downtown or in South Beach. In most downtowns people that work there have to pay to park. So why would a vistor not have pay. It’s part of the reason why many people choose to live there, so they don’t have to pay to park.
It seems there are a lot of people that want to move into these higher dense areas not out of need but just because its the cool thing to do. If you want amply parking, space, etc. then common sense would tell you not to move downtown. If you just like the ammenities then go to a place like Midtown where your guest can park for a $1.
Just like with owneratinfinity, his problems weren’t really with his building they were with living in a dense urban environment in general.
With the current rates that things are selling at no developer would be able to build the kind of parking you are talking about profitably.
And contrary to Renter Tom’s rant its not to just squeeze in more rental units. Pretty much NO building downtown is built to the full development rights.
Most places i have looked at have 2 bedrooms with 1 parking space. Maybe i am just looking at the wrong places. the people you noted with just one car, is it because they only want one car, or they do not have the space for the second car? people will adapt to what is provided, but it doesn’t mean they like it.
manhattan does not compare to miami-this has been discussed ad nauseum on this site. you paint the picture that people do not want cars. and i disagree. it is just not an option for them, since it was not built into the community.
I meant to say above that the garage ends around 15th floor. I should take a hike.
Miami has no good public transportation. One day, may be, we will have a reliable public transportation and we will not have to depend on cars so much. But I dont see that happening in the near future. I see more and more cars on the streets. Rush hours have extended to all day long.
I hope the authorities do something about it soon. I love Miami…
Were slowly getting there. People use public transportation out of necessity not by choice. If people in cities with better public transportation had a more economical/convienent way to drive then they would.
When I rode the metrorail to UM part of it was because I was already used to a riding the train and therefore it didn’t have the negative connotation that it does among many people here but it was also because it was MORE convienent. The traffic on US-1 is horrible so I could actually get to school faster. Had the traffic on US-1 not been as bad then I would of drove.
The population downtown has basically doubled over the last 10 years. As more and more people move closer to where the metrorail is, it will begin to get more and more riders. For example there is already a residential development going up near the the Douglas station. Accros the street (where the Colletcion is) they are going to be doing a vertical retail development called gables station. There is a lot of emphasis for developments near metrorail stations like this. So now if you live right near a metrorail station like say downtown Dadeland or the future Gables station and the traffic on US-1 remians as horrible as it is then more people are simply going to take the metrorail into Brickell. And vice versa if your in Brickell and you need to grab something from the retailers at Gables Station then its a lot easier to jump on the metrorail, ride two stops and you’re there in 10 min, instead of having to wait forever in traffic and pay to park.
If they could get some sort of train to Midtown then I think you’d have a pretty good system. The only places to me worth going to on a consistent basis are South beach, Brickell/Downtown, Midtown/Design District, Coconut Grove, Coral Gables/South Miami, Dadeland and Aventura.
Right now I can get between Brickell/Downtown, Dadeland, Coral Gables/South Miami and partially Coconut Grove. Coconut grove should implement some sort of trolly that goes back and forth between the metrorail and CocoWalk similar to Coral Gables. And then there is the Airport extension that should be running soon connecting the airport.
The system here is by no means ideal and could greatly be improved upon. But I think the reason a lot of people don’t use it more is because they are just doing what they have been doing for years.
“the people you noted with just one car, is it because they only want one car, or they do not have the space for the second car? people will adapt to what is provided, but it doesn’t mean they like it.”
It’s because they either don’t have the space or can’t afford the space. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. It’s impossible to create a dense urban area where there are 2 and 3 cars per every household without complete gridlock. I guess we could go into South Beach and buildoze buildings to build wider roads but once your done you would have destroyed the reason want to live there in the first place. From a city planning perspective it simply doesn’t work, which again is why the zoning code ENCOURAGED developers to build less parking.
And from the market perspective as more and more people want to move into an area the land becomes more valuable as living space than it does parking space. So developers are simply responding to the market and building less parking as its less profitable. So the supply and demand of capitalism dictates that the scarce luxury of extra parking goes to those who can pay more for it.
“manhattan does not compare to miami-this has been discussed ad nauseum on this site. you paint the picture that people do not want cars. and i disagree. it is just not an option for them, since it was not built into the community.”
