Miami Condo Market Hot Again According to CNBC’s Diana Olick
March 16, 2011 by Lucas Lechuga
Yesterday afternoon, Diana Olick of CNBC discussed the Miami condo market on her segment "Spring Realty Check". The Miami condo market has made an amazing recovery over the past four years and is once again heating up. Miami condo sales are up 134 percent from a year ago and investors are rushing in to scoop up condos. As Diana says, "Investors should pay attention, or miss the boat".
Over 90% of Miami voters voted to boot Miami mayor Carlos Alvarez and commissioner Natalia Seijas from office yesterday in the biggest local recall in American history, and yet … crickets from Gixxer 1000 and the others who claim all is well in Miami government. Kind of odd.
Who ever said all is well with Miami Govt?
I think just about everyone has acknowledged that Miami is a cesspool of govt corruption, despite that fact it is still a very desireable place to live for many.
It was reported that Miami condo sales grew by 134%, the largest increase in sales in many months, and yet…crickets from Joe and others who claim Miami condo
sales are heading for double dip. Kind of odd.
MMT, not hard to get a 134% increase over the horrible numbers of the past few years. From what i understand, we still have years of inventory to get rid of. 3600 new condos downtown alone. And just the other day, Olick had the following post on Miami condos
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42071203
just keeping things in perspective.
Joe,
I actually have had discussions about the situation on another site. But seeing how this has a very low correlation to the price of Miami condos I see no need to have the conversation here. But as MMT points out the more stable these condos get the less you and other seem to post.
gables,
These numbers aren’t just an increase over the horrible numbers of the past few years unless you’re going to tell me 2006 was a horrible year for condo sales. January Condo sales:
2006: 765
2007: 555
2008: 298
2009: 379
2010: 540
2011: 1,262
I’d also like to know what metric people are looking at then they say there are 3 to 4 years of supply. Current numbers from MLS at the end of February for Dade County:
Condos Available: 13,111
Avg. # sold over last 6 months: 1291
Months of supply: 13,111/1291 = 10 months
Even if you break out the $200k – $300k or the $300k – $400k market segments you only get to 15 months and 21 months of supply respectively.
And this is for ALL of dade county. There were 4,960 unsold condos at the end of 2010. If there are in fact only 3,600 unsold condos left then that is a decrease of about 1360 condos in 2 months.
In 2010 we averaged about 2,300 new condo sales. If new condo sales remain flat (even thought it looks like sales are picking up) were set to sell off all these condos in 2 years.
Gables, I read that report. I understand that 134% number in itself does not say much especially when we consider the level of sales to which this number is compared against, Nonetheless, if the numbers were in the negative direction you would have heard quite about it. Let’s face it, the discussion has changed from who would buy all those empty units in downtown Miami to questioning the significance of a 134% increase in sales. Prices have dropped and buyers have moved in the marketplace. What was once a 8 year inventory is now down to 3 years.
Even I am a bit surprised at the level of inventory decline. I don’t think we are back to the races yet but as I have said before, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another mini boom in Miami condo prices in the next few years as more foreign buyers snap up available units and the media creates a PRECPTION of supply shortage. Miami is a special place and many people would like a piece of it if they can afford it, that should be obvious by the number of international buyers in the market.
Well guys, you better buy your condo soon because there is only 10 months of supply left on the market, after they are gone there will be no more because we all know they are not building anymore at these prices, not with the price of commodities today and the expected rise of inflation in years to come. Speaking of infaltion where is Renter Tom? Someone needs to take at trip up the beach to check on him. Hope all the good news about the economy didn’t send him off the deep end.
gixxer, 2006 and 2007 were peak price years for condos in Miami-i would have to say they probably were not peak volume years. and the past couple years has probably not produced the peak in Miami distressed condos due to slow courts and screwed up foreclosure processes. all those short sales you see listed-they will most likely become REO units in the next couple of years. and remember, you have an increase in number of sales because you have a vast increase in the supply of units as well, over that multi year period.
MMT, in the past couple of months i have seen a number of units in buildings of interest go for prices which seem very reasonable. you cannot get caught up in an imaginary “rush” for miami condos, but good deals seem to be occurring with more frequency lately. unless you are after a prime unit, however, you still have time for value plays.
gables,
Here is a chart showing Miami home sales back to 2000:
http://www.dqnews.com/Images/Graphs/FLDA1210.JPG
In 2010 there were 17,086 single family and condo sales. So that is pretty much more activity than any year back to 2000. And 2011 has already started off higher than 2010.
