ElricSeven

It's really only an announcement boom at this point. Let's wait until we see construction starting before we get too excited.

It saddens me that the most oppressed of people tend to be abused most often by their own rhetoric spewing, self-appointed representatives. Beware of anyone who says you can trust them because they can feel your pain and they look like you.

Yeah, I wondered about that too.

Reids is a great gourmet grocery store in first ward.

I hope it is something good, I don't want to live above a porn bookstore or anything like that.

It was nifty. Looked like a mini-Trademark with green glass. Surprising considering the small size of the lot, but I think that's because it can go right to the lot line. Parking garage, boutique hotel up to 17th floor and then 120 units of condos above that. I forget how many floors for that, somewhere around 18 or 20 for a total of like 35 floors. The condos will be really small. I guess we need to put this under first ward highrise projects. (grin)

Saw the tower.

The facts of lost profits can be difficult to provde in many cases, yes. But, with such a well-established appraisal system for real estate and the ability to value the units at exactly what the current developer is now selling them for, I would think the chances would be much better than your average damage award. Making the plaintiff "whole" in this case would be, in effect, giving them what was needed to put them in a similar unit at the same price they'd contracted for. That won't require the same mental gymnastics that your usual contractual agreement for sales of widgets that were never received, licensing revenue on songs never sold, etc. Funny thing is that I'm reading a case right now in which lost profits were successful and read two yesterday. So, perhaps lost profits are under conventional wisdom considered harder to prove, but I would hardly call them rare. Just one of those things where consulting an attorney is just a good idea for anyone. My point was more the latter and trying to point out how much could be at stake.

Here's an article in the Washington Post that discusses the abuse of "force majure" clauses by developer who are trying to merely get out of paying increased costs on completing the development. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6102700638.html My guess is that the Renwick might have a similar situation. As far as the price increase goes, I believe there are many people who were initial contract holders that would have profits in the $100,000 and more range. If I was them, I would seek out a good lawyer to ensure that they are fully aware of their rights under the contract. That's a lifetime of savings for many people.

There are plenty of [insert alternative word for crap]holes that the edgy folks can go to next. They're being created as rapidly as they're being destroyed. Head out past Woodlawn along S. Blvd for instance, or along West Blvd.

It all depends on the wording of the contract. They might have had an escape clause in there, but usually (not always, but usually) they're conditioned on something. My guess is that the letter mimicked the condition required to invoke their right to cancellation. Be that as it may, merely reciting the wording doesn't mean it is in fact true. Sort of like disclaimers which are wrong all the time. Big trucks that say "Not responsible for damage or injury caused by falling material." To which I say, "BS". If something falls off their truck and kills someone or damages something due to their negligence, then they're responsible. So, if I was that guy I would ask my attorney to read the contract closely and see exactly what is required for cancellation. That's what you fight about. If it is an unconditional right of cancellation, then that might be more problematic. There might be some statutory regulation not allowing unconditional rights of cancellation on a RE contract. My specialty isn't RE law however. In sum, don't just fold up and sign the check (waiving the right to contest) until some serious due-diligence has been performed by an attorney with experience in RE and contract law.

I don't know if I'd call them odd, the concrete floors are thick enough that no noise is going to come from anything that goes in in the retail space below. As far as street noise goes, you get that half way up the building. I just think no one wants to be on the bottom because, well, who wants to be the ugliest guy in the room? The floor above them has been sold out since the beginning. Not sure there's much more than an emotional reason why.

It is convenient. I park on the same floor as I live on, but up higher you've got to drive in quite a few circles to get to the spot. Of course you don't get in you car except on weekends, so it isn't that much of a bother.

And the pending, not closed ones are not finished with construction. Of the 3 for sale, two are on the lowest floor (3rd floor) and are really quite a bargain considering what people are lining up to buy in other buildings. Easily twice the cost per square foot. No one wants to be on the bottom floor, though, maybe it's an ego thing.

Right, but either conclusion could be supported depending upon the circumstances, but if the original project appeared to be supported by rental rates, then with half the job done already (or half the expense paid) it would still make more sense to finish even if they're only sure of renting half of it out. And, I bet they're well past half completed on the expense side. Implosion, cleanup and foundation work have to be pretty darn expensive and they've also poured a few levels. There's only a few more levels on the retail side - I would guess the equivalent expense of putting something in the burbs - and it will bring in top-drawer retail rates. Think of it this way, if someone offered the project as is to you for one dollar out of bankruptcy, would you buy it? My guess is that you'd jump on the deal and get financing quite easily with the assurance that the remaining costs would be well-supported by the leases.

I think the retail part will finish just because the most expensive work is probably already finished and the remainder (using a forward-looking going concern value) is more than supported by potential retail revenue. Decisions are made as to what makes sense on future capital and return because you can't get back what you've already spent.

This sounds crazy, but a perfect location would be in the bottom of Courtside. People could walk over from the Arena events and from the bars on College street. Although I'm not sure how cool I would be with being kept up all night as an owner.

I'm a bit technologically challenged on posting pics, but I'll take some and then perhaps give it a try. I'm a little leery of my privacy, though. I'll think about it.

These are cancellations, though, so the developer can resell the units at a HIGHER price. Not dismantle the project due to lack of interest. Completely opposite thing.

I think they do, but if my experience at Courtside is any indication, it requires that the unit be inspected and approved for occupancy. So the unit itself is not under construction, even if the rest of the project still is.

I think the Renwick buyers do have a written contract, that's the difference.

Like I said, they've got some hubris to have the buyer shoulder a bunch of the risk and not leave any of the profits to the buyer. I guess there will be a bunch of buyers dumb enough to fall for it, but eventually this will come home to roost when very high anticipated gains don't materialize and people closing find themselves upside down by 20%. One anecdotal story of such an occurence will go a long way to chilling sales for everyone for a long time.

My understanding is that construction inflation-based increases usually stick much better than speculative gains. There's a finite amount that were purchased by the flippers, so even if they cause a divot, you would think that would dry up with inventory.

Is it me or does there seem to be a serious disconnect between what condo resales are going for versus what they're asking for new construction?

If MetMidtown is any indication, this place will be gawdaful expensive also. The hubris of Pappas on setting the price for MetMidtown astounds me.