Society | 28- & 17-Story Residential [Under Construction]

[AndyPok1]

The more I think about it, the more I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.  I have a serious salary.  I don't contribute a thing to Wadeview Park.  Hell, if anything I detract from it because I'm constantly ubering downtown and I'm banned from their facebook page for insulting a guy for making a flier with 4 different fonts.

What does anyone contribute to downtown unless you're a business owner or on the DDB or the Church St Main Street board?

1 minute ago, Jvest55 said:

I would have liked to see a regular units at this new development where people could maybe rent-to-own, if the idea was to cater to a junior professional, that might make sense. As far as the direction they are going, it's a dangerous one. Developers are taking away one of the biggest wealth creation tool in the US (owning real estate) and putting people in silly rentals with less space and freedoms, with no path to ownership.

 

There is 0 path to ownership in our downtown period.  When rent is upwards of $1k/month/person, and most banks refusing to do mortgages on condos without 20% down, the only strategy is to either buy a big place in a suburb, a small place in a traditional city neighborhood, or keep renting.

[Jvest55]

2 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

The more I think about it, the more I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.  I have a serious salary.  I don't contribute a thing to Wadeview Park.  Hell, if anything I detract from it because I'm constantly ubering downtown and I'm banned from their facebook page for insulting a guy for making a flier with 4 different fonts.

What does anyone contribute to downtown unless you're a business owner or on the DDB or the Church St Main Street board?

You contribute to downtown when you pay your property taxes for one. When you own, and your property value increases, for another. If you live in downtown and are in a rental, the only thing you are contributing to is the investors bottom line. Sorry. 

5 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

The more I think about it, the more I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.  I have a serious salary.  I don't contribute a thing to Wadeview Park.  Hell, if anything I detract from it because I'm constantly ubering downtown and I'm banned from their facebook page for insulting a guy for making a flier with 4 different fonts.

What does anyone contribute to downtown unless you're a business owner or on the DDB or the Church St Main Street board?

There is 0 path to ownership in our downtown period.  When rent is upwards of $1k/month/person, and most banks refusing to do mortgages on condos without 20% down, the only strategy is to either buy a big place in a suburb, a small place in a traditional city neighborhood, or keep renting.

I don't think you have a serious salary if you cannot afford a condo in downtown, which range from as low as 200K and up. 

[spenser1058]

Apparently, according to this, we’re not alone in our decrepitude.

Cities like Austin, Minneapolis, Chicago and Columbus have more renters than owners. Seattle is just under the tipping point.

Time to break out the neutron bombs and nuke ‘em all, right?  

https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/market-snapshots/change-renter-vs-owner-population-2006-2016/

We won’t even discuss the “let them have cake” nature of the post.

[AndyPok1]

4 minutes ago, Jvest55 said:

You contribute to downtown when you pay your property taxes for one. When you own, and your property value increases, for another. If you live in downtown and are in a rental, the only thing you are contributing to is the investors bottom line. Sorry. 

To be clear.  I *WANT* to be downtown.  There's zero financial mechanism to make that possible for me and own simultaneously.  2/2 condos go for $300k.  That means I need $60k liquid just to move in.  Then I have $1130 a month mortgage, $600 HOA, $400 Property Tax, $150 (?) Insurance.  That's basically $2400 a month AFTER I magically found $60,000 to move in?  It took me 5 years to get the $20k I needed to buy my place while paying $1600 in rent.

[Jvest55]

3 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Apparently, according to this, we’re not alone in our decrepitude.

Cities like Austin, Minneapolis, Chicago and Columbus have more renters than owners. Seattle is just under the tipping point.

Time to break out the neutron bombs and nuke ‘em all, right?  

https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/market-snapshots/change-renter-vs-owner-population-2006-2016/

We won’t even discuss the “let them have cake” nature of the post.

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs. Big development companies really taking advantage. If people think owning is hard now, wait until 10 years from now when the only thing that is built in the last decade is a rental. 

2 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

To be clear.  I *WANT* to be downtown.  There's zero financial mechanism to make that possible for me and own simultaneously.  2/2 condos go for $300k.  That means I need $60k liquid just to move in.  Then I have $1130 a month mortgage, $600 HOA, $400 Property Tax, $150 (?) Insurance.  That's basically $2400 a month AFTER I magically found $60,000 to move in?  It took me 5 years to get the $20k I needed to buy my place while paying $1600 in rent.

I truly hope you can buy the place you want. I am rooting for you, I am just frustrated by developers not helping people to own affordable housing in downtown.

[AndyPok1]

3 minutes ago, Jvest55 said:

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs. Big development companies really taking advantage. If people think owning is hard now, wait until 10 years from now when the only thing that is built in the last decade is a rental. 