And I’m not seeing this vast increase of supply that you are referring to. The number of condos available for sale in December 2009 was 16,169. The number of condos available for sale in February 2011 was 13,111.
Also, its pretty obvious that MMT is being facetious. He’s not advocating that you actually go out and buy because there wont be any units in 10 months, he’s just mocking the people who acted like we had 20 years of supply that would never get absorbed.
Wher can I find list of 1200 condos being sold every month in Miami? How many were “purchased” by the banks and how many were under under $25000 and how many were sold by one financial institute to other?
Gixxer – your are the college boy! Any idea?
If the sales are so hot – then why do they have to spend on parties?
Only in Miami!
gixxer, according to your chart, 2010 equalled 2009 and exceeded 2007 and 2008-this seems reasonable. but 2010 does not come close to years 2000-2006.
supply i am referring to is the total number of housing units-not just for sale units. the supply of units has increased tremendously since 2000 (somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 new condos in the downtown area itself). just based on simple percentage calcs, one should assume a resulting increase in the numberical number of units sold would also occur. but unless you assume a new supply of housing will result in a decrease in the percentage of units moving into the for sale market, the numbers just don’t add up. this gap is the shadow market people refer to. some people claim this is the new equilibrium point. i disagree, and feel we are still in a transition to the proper equilibrium point.
gables,
The red bar is for condos. The 2010 amount is higher than 2000 and 2001 activity. Now add in the fact that in 2011 were are starting out 134% higher than 2010 and you can see the the current level of activity is higher than any year on that chart.
It’s funny how you round the 22,400 condos up to 25,000. First off, many of those 22,400 units weren’t new units and were simply old units being converted to new units. The total number of housing structures hasn’t increase that much. Also, about half of those units that were built before 2008 were absorbed into the market:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60396128@N05/5535286460/
2008 was the first year that large amounts of units were completed with no buyer. Those are pretty much the units that are making up the 3,600 unsold units today.
But as far as supply you can see that there was an extremely low amount of new completions in year 2009 and 2010. That is why supply is dropping so fast. Getting new supply for housing takes years and in America since our population isn’t constant and is always growing then we usually have a certain amount of housing in the pipeline to account for this plus the fact that each year a percentage of our housing becomes obsolete and is torn down or re-purposed. But here he have basically no new supply. Pretty much any supply that comes back online from foreclosure will pretty much take the place of what new constructed unit would.
At the rate that people are moving into downtown, if we don’t add more housing supply we’ll be at a shortage of housing downtown in a couple of years. Developers know this and you can expect some new projects breaking ground if not this year, definitely next year.
The paradigm has shifted downtown. People are no longer moving downtown because of cheaper rents, they are moving downtown because its a great urban central place to live with great amenities and more being added at a fast pace.
You also can just look at info for the entire metro area and then interchange that with just downtown. Almost any metric you look at, downtown seems to be better than the average for the metro area. Higher sales, increases in median prices, less foreclosures, etc.
Gixxer 1000 — I can’t believe you’re still peddling this nonsense about people moving downtown because it’s such an exciting urban center, blah blah blah. People are still moving downtown because renting is still much cheaper than owning. Please stop with all the nonsense about grocery stores and Starbucks and all that attracting people to downtown. Without an increase in (good) jobs in the urban core, most of this is just a rearranging of the deck chairs — i.e., people who can’t afford to buy snapping up the cheapest possible rents, all while maintaining the classic Miami lifestyle (living beyond their means, but renting instead of buying).
Here a couple projects that I’ve heard about:
700 Biscayne – From what I’ve heard Terra Group (900 Biscayne) has found a shortage of 3 and 4 bedrooms in the market and will cater to this segment in this development.
1080 Brickell – The CEO of Rilea group has been in a couple recent articles talking about resurrecting this project soon
http://www.therealdeal.com/miami/art…-1080-brickell
gixxer, the condo activity from 2000-2005 is basically the same as 2010. From 2006 through 2008 it collapsed. And rebounded in 09-10 to the same levels as the first half of the decade-and these were distressed sales. Now I have basically the same amount of condo activity in 2010 as 2000, with all the extra supply brought online during the past construction boom. And when you look at Dec 2009 to Dec 2010, there is definately not a 134% increase in activity year over year. you currently have 3,000+ new units waiting to get sold into the marketplace. That is like having 3 new megatowers coming online over the next couple of years.
gables,
“the condo activity from 2000-2005 is basically the same as 2010.”
Exactly. So if we are 134% higher than 2010, then we are 134% higher than the years 2000 – 20005. That contradicts your point that the increase is only because of previous low sales in 2006 and 2007. Current (2011) sales activity is not only higher than low volume year of 2006 – 2010 but is also higher than higher volume years of 2000 – 2005.
“you currently have 3,000+ new units waiting to get sold into the marketplace. That is like having 3 new megatowers coming online over the next couple of years.”
Exactly, this supply is no different than having a few projects come online in the next couple of years. Without these 3,600 condo units that would basically mean we have no NEW supply for the next couple of years.
The population is always growing and were always replacing older units. So regardless of your CURRENT supply you always need NEW supply in the pipeline.
Lets say it take two years to absorb this CURRENT supply, then what? Downtown is GROWING by about 1,400 households per year.We should building at least this number of units each year to account for the growth and a little more to account for older housing that needs to be replaced.
But in our case we don’t need to because we already have these units available today because of the previous over building. But again we cant let this number go to zero before we begin to build again because if we do then that will leave at least a 2 year gap before you can get new product.
It’s not like you simply order 1,400 units and have them delivered in a week.
In a perfect world you would want the right amount of CURRENT supply for current demand and the right amount of NEW supply in the pipeline for future demand.
In our case we have too much CURRENT supply for current demand. But this oversupply will correct itself fast because we have no NEW supply in the pipeline.
gixxer, according to the graph you provided the change between Dec 2009 and Dec 2010 is not even close to 134%. There should be essentially no difference between year over year data from Dec 2010 and Feb 2011. So somebody has reported a 134% increase, but the data you presented is essentially for the same period and does not show that magnitude of change in any way, shape or form. So i have to question the validity of the 134% figure-on what basis? because it is not supported by the figures you have provided in the link. if the data is not consistent, then we simply cherry pick which result supports our point of view.
downtown is growing by 1400 households per year, so that is 2.6 years from growing households just to overcome the oversupply of unsold condos. without even considering other units coming onto the market. and the 1400 per year growth rate is a result of excess available units in that area. that is not an equilibrium demand point-ie that demand will not continue once supply returns to normal. that is a false premise from your biased RE and development background-overly optimistic about urban growth.
gables,
Wow. How you you get year over year info from December 2010 and February 2011?? That’s impossible.
The chart that I provided shows the YEARLY number of sales. The 134% increase that is being reported is January’s MONTHLY year over year increase. There were 1,262 condos sold in January 2011. That is 134% higher than the 540 condos sold in January 2010.
Also the chart I provided isn’t of the exact same numbers. I got it from DQnews. I don’t know the exact area or criteria they are using. I posted the chart just to show how I was gauging sales activity by year.
Now obviously we don’t know what will happen throughout the rest of the year because that’s the future. But we can gauge February and March and look at pending sales and the trend doesn’t seem to be slowing anytime soon.
Someone reports a 134% increase. I can see how someone might cherry pick something to report that number. But on the opposite end you have someone like yourself who simply starts trying to contradict the number before even trying to figure out how its actually reported. You didn’t actually look at the numbers before you responded to MMT you just gave a pessimistic view of what you feel, which happened to be false.
“downtown is growing by 1400 households per year, so that is 2.6 years from growing households just to overcome the oversupply of unsold condos.”
1,400 households is just an estimate. Households downtown have been increasing by about 1,740 per year up to 2010 and the estimate going forward was 1,400. We’ve been selling condos at a much higher pace. That 1,400 number could easily be 2,000. I gave the conservative number because I know you will always approach it from a pessimistic view just to argue against me. Had I told you the number was 5,000 per year you still would have tried to argue against it.
“and the 1400 per year growth rate is a result of excess available units in that area.”
This simply isn’t true any more and again shows your biased pessimistic views. People are no longer moving to Downtown because of cheap rents and the excess of units. They are now moving downtown because it is a desirable place to live. Prices are now the same or higher than Coral Gables, Coconut Grove, Downtown Dadeland, etc. People renting downtown now are doing so because they like downtown better.
And even if your premise was true it wouldn’t make any difference because with the rent growth that were seeing developers are going to head into these areas soon and start building more supply in these areas. Rilea group has great occupancy at One Broadway with rental rates steadily rising you can see why they want to do 1080 Brickell.
