Waiting...
 |
| 12/31/2006 6:22 PM |
 Alert
|
I found the article below on the SD Metro side interesting, in it the developer of The Mark talks about how they are "sitting on units" since they think the market is bad. If I were a Phase 1 buyer there I'd be somewhat concerned about this as I'd rather not move into a building that isn't sold out.
Does anyone have any sense for what the units at The Mark went for when they were actually selling them? I'd love to do a comparision to similar units at other luxury building.
http://www.sandiegometro.com/2007/jan/pros4.php |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr_Brightside
Posts:59
|
| 12/31/2006 9:06 PM |
Alert
|
Waiting,
I missed that article, it's interesting along with the others in that series. Here's a solid read on sales at The Mark (no pricing however, I'd like to see that as well).
The quick summary is 60 of the 200 released are not reserved, 50+ are being held as you noted for a final release. I also believe that there are some pretty rough rules at The Mark the require no selling or renting for one year from closing.
http://www.sddt.com/Reports/article.cfm?RID=464&SourceCode=20061214crq
If anyone has a read on prices please post it, I'd like to gain an understanding of what people are going to be asked to close at.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon
|
| 01/12/2007 5:56 PM |
Alert
|
| No selling or renting rules are all BS. I've seen those rules broken all the time. There is no way for the builder to enforce those rules. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 01/12/2007 6:28 PM |
Alert
|
Since you can file a lawsuit over virtually anything and since the terms of sale obstensibly have a clause against selling/renting then you'd think they can enforce the contract via the court system. That said as soon as you trot out the lawyers they are the only ones that end up winning.
I doubt there are a lot of flip opportunities at the Mark. It woud be nice to get an understanding of phase 1 prices. |
|
|
|
|
Jon
|
| 01/12/2007 9:18 PM |
Alert
|
What I've seen, it's simply a statement from the buyer promising not to buy and sell. It's not part of the sales contract. I'm no lawyer but from what I understand, placing restrictions on property rights is not enforceble unless the buyer has been duly compensated for giving up his right to rent or sell. Such restriction existed since the boom of the late 1980s but nobody has ever been held to account.
That being said, I don't think that there're opportunities to flip right now. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 01/13/2007 12:42 PM |
Alert
|
| It's an interesting topic, I'd enjoy getting a read from attorney over this question. I do doubt there are a lot of flip opportunities. I imagine a lot of the people who are contracted to close on units that are going to be completed in 2007 are somewhat concerned about the state of the market. |
|
|
|
|
anon
|
| 02/03/2007 11:35 AM |
Alert
|
| Icon has the same "clause" in the contract....regarding renting/selling for one year. I believe there are resale units on the market from Icon already. They don't seem to be enforcing it there. |
|
|
|
|
Smith
|
| 02/03/2007 11:45 AM |
Alert
|
| So far the resale units I've seen at ICON aren't priced very attractively so I doubt the flippers there are going to be successful. |
|
|
|
|
Jerry
|
| 02/04/2007 6:51 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By n/a on 02/03/2007 11:35 AM
Icon has the same "clause" in the contract....regarding renting/selling for one year. I believe there are resale units on the market from Icon already. They don't seem to be enforcing it there.
Not sure what to think about these clauses, my guess is that the developer would rather not spend time and money on lawsuits.
If there are any real estate legal people reading this your opinion would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 02/04/2007 7:36 PM |
Alert
|
The no sale clause for 1 year is just for show to make some buyers feel better. However, flippers have been ignoring such clause since the boom of the 1980s.
|
|
|
|
|
anon
|
| 02/06/2007 6:18 PM |
Alert
|
| I was told by a real estate agent that there has been a court case and the clause has been rendered irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 02/06/2007 6:23 PM |
Alert
|
Yes, the court held that private property trumps. If you are going to restrict private property, there needs to be consideration. If there's no consideration for that restriction clause then the contract is not valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 02/06/2007 6:36 PM |
Alert
|
So in other words all of these condos are pretty much for sale and that the sales people out there at the condo developers are using this worthless claus as a sales point to people that are worried about flippers in their building.
If this is true then this is just another example of poor ethics in the real estate industry. |
|
|
|
|
guest
|
| 09/22/2007 2:48 PM |
Alert
|
I seem to remember that the 1br's started in the low 400's and 2br's in the mid 800's. I think the builder is still in a good position on this building. DWC is a small privately held company and may not be under the type of pressures that a public copany may have to deal with. They may be able to hold the line on prices a bit longer.
Last year many of the best units hadn't been released and
the developer has a lot of confidence in his product. If you want new in that area you only have The Mark and Alta to choose from.
IMHO The Mark is heads and tails above Alta. They are only blocks away from each other but Alta looks alot like the short dumpy sister compared to taller younger prettier and classier Mark. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 09/22/2007 3:50 PM |
Alert
|
| Why bother with buying new. Wait until next year, 2008 or 2009 for all the foreclosures to hit the MLS. |
|
|
|
|
guest three
|
| 09/23/2007 6:38 PM |
Alert
|
I stopped by the Mark today for two reasons. One is to see the price and the other is to see the price. As for the models, I have mixed feelings about them. Some of the them have really strange floor plan. The ceiling was low. The sales person told me that the higher up the unit, the higher the ceiling. Anyway, I was not able to see those higher ceiling units because it was out of my price range. the quality is not bad. Compared to the Alta, the Mark's quality is way better. better cabinetry, better flooring.
As far as for the prices. I thought the market slows down and therefore, the price might not be so outrageous. Oh well, the price is still out of reach for me. One bedroom is 400K and two bedroom is 650K. Those are the cheapest. There are total of 255 units (including 11 townhomes) and 43% are sold. Maybe I am priced out forever. |
|
|
|
|
Smith
|
| 09/23/2007 6:43 PM |
Alert
|
guest three,
I don't think the new projects are priced well, there seems to be better deals in the resale market. |
|
|
|
|
CYB
|
| 09/23/2007 6:57 PM |
Alert
|
Priced out forever, hardly.
First, the prices here are too,too high. $400K for a 1/1 840 sqft. is outrageous. Maybe it was common during the bubble, but we are headed back to fundamentals. Go do the math on this. How much would it rent for? $1300-1500 / monthly.
Secondly, you can immediately see the effects of this market downturn. Three years ago, they would've sold 80-90% pre-construction. Now, not even half. The speculators are leaving the market, and they're the reason the asking price is so high.
With 50% occupancy, a slowing market, and development still churning out places left and right, even these prices are headed down.
Go get a one year lease with one of the owners. See if you really like it. Then buy in mid '08. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
| 09/23/2007 7:42 PM |
Alert
|
| I'm not sure about buying in mid '08. I think that it'll still be too early. I would say re-evaluated in mid 2008 and every 6 months thereafter. |
|
|
|
|
ShortCondos
Posts:1
|
| 09/23/2007 8:10 PM |
Alert
|
| Having been an active trader in the equity markets for years I've always observed that prices go down faster than they go up. In that sense it wouldn't surprise me if the market got back to "normal" faster than you might think. |
|
|
|
|