Again I’m talking about any city. Chicago, Boston, DC, SF, Dallas, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc. Take your pick and go into any dense urban environment in any of these cities and you’ll find the same scenario. It’s not an option that is built into any downtown community because it cant exist.
Your argument is like a guy who buys a huge powerful diesel truck because he needs to haul a trailer. Does that guy still want a small fast two door sports car that he can drive fast? Maybe, but he’s not going to get it with that truck. He needs to choose one or the other (or both seperately) but he cant have the luxuries of the truck and the sports car in the same vehicle, just like you can’t have the luxuries of the suburban and urban environment in the same home.
Many people seem to have this baby boomer mentality where they think the entire world revolves around them and they are entitled to everything. They moved to the suburbs because they felt that everyone deserves a big mansion with a back yard and picket fence. And now as many of our suburbs are decaying they are moving back into the city with these same mentalities where they want all the luxuries in the world and don’t want to pay for them.
“Many people seem to have this baby boomer mentality where they think the entire world revolves around them and they are entitled to everything. They moved to the suburbs because they felt that everyone deserves a big mansion with a back yard and picket fence.”
Seriously? I’ve never heard that theory and never heard of this “baby boomer mentality.” People moved to the suburbs b/c they felt they deserved a mansion? What about the real reasons: more space for a family, better schools, convenience and safety. But according to you people move to suburbes b/c of a sense of entitlement. You’re an idiot. But its remarkable how smart you think you are.
First off I didn’t say it was the only reason the moved to the suburbs. The end of WWII, the creation of the highway, dirty inner cities, schools as you mention all led to people leaving the cities. In some cases it made sense to move to the suburbs. But as more people moved the development followed and then other people felt they deserved to have the same. Never mind that they worked in the city, they too should have the Amarican dream. Next thing you know people are sitting for hours in traffic.
Are you telling me you’ve never hear about the baby boomers having an entitlement problem???
They’re working 8 – 10 hours a day to pay for that huge house because everyone needs at least 3 bedrooms even if they only have one kid. They’re in traffic another 1 -2 hours a day. Both parents are working these crazy hours to make sure that housed if filled with all the countless things we don’t need. They pay someone to cut their grass where they only bbq 4 times a year in their back yard and most of the time it sits empty unless they are unpacking their boxes of christamss decoration that they need an extra storage space just to keep it for the rest of the year.
Countless studies show that the younger generations simply don’t have the same desires. They go to college and upon graduation they head to major cities and live is smaller places where the actaul city is the amenity not the house. And before gables says anything yes I’m sure these younger people would love to havea 3,000 SF apartment in the city with 5 dedicated parking spaces. But they know that doesn’t exist so when choosing between the city and the suburbs they are increasingly choosing the city.
Drew you really seem to be the idiot, the only thing you ever spout is you baseless opinion with no education or experience behind it. I’m simpy reiterating whats taught in graduate school and whats being followed in development. Even though land is still more expensive in the city all the development is focused on smaller spaces in urban environemnts.
Maybe you’re right. The real reson why there isn’t more parking in pretty much every dense area around the globe is because developers have banded together to create an evil pact to force people to walk.
The amount of time Gixer spends on here arguing with any and everyone is impressive.
Whatever….I’m sure many of us have read all about the “new urbanism” like 20 years ago. No need to constantly preach what you are JUST NOW learning in school. Get down from the soapbox and get real. Not having two parking spaces for condo designed for a two person professional couple, with or without kids, makes these things largely unlivable as a primary residence or they get rented out to younger people that couldn’t afford to buy one. The better new urbanism creates walkable areas, creates landscapes to pedestrian scale, etc. and hides the plentiful vehicle parking instead of as you envision cutting back parking…which apparently you’re trying to spin as an “amenity” that is “good for us”. Get real and get you nose out of the textbook. That’s all I got to say.
Whatever….I’m sure many of us have read all about the “new urbanism” like 20 years ago. No need to constantly preach what you are JUST NOW learning in school. Get down from the soapbox and get real. Not having two parking spaces for condo designed for a two person professional couple, with or without kids, makes these things largely unlivable as a primary residence or they get rented out to younger people that couldn’t afford to buy one. The better new urbanism creates walkable areas, creates landscapes to pedestrian scale, etc. and hides the plentiful vehicle parking instead of as you envision cutting back parking…which apparently you’re trying to spin as an “amenity” that is “good for us”. Get real and get you nose out of the textbook. That’s all I got to say.
“Not having two parking spaces for condo designed for a two person professional couple, with or without kids, makes these things largely unlivable as a primary residence or they get rented out to younger people that couldn’t afford to buy one.”
If you don’t work downtown then what is the dire need for a younger couple to live downtown. There are plenty other less urban spaces like Coral Gables, Dadeland, Midtown, etc.
Furthermore why can’t the couple simply do what I do and pay $150 for an additional parking spot?????
“The better new urbanism creates walkable areas, creates landscapes to pedestrian scale, etc. and hides the plentiful vehicle parking instead of as you envision cutting back parking”
I agree with this. I think we just have a different ideal of what is “plentiful”.
If people clearly want more parking, and are willing to pay for it then why don’t developers simply develop more condos with extra parking? Gables says that he wont buy a unit without a extra parking space. So you would think when it comes time for people to buy they would choose and pay more for the buildings with more parking and as those buildings sell better other developers would follow suit.
Earlier you implied that developers don’t do this because they rather use that space to build more profitable residential space instead of parking space because they have a limited amount of space. Let me re-quote you for clarity:
“The s.f. price for a parking space is nothing compared to a condo unit so developers will want to put in as many condo units as they can with the minimum parking spaces (even if additional spaces are sold).”
But yet we have a scenario where we now have 2 buildings that are the topic of this thread that are not completely built out. Let’s take a look at MyBrickell. MyBrickell will provide 0 new parking spaces. Yeah, thats right 0. Zoning requires that they provide 385 spaces. They can get a transit corridor bonus reducing that number to 270. They are getting a waiver for 30 of them and will use 240 extra spaces at 500 Brickell for the remaining 240 spaces.
The building is 34 stories but they can build 48 stories as of right. They have at minimum another 50,000 square feet of buildable area but yet they choose not to build extra parking. So why not use the extra space to build and sell parking if people are willing to pay for it. Why not make more money? They built the maximum amount of residential spaces and now have plenty of room left over. So why not max out on parking spaces as well? Why would would a developer choose to simply not develop parking with this extra space that people are willing to pay for?
In most cases parking LOSES money. Meaning people aren’t even willing to pay what it cost to develop it. Which is why you don’t see many stand alone private parking garages. It’s why you don’t see many PRIVATE stand alone parking garages. Private developers only build parking when forced to. Not because they hate parking, but because people aren’t willing to pay for it.
Wow, I took a month off from reading this blog (after it was very slow) and Gixxer has managed to become even MORE insufferable. Amazing.
Every time someone posts a two-sentence comment, Gixxer posts a 10-PARAGRAPH reply. It’s unbelievable.
For someone who sees himself as a visionary, he seems to be a little slow. I would have thought he learned his lesson back when he claimed traffic in So. Fla. wasn’t a big deal (remember that? ha ha ha), but now he’s claiming the lack of parking is an “amenity”? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this guy?
Anyone with a clue knows that 95% of the new condos in So. Fla. were built for flippers rather than end users. How is this even a debatable point in 2011?
Where have I stated that the condos weren’t built for flippers? But regardless every major city has a similar situation. So either this is just the natural order of things or 95% of all condos in all cities were built by greedy flipping developers.
And condo flipping doesn’t explain anything. Even if you are only building a condo to flip it you would think an investor would rather buy a unit with two parking spots instead of one if the end user is ultimately willing to pay for it.
And my argument has consistently been that end users in most cases are not willing to pay what parking is worth. All these people are complaining about the developer when it is clearly the customer dictating that they don’t want it (if they have to pay for it).
Again, why not build more parking at MyBrickell? You’re max out on residential units and you have space left over for more parking. So why not build this amenity when people are clearly willing to pay for it?????
Experts see investment wave in downtown Miami, Brickell
By Scott Blake
The Brickell and Downtown neighborhoods are bucking the slow economy and are on the verge of an even bigger wave of development that will present new demands and opportunities for Greater Miami, according to industry experts.
“We’re seeing a wave of investment the quality and size of which we’ve never seen before in this area,” said Neisen Kasdin, chairman of land use and entitlements at the Miami law firm Akerman Senterfitt.
Mr. Kasdin noted his involvement in Malaysia-based Genting Group’s plan for a $3 billion-plus casino resort called Resorts World Miami on Biscayne Bay on the west end of the MacArthur Causeway, as well as Hong Kong-based Swire Properties’ plan for a $700 million complex of housing, stores and a hotel called Brickell CitiCentre just west of Brickell Avenue and north of Eighth Street.
Also, he said, he is involved with retail expansion in the Design District around Biscayne Boulevard north of Downtown.
“There’s also a lot of equally substantial investors looking into [Miami’s] urban core,” he added. “Miami is doing better than the rest of the country in terms of investment.”
Mr. Kasdin said international developers of multifamily housing are considering Downtown when, five or six years ago, “they wouldn’t have touched it.”
Part of the attraction is lower real estate prices, down from the market’s peak years, but “all the activity and jobs in the area are also part of it,” he said.
Construction of Brickell CitiCentre is expected to start by next year’s second quarter, with completion anticipated in 2015. Genting also wants to begin work next year but still needs state and possibly local approval to open two casinos on the site. If the casinos are approved, Mr. Kasdin said, the pace of construction will be faster.
The new wave of proposed development follows growth in Brickell and Downtown in the past decade that has seen construction of about 24,000 condominium units, said Cesar Garcia-Pons, senior manager of planning, design, transportation and services at the Miami Downtown Development Authority.
During that time, Mr. Garcia-Pons said, tens of thousands of additional people have moved into the Brickell and Downtown area, which has been attracting more retailers and other businesses. In the past year alone, he said, about 50 businesses have opened, mostly restaurants.
“It seems like it’s a really good time to be Downtown,” Mr. Garcia-Pons said.
Bernard Wolfson, president of Hospitality Operations Inc., which built the recently opened Hampton Inn & Suites in Brickell, said proposals to open large casino resorts Downtown should be handled with caution because of the potential for taking business away from area hotels and other merchants.
Mr. Wolfson also expressed concerns that the city’s roads and other infrastructure would be hard-pressed to handle the several million additional visitors a year that the casino resorts are expected to draw.
“I think it needs a lot study,” he said.
Mr. Kasdin and Mr. Garcia-Pons, on the other hand, said they think there would be enough increased business from the casino resorts that it would not hurt — and could help — Miami and Miami Beach hotels and other businesses.
Many of the guests at the Genting resort are expected to come from the northeastern US and South America, Mr. Kasdin said.
He and Mr. Garcia-Pons agreed with Mr. Wolfson that road improvements and possibly transit line expansion would be needed, and noted that some improvements are already being planned.
“We need transit connecting the Beach to Downtown in the worst way,” Mr. Garcia-Pons said.
The three experts made their comments last week during a panel discussion titled “Brickell/Downtown is booming.” The session at the new Hampton Inn & Suites was presented by the International Council of Shopping Centers.
Mr. Garcia-Pons said construction of the $600 million-plus Port of Miami Tunnels project will require road improvements along the Interstate 395 corridor, which runs from Interstate 95 in the west to the MacArthur Causeway in the east — next to the Genting site.
Such roadwork could open up development opportunities to the north of Downtown, Mr. Garcia-Pons suggested.
“That will be an opportunity to develop infrastructure that’s long been the bane of development to the north,” he said.
In addition, the retail component of Brickell CitiCentre should bring more “commercial business south of the [Miami] River,” he added.
Mr. Kasdin said the retail component of the Genting project would be relatively minor, taking up just about 60,000 square feet, a fraction of the total project, so it would not substantially impact surrounding retailers.
Also, he said, he doesn’t think the conference and meeting space that Genting is planning would hurt the Miami Beach Convention Center, as some have feared.
“I think it will enhance the ability of the area to get more meetings [business],” Mr. Kasdin said, “and some of it will go over to Miami Beach.”