Jeeper12

No, if anything I think it will be worse. I expect Charlotte and other lagging markets to follow the trend that's accellerated in the larger markets. After waiting around for 1-2 yrs in places like Miami, Vegas and Atlanta, developers and their banks are finally capitulating to market forces and drastically reducing prices to increase sales. So I think it follows that while you may see a big increase in Charlotte condo sales over the next 6-12 months, it probably won't happen without big price cuts to stimulate demand, especially for developer owned condos. IMO this recovery will take several years not several months.

^ I agree. I assume deposits at the Vue are 5-10% but the market has moved down much more than that so why stubbornly defend a small amount of already lost capital ? Keep an eye on what's happening with the Vue in Orlando. Similar if nto related project that closed about half the bldg in '08 for approx. $350/sf then a few last year for about half of that, then nothing. Now the developer is bankrupt and all the remaining units are to be sold in bulk next week at an auction. The minimum bid is reported to be around $100/sf and at least one local expert was quoted as saying he didn't expect any bids to be much higher due to weak buyer demand. Obviously, a bulk buyer with that kind of basis can be very aggressive in how they price their units. What the Orlando deal and others are showing is that there is significant risk assoc. w/ closing in a building that is still a long way from closing out all its units. Sometimes the pricing plate shifts (drops) early and sometimes it shifts late (last 15-25%) but it's almost unheard of now to see the pricing curve on a project not be inverted over time...which begs the question: Why risk buying into the front of the curve ? Some projects have wisely anticipated this buyer push back and used auctions at the beginning to reset the market and (re)establish new pricing that is sustainable. Obviously, these buyers, usually obtaining at least 30% discounts, face less risk of having their legs cut out from under them by the developer as the project closes out.

It will be very interesting to see what strategy they adopt. If they were ready to close today I would expect them to offer existing contract holders 20-25% discounts in order to minimize their "walks". Savvy buyers will expect as much and it's a smart strategy for the developer. The cost of replacing those buyers is enormous measured a number of different ways. If they close most of their contracts and cut pricing on the balance to those same levels I think they'll maintain momentum and get the best financial outcome. If it were 12-15 months ago they'd probably hold their pricing and hope to close even 50-60% of their buyers at the old inflated numbers. Then after a few months they'd cut their remaining prices 25-35% to clear the balance. But the world has changed and, again, I don't think that strategy will bear much fruit today (or 6 months from now). Even buyers intending to live there don't want to pay what most now understand to have been cycle peak pricing. If they risk it (and lose) then I think they'll be punished much more severely. Discounts may need to approach 50% or more if they lose most of their contracts and find themselves sitting on 85-90% of their inventory.

Sorry to address this (below) once again but I had just breezed through it quickly last night. Having looked at it again I have to say that you don't need to harbor much skepticism for ST to dismiss each and every point of proof (all 5) offered by this poster that ST is "happening". If Tony has blast permits (which I don't doubt) then the cost of sending out blast notices is that of the envelopes and stamps to do the mailer. This post looks more likely to have been authored by a skyscraper booster than a buyer but that's obviously just my opinion. I conceed it's theoretically possible for someone to be both. To everyone with questions and misconceptions of Signature Tower Nashville, let me do some clarification if you don't mind. First I have bought in the tower and can confirm that reservations have and are being converted to contract....therefore this project is happening. Second, the building will be breaking ground within the next two weeks, due to the estimated two months of blasting for the project and the problems that will be posed due to the poor mismanagement of the previous demolition of the former Cain Sloane Department store there is some leg work taking place to ensure as little inconvenience as possible to the current tenants of this extremely busy downtown business district. Third, confirmation and notification has been sent out to the local residents and businesses to inform of the pending blasting. Fourth, the FAA and local government have already redrawn approach and take off patterns for one of the runways at Nashville International Airport due to the forming height restrictions in the central business district that have since been shattered from the sheer height of this project. Fifth, it was confirmed to my by Tony himself that the building is still at 70 stories and 1057' tall. I hope this not only puts all my fellow proud Nashvillians at ease but also takes the doubt away from those proud citizens of the current skyscraper capitals of this nation; Nashville is not only knocking on your door, we are opening and taking our seat with the ranks of you. Can't wait to see it complete!