I truly hope you can buy the place you want. I am rooting for you, I am just frustrated by developers not helping people to own affordable housing in downtown.

Yeah I think this is where I disagree.  I don't care how many condos get built.  It's not going to change the massive HOA payment to pay for elevators and parking garages and security and pools.  It's not going to change banks wanting 20% down on condos.  Owning downtown is a privilege for the wealthy and the old.  We can argue whether that's right or not, but that's a fact of life since 2008.  And pretty much every major city where people want to live that's the case.

What I care about is a vibrant downtown.  So I don't care if we build towers where people are stuffed in like sardines.  I don't care if we go full Japanese hotel pods.  More people downtown is more activity.  More vibrancy.  More urbanism.  More walking.  More people spending happy hours on patios.  Less driving.  Leading to more retail.  Leading to better last mile transit.  Every lot that is filled with new residential is a good thing by and large (with obvious exceptions of underutilized lots.  *cough Crescent*) because it increases the 24/7 dynamism that is Downtown Orlando that most other mid-size cities WISH they had.

[Jvest55]

5 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

Yeah I think this is where I disagree.  I don't care how many condos get built.  It's not going to change the massive HOA payment to pay for elevators and parking garages and security and pools.  It's not going to change banks wanting 20% down on condos.  Owning downtown is a privilege for the wealthy and the old.  We can argue whether that's right or not, but that's a fact of life since 2008.  And pretty much every major city where people want to live that's the case.

What I care about is a vibrant downtown.  So I don't care if we build towers where people are stuffed in like sardines.  I don't care if we go full Japanese hotel pods.  More people downtown is more activity.  More vibrancy.  More urbanism.  More walking.  More people spending happy hours on patios.  Less driving.  Leading to more retail.  Leading to better last mile transit.  Every lot that is filled with new residential is a good thing by and large (with obvious exceptions of underutilized lots.  *cough Crescent*) because it increases the 24/7 dynamism that is Downtown Orlando that most other mid-size cities WISH they had.

Fine, we can agree to disagree. But the equivalent of an expensive HOA payment in a rental is simply higher rental prices without building equity. I get it, though, the HOA payment at face value is higher than just paying $1800 a month for a rental that is maybe only worth $1200, but I am going to stick with my view that this direction is dangerous and will just leave it at that. I agree that the 20% downpayment requirement is a hinderance. I think without that one issue, we would be seeing more condos built. Developers just take the easier way and build a rental. I guess if you want to blame somebody, it's the government. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Jvest55

[dcluley98]

Saying DT condos "build wealth" is ludicrous. The HOA fees and carrying costs of most DT condos are astronomical and a dealbreaker to anybody trying to live  here that isn't already rich or anybody who  has common sense. I technically could afford a downpayment and the monthlies of a $200k condo, but why the hell would I want to with the rest of the fees, costs and taxes, which by the way, always go up same as rent. It is very similar to renting once you realize the HOA , taxes, and insurance mean you are not really gaining any "equity" at all. Especially if in your life situation you are not sure if you will be owning it long term like 10 years or more because your life situation or job situation may eventually change. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by dcluley98

[popsiclebrandon]

I live in Park Lake Towers and I rent in it. The condo fees are over $500 a month here.  It does include a lot but its insane.  The unit next to me (owned by Dr. J) is for sale but because he combined 2 units you have to pay 2x the condo fee. Its an NBA sex pad and I want it so badly and its not too expensive but the cost of ownership are just beyond almost anyone.

[elefants]

1 hour ago, AndyPok1 said:

I'm banned from their facebook page for insulting a guy for making a flier with 4 different fonts.

He had it coming.

[Jvest55]

1 hour ago, dcluley98 said:

Saying DT condos "build wealth" is ludicrous. The HOA fees and carrying costs of most DT condos are astronomical and a dealbreaker to anybody trying to live  here that isn't already rich or anybody who  has common sense. I technically could afford a downpayment and the monthlies of a $200k condo, but why the hell would I want to with the rest of the fees, costs and taxes, which by the way, always go up same as rent. It is very similar to renting once you realize the HOA , taxes, and insurance mean you are not really gaining any "equity" at all. Especially if in your life situation you are not sure if you will be owning it long term like 10 years or more because your life situation or job situation may eventually change. 

Really? One pays a mortgage, which in turns becomes equity you build up. So yes, it builds wealth, I don't know how else to explain it. If you pay rent, you are building someone else's wealth. look, I am not degrading anybody for renting. That's not the argument here. In a city full of renters, the only people who are building wealth are the owners. Who are the owners? Out of state developers so far, and their investors, who are also owners most likely. I'd like to see our city provide more ownership abilities to its residents instead of this "X-Orlando" development. No doubt, this is a trend all around the nation. Getting people in rentals because homes are no longer affordable (let alone condos for most people). It's a sad state of affairs like I said, but I am not going to sit here and applaud this project. It is what it is. 