Also I’m curious as to how you think my development background would lead to being overly optimistic in urban growth when most developers simply follow patterns and have been focused on suburban sprawl. Most developers prefer so simply follow the money and that has been suburban sprawl for the last 50 years. Urban growth is a minority in the development world and has been pushed by architects for decades but developers haven’t followed because it hasn’t been as profitable. Only recently have developers jumped on the urban growth bandwagon and that is simply because the number showing this are now so strong that you can’t deny it.
I also don’t see how I’m so optimistic. I have been arguing that people have to run out and buy before they get priced out. I have stated that I myself probably won’t buy for a couple of years. I’ve just been saying that prices are no long falling and the bottom has been reached for downtown.
gixxer, your chart is not clear, so i made a mistake in the monthly year over year comparison. But the trend still stands. Year 2010 is still exceeded by 2000-2005. there was more activity a decade ago than today, when total housing supply was much lower.
you supplied the 1400 household formation number. if you don’t believe that to be the number, then don’t provide it. but don’t complain if somebody then uses that number in a discussion.
people like the idea of living downtown-i don’t dispute that concept. but you continue to imply there is this great demand from people to build up downtown based on the urban utopia. demand goes where price is cheap and units are nice (think brand new construction in brickell). As price rises the demand will curb-right now downtown has the attraction because it has been CHEAP for several years. and you are incorrect about the Gables and Grove being less expensive than downtown-at least not when you consider the luxury buildings in those areas.
you chose UM for your education, and i am sure their focus on new urbanism and related ideas had something to do with it. you would not have chosen a school which emphasized suburban design and rural development. whether you realize it or not, you have a vested interest in the success of those ideas based on that background.
“Year 2010 is still exceeded by 2000-2005.”
No it’s not. Were talking about condos here. 2010 condo sales were at the same levels of 2000 – 2005 (red portion of the bar). I guess you still cant figure out the chart.
“there was more activity a decade ago than today, when total housing supply was much lower.”
Care to provide and links to anything corroborating this or is this just what you feel. And last time I checked 2000 was a decade ago.
The number I supplied was an estimate simply to show that inventory is needed in the pipeline which we don’t have. My point was that any number I supply you’re simply going to build an argument against it without any real research, showing you’re doing more arguing against me than trying to get to the best conclusion. Same way you argued against MMT and the 134% sales increase without really trying to understand what it truly was. Had you looked and said “1,262 condos sold in January is not actually that good because in January 2000 they sold 1,300” then that would have made sense. But instead you starting arguing that the increase wasn’t good because previous years were really low. But low and behold 1,262 condos in a month is a good number even during the years leading into the boom.
“you chose UM for your education, and i am sure their focus on new urbanism and related ideas had something to do with it. you would not have chosen a school which emphasized suburban design and rural development. whether you realize it or not, you have a vested interest in the success of those ideas based on that background.”
First off, urbanism is the opposite of suburban design and rural development.
That’s funny that you know more about me than I do. I came to UM because I got big scholarship $$$ and I wanted to live here. I actually don’t care much about the whole urbanism BS that they teach here. I argue with many of the other students here because I really don’t care about these principles from an ideal standpoint. I’m focused on what makes money. If I can make money building suburban sprawl then that’s what I would try to build. And in some cases this still works. Equity one is currently developing an apartment building out near the Bank United center because they can build it cheaper than it would take to buy in that area and the rents are good.
People at UM have been arguing this urbanism stuff for decades. But only in a few circumstances was it actually more profitable for the developers. However times are changing and because of traffic, demographics, etc. it now is becoming more profitable to develop in a more urban format. That’s not what I’m learning from school, that’s what I’m hearing at work and ULI development conferences with people from development and financial companies. People who care about profitable developments and don’t care about promoting urbanism. The same people and companies that were promoting the suburban sprawl years ago.
You’re the one who is trying to justify to yourself that its better to continue renting instead of buying. It seems to me like you’re the one that has vested interest here. I personally would also like downtown prices to go down or stay flat until I’m ready to buy. So I also get disappointed when I see prices going up. I’d love nothing more than to build out in the suburbs while living in my downtown condos with water views that I bought at $125 SF like Ace used to predict here.
Interestingly enough if you remember I originally wanted to live in Aventura or Kendall and you guys were the ones telling me how traffic was hell and Aventura was way to far. I admitted you guys were right about the traffic and now you’re trying to say I’m somehow obsessed with downtown as an urban utopia and that’s why I chose UM.
gixxer, you can’t really be serious. you even provided links to graphs showing the thousands of new condos which came onto the market since early in the decade. and now you question me when i say there is a greater housing stock today than in 2000? now lets just say on average condo sales activity is basically the same between 2000-2005 and 2010, based on the NUMBER of sales. as a PERCENTAGE of existing units the activity in 2010 will be less than what occurred in 2000 because of the increase in total units. sorry if you cannot figure this out. this is like arguing with you about the bottom of the case-schiller last year. a double dip occurred (and is still falling) and you insisted i could not understand the data. and yet the data did exactly what i told you.
“First off, urbanism is the opposite of suburban design and rural development.” no crap! that is why i said you would not have gone to a school which endorsed suburban and rural designs. you have been barking about urbanism, and how the suburbs are no longer desirable, since before you moved down here. don’t be ashamed of your endorsement of urban cores-be proud of your views.
“you have been barking about urbanism, and how the suburbs are no longer desirable, since before you moved down here. don’t be ashamed of your endorsement of urban cores-be proud of your views.”
What the hell are you talking about. Are you telling me that you don’t remember actual converstaions that we had about Aventura but you do remember conversations we never had about urbanism??? I never mentioned focusing on urbanism once before I started school. Let me refresh your memory:
” Gixxer 1000 says:
February 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm
gables,
I’ve actually started to turn my attention toward 2 and 3 bedroom townhomes in Aventura. One of the main reasons is that I’m originally from the Midwest and I really miss having a GARAGE but I’m to busy for a traditional house. Aventura is the only place I’ve seen where it’s close to the water but still has places with personal garages.”
Here I’m clearly not focused on any type of downtown Urban utopia.
“As far as attending UM, if I do so it will be because of scholarship $$$ and the ability to work during school. These two things combined make it almost $100k cheaper than attending the more prestigious others. I also plan on staying for a while and honestly think I can do better networking from UM while in Miami than trying to find a job from MIT or Columbia. If I wanted to stay up north then it would be a no brainer and I wouldn’t think twice about UM, but salary is only one aspect of life. USC falls in the middle but has a great network out west. We haven’t decided if we would like to live out west yet. ”
Here I’m clearly stating that the scholarship money would be my reason for choosing UM.
“My degree would actually be a Masters in Real Estate Development and Urbanism. The degree is from the school of architecture but I’m not an architect I’m a construction manager. After graduation I would probably work for some variation of a Developer/Owner.”
Again pointing out that I’m not an architect and that I’m more focused on working for a developer. Architects worry about this kind of stuff, developers are worried about making money.
“And after all of this I’ve already said that UM was an option. To be honest if I don’t get the position I want I will most likely go to school up north while she heads south and stays with friends for a year and then I would simply transfer with my “prestigious” degree. It’s just not that big a deal to me. Do I think those school will help me more, yes. I just don’t know if its worth $100k more. I’ve usually made the majority of my contacts working on the executive boards of community organizations and not by the name of the school on my degree. Again if I wanted to work up north without a question I wouldn’t have even applied to UM.”
Again I pointed out that UM wasn’t even really a top choice but I was considering it because it was cheaper for me and I wanted to work down here. If I didn’t want to work down here I would have went to my other choices because they were more prestigious.
I wrote several times about what schools I was looking at and why. And it had nothing to do with New Urbanism. I never wrote one thing on this blog about the suburbs before I started attending school. And I only started writing about the development in urban areas after I started attending conferences where developers and financial professionals were also talking about how that is where the development and money is headed.
The fact is I don’t care anything about urbanism and have never promoted that I did. I promoted urban development on this site once I got here because this is what is projected to be profitable in the coming years. I posted links to articles from the development world saying that multifamily rentals in urban areas would be the next trend. I never promoted urban development as a social issue. In fact if I remember I didn’t start talking abour urban development until Christmas break. I must not realize how much time has past and when conversations actually took place but luckily its all recorded here and we can look.
My position has always been what I thought the stats were telling me. And now you painting as some New Urbanist Architect that simply wants to promote the ideals of urbanism when I honestly could care less.
But the facts are that I look at a lot more market data then you. You have a view and you only want to look at data that validates your view. And when I contradict it you try to make me seem biased. Again I could care what the data tells me because in development were just looking to where we need to go to make money. If the data said Homestead was a hot market for suburban sprawl I’d be trying to work for whoever was developing the most in Homestead.
Case in point Case-Shiller. I follow Case-shiller just like you. Case-shiller reached a low in May 2009 and then started to go higher. After peaking in late 2009 its start to go back down and is now pretty much at the same low as it was in May 2009 (1.48% lower). Are we headed into a double dip? Were not sure let look closer. But for you that enough for you to make a double dip argument so you close the case and yell double dip, even though it doesn’t make much sense considering prices downtown are going higher.
So then we look at the case-shiller tiered price index, which you really don’t care about because you’re simply arguing your point and not really trying to get to the truth. And when we look at the tiered price index we see that when you look at the market over $250k it has seen more fluctuating up and down and is still 3.5% above the low reached in May 2009. Now pretty much everyone is looking at the $250k and above market so why not use the more relevant data? Because you simply want to make a more pessimistic argument and this data doesn’t support your view.
gixxer, you have posted on here plenty about how urban areas are the new thing and nobody really wants to live in the suburbs anymore. whether this view is based on idealism or you are just pimping the idea for money is not really my concern. this has been the stance you have taken here-and more power to you for that. but you also are attending UM for a “Masters in Real Estate Development and Urbanism”. again, just pointing out a vested interest in urbanism ideas from your background-whether you realize it or not.
our original case schiller argument revolved around understanding the behavior of the data a year ago. you called a bottom while the data was falling once again. i called you on that because you could not have a bottom if the derivative was falling once again-and you argued with me over this. and yet the data continued to fall below your bottom call. now you bring in a different set of numbers to argue with. but our arguement was on understanding that original data set. i have not looked at your new data set and really have no comment on it. but i was correct on the original data set. hopefully you interpret any of the new data trends better than your original call.
gables,
“you have posted on here plenty about how urban areas are the new thing and nobody really wants to live in the suburbs anymore.”
I agree and that was after I had already been here for months and was looking at market and demographic data.
Again, how is it a vested interest if I’m just following the market? A vested interest would mean that I’m influenced to want to develop in urban areas. If the market was headed toward the suburbs then I would be on here saying how downtown sucks but the suburbs are still great. Because unlike many people here who are just arguing a point, this is the business that I work in, the better I am at understanding an argument the more successful I’ll be.
Again for case shiller you are worried about winning an argument and I’m worried about understanding what is going on. Yes I called the bottom in may 2009. But as you pointed we started to go back lower. But we haven’t yet gone low enough to be called a double dip which is why no one is calling for a double dip in housing. But I was confused about how case-shiller could be going lower if prices were going higher. Case shiller has a 3 month lag. So right now they are only reported for December, even though its March. I would look at sales in January and February and try to gauge where I thought it was headed. But even though the prices I was looking at were going up, case-shiller was still going down. Instead of just say “okay, double dip”, I tried to understand why. After all who cares what case-shiller says if the price you have to pay is different. So after more research I realized the bifurcation in the market and how I was wrong because I was following mainly sales I was interested in (above $200k).
So I was wrong about case-shiller bottoming in May 2009. But again my premise was not really arguing just that case-shiller was at the bottom but that prices had bottomed. And when you look at downtown prices they did bottom. This is what started to lead me to the conclusion of how the urban areas were performing better than the suburban ones. Following the market, not any vested interest.
I really wish you could either come sit in on one of our classes or visit me and see what I do at my job. You’d really see my focus is only to figure out what and where to develop. I admit that I’m biased toward developing something somewhere, but that is about it. I pessimistic about a lot of things and I’m the first to point out to my classmates that I don’t want to waste time working on some lame ideal because in the end we won’t be able to sell it. For example in most places you won’t be able to build new office for years because were so oversupplied, but yet for retail in many cases were actually undersupplied. I was in a group that worked on a site near the medical campus and other people wanted to try and put together a development proposal that had a lot of cool things but it wouldn’t make money. I argued to put public housing on the site because that was the only way to make a profit.
If I’m so wrong I find it odd that most developers and lenders here agree with me. You stick to making calls about you buying a house and I’ll stick to making calls about where the development is headed.
“If I’m so wrong I find it odd that most developers and lenders here agree with me.” I am not saying you are wrong-(i tend to agree with you except you place much more emphasis on the potential demand and its impact on price). But basing yourself on being right because your view is in agreement with most developers and lenders is not so wise. How right have developers and lenders been over the past 5 years? Be careful of the company you keep.
Gixxer and Gables,
get a room already!
have about exchanging phone numbers and taking this discussion offline.
cheers
ps. and yes, hurry up and buy condos or you will be sorry you missed this once in a lifetime opportunity. rock bottom prices. investors coming from all over the place? Never heard that before!