No need to rehash the FAA issue. I posted the Tennessean article a few weeks ago that clarified why the FAA had made flight path changes. There was no mention of ST though the Bellsouth Tower was mentioned. The change didn't at all sound driven by a particular building but rather seemed intended to keep relatively low flying aircraft away from densely populated areas, ie. downtowns. Can you imagine the FAA implementing flight path changes for a yet to be sold high rise lacking any apparent debt or sufficient equity to be constructed ? Not even ole Brownee would let that happen.

Interesting how you speak so conclusively about what is obviously only a theory. We can agree to disagree. You guys can try and read as much positive spin into his website reservation updates as you'd like. Anything is theoretically possible but after almost 3 years Tony has yet to sit on any good news and it's simply not plausible to me that he would. In any event it seems very unlikely that he'll sustain a pace that would get him to 260 presales (it's generally much slower after the sales center has been open for 90 days) anyway and I still don't think he'd find financing at that level of presales even if he had that today. BTW, don't take my word for my take on his chances of getting financing just chat with any reputable real estate lender in town. All of them I've spoken with see ST as kind of a joke at this point. One even recently referred to ST as Tony's Folly.

^ You are dead on. The minute Tony has a total sold number that he is proud to post it will be posted ("sold" rather than "reserved"). Until then I think the only thing we can gleen from the website activity is that he fears even more skepticism if the public were to know how many (or few) he actually had. I thought it was interesting that when recently interviewed by WW he declined to say how many sold units he had at that point, instead offering only that he hoped to have 100 sold by the end of this month. No news is very unlikely to ever be good news from a guy prone to use almost any measure to generate publicity.

I think this is the FAA change that some had been reported as being driven by ST. http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...EWS01/707140343 No mention of any building in this article today other than Bellsouth. FAA is apparently now enforcing a 3 mile clear area around downtown just as they are trying to do throughout the country.

You must have some inside info that I am without. From my perspective it seems he is up to his eyeballs trying to figure out how plan A is going to work. I doubt that has left a bunch of excess time for him to devise a totally new development strategy for that parcel should he be forced to cancel. If the project economics could have sustained a cut I think he would have done that long ago to avoid being in this position today. The marginal cost of adding a floor is much less than the average cost per floor. And the highest non-penthouse floor obviously sells for the biggest premium relative to the average of all the typical floors. So when you consider how those two facts relate to the math (subtracting a small cost figure which is offset by a very large revenue figure) involved in considering a cut to floors/units, you can see how boxed-in he must feel. No, plan B is almost certainly going to be a completely different project. Whether Tony has the capital or lender support to pursue somethin brand new remains to be seen. Based upon what we know about Tony's activity to date it seems clear to me that he's incurred many million of costs plus the $9 million purchase price of his land. The idea that he would be in a position to gently shift gears, write off $3-4 million of costs and embark on the development of a new building is probably wishful thinking. If I am right and he has essentially bet everything (or more) on the ST getting started then the decision to cancel may ultimately not be Tony's but that of his lenders. I'm sure he's testing all those relationships with the delays.

Reread that article and you'll see it does still appear to be hidden. He didn't confirm any number with WW only that he "hoped" to have 100 at the end of the month which suggests he has less than that now...Ole Tony keeps moving the cheese on us.

What an interesting headline. WW always seems to miss the news in his own articles. Here's my take: Tony still hasn't confirmed a single solitary contract. How many did he have as of coffee ? Either WW didn't ask the question or Tony couldn't provide any details about how the project will be funded. Tony has excavation permits in hand and sounds perfectly willing to begin digging a deep hole knowing that he's yet to reach the half way point to his presales requirement. BTW, his self imposed presale requirement is only a guess, as are the contract deposit terms, until he gets a lender to commit. It will ultimately be up to them. Also when I suggested that AP might be taking a gamble digging a hole for WES before he had tenants, sale contracts and a lender I was accused of being an idiot, disrespectful, heresy, etc. but what is probably the biggest nugget of news in WW's article is this: Tony plans to start digging a cavern before he's even half way to his "yet to be confirmed by a lender" presales target. We don't have to argue about that now that it's in black and white yet I would imagine there may be a healthy debate over whether it is good public policy to allow this to happen considering the safety and inconvenience factors involved. At a minimum, I think he owes th city a lot more of an explanation as to what his plan is for funding this deal before these permits should be granted. Are we gambling that he'll get another 160 contracts or are we also hoping that these contracts will also generate more lender and equity partner interest. Typically, developers don't owe the public anything. But I think this situation is different.

We had a spirited discussion here 3 months ago about the issues associated with Tony disclosing his lender and equity sources. I think everything I wrote then still holds today but I'm really surprised he is apparently still unable to introduce a construction lender, even one only committed subject to a mountain of conditions related to sales, equity investments, cost budgets and the like. Oh well, maybe my skepticism is just getting the best of me and we will become more enlightened about this tomorrow morning.

^ I'm not under any illusion that reporters can force the developers to do or say anything but the last part of your first sentence is the key. So far, WW hasn't shown a willingness to ask those questions. It would be refreshing and quite useful to the public, I think, if he provided some clarity on the status of contracts (not reservations) relative to the pre-sale requirement that the equity and lending sources will require. Also, last year Tony announced that in November the Jones LaSalle guy was going to start searching the world over for the $300 million of debt and equity needed to build ST. If we're to take him at his word (as some here have suggested) that he is now realistically expecting to literally break ground in a few weeks then he should absolutely expect to be asked who will fund the project. If it's really all that locked up I can't think of a reason in the world that all this info would still need to be a state secret. Again, to your point, there's no way to force the disclosure of this info but after 60 or 70 ST media stories most decent journalists would decline to simply regurgitate a developers talking points at this point without having the opportunity to inquire and report on the more substantive questions of the day. Below in bold was my reaction to the last article WW wrote 3 months ago about ST. I hope he'll unearth and report some good info this time but I think if there was really exciting and positive news for Tony to report he'd be calling the Tennessean since their circulation is so much bigger than CP's. We'll see tomorrow. Jeeper12 wrote: Mar 28 2007, 10:37 AM Post #1537 Here is William's article in today's CP: http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cf...p;news_id=55372 I like William but I was pretty disappointed to see him write such a puff piece. He knows better than to "report" to the public that ST will break ground when Tony secures 120 more "reservations". Even if Tony said it it's no excuse; William knows the difference between a reservation and a contract and, as a journalist covering real estate, he should hold himself to a higher standard. Our media needs to stop appearing so unsophisticated about the issues related to getting these large projects off the ground. It doesn't serve the public well to remain so confused and uneducated about these things. Ironically, the only news in Williams article seems to be that Tony currently has about the same number of reservations now that he had before the opening and the 500 visitors walked through.

I've given WW a fair rash about how he's covered the ST, particularly his last few articles. I hope he cuts to the heart of what everyone is interested in understanding and doesn't just become a PR conduit for Tony's marketing group. Given all the speculation and lack of information about contract conversions, equity and lending sources, etc. interviewing Tony ought to be a reporters dream right now. I hope he delivers a good article.

^ No, but I believe his old reservation agreement had all the original reservations expiring this past March 31st. Not sure why he would bother going to the trouble to convert everyone to a new reservation (expiring 9/07) rather than just going straight to a hard sales contract. Very strange.