1 hour ago, popsiclebrandon said:

I live in Park Lake Towers and I rent in it. The condo fees are over $500 a month here.  It does include a lot but its insane.  The unit next to me (owned by Dr. J) is for sale but because he combined 2 units you have to pay 2x the condo fee. Its an NBA sex pad and I want it so badly and its not too expensive but the cost of ownership are just beyond almost anyone.

Yeah, there are a decent number of condos turned into 2-units due to the lack of 4+ bedrooms in downtown. Most often turning one condo into two is a bad investment, but it can be a good choice for a family in downtown who doesn't necessarily care about ROI. Most people who do those projects do it for themselves, and if they have a hard time selling it, then they deal with it. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Jvest55

[elefants]

How would the city provide more ownership abilities to residents?  Honest question. 

[dcluley98]

I understand how mortgages work. If I had enough money I would buy a house in Eola Heights or Delaney Park, not a DT condo. That would probably "build wealth" . 

[smileguy]

On 11/20/2019 at 8:21 PM, popsiclebrandon said:

Its an NBA sex pad 

Zillow, show me available units in Park Lake Towers.

[Dale]

In downtown FTL, last night, and X Las Olas is going to be massive. 

[popsiclebrandon]

3 hours ago, smileguy said:

Zillow, show me available units in Park Lake Towers.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/400-E-Colonial-Dr-APT-1607-Orlando-FL-32803/46196780_zpid/

[nite owℓ]

5 hours ago, popsiclebrandon said:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/400-E-Colonial-Dr-APT-1607-Orlando-FL-32803/46196780_zpid/

The HOA dues are in line with most condos downtown. Rule of thumb, HOA fees are approx 0.50 cents/sq ft. The fees are on a sliding scale depending on your must-haves, so if you buy in a community that bundles cable, hot/cold water, AC, security/mgmt/maintenance staff, amenities like pool, gym, tennis court etc., larger units, or in an older building, you should expect the fees to be higher.

 

On 11/20/2019 at 8:08 PM, dcluley98 said:

Saying DT condos "build wealth" is ludicrous. The HOA fees and carrying costs of most DT condos are astronomical and a dealbreaker to anybody trying to live  here that isn't already rich or anybody who  has common sense. I technically could afford a downpayment and the monthlies of a $200k condo, but why the hell would I want to with the rest of the fees, costs and taxes, which by the way, always go up same as rent. It is very similar to renting once you realize the HOA , taxes, and insurance mean you are not really gaining any "equity" at all. Especially if in your life situation you are not sure if you will be owning it long term like 10 years or more because your life situation or job situation may eventually change. 

On 11/20/2019 at 9:59 PM, dcluley98 said:

I understand how mortgages work. If I had enough money I would buy a house in Eola Heights or Delaney Park, not a DT condo. That would probably "build wealth" . 

You can build equity with both condos and homes -- as long as you buy low or there is room for appreciation. I can personally speak to each scenario. In no way am I rich by any means -- but I was able to purchase a home and a condo after the recession using savings etc without financial assistance of family. I understand that was a unique situation when prices were very low, however, values have doubled since then. Just saying that it IS possible to build equity with either housing type over a duration of time. Everyone has their own needs and wants, it just depends how much you're willing to risk & the timing of when you buy so YMMV.

Personally I like the carefree lifestyle and convenience of living in a downtown condo more than living in a home in the surrounding area. I accept HOA fees go along with living here and to me they are somewhat worth the expense. Is condo living perfect? Absolutely not, so I think my next place might be a townhome which seems like a happy medium to get the best of both worlds.

I think people only complain about HOA fees because it's a front-end expense and lenders also factor them in to your ability to qualify for a loan. When you buy a regular home w/no HOA, nobody at the bank asks you what your yard maintenance, housekeeper, homeowners insurance, gym membership, utilities, cost to replace roof, AC maintenance etc., will be -- but you're still paying for everything on the back-end. Most people will agree that when you buy in bulk you  tend to save money -- no difference with an HOA, IMO!

Edited November 23, 2019 by nite owℓ

[Jvest55]

4 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

I think people only complain about HOA fees because it's a front-end expense and lenders also factor them in to your ability to qualify for a loan. When you buy a regular home w/no HOA, nobody at the bank asks you what your yard maintenance, housekeeper, homeowners insurance, gym membership, utilities, cost to replace roof, AC maintenance etc., will be -- but you're still paying for everything on the back-end. Most people will agree that when you buy in bulk you  tend to save money -- no difference with an HOA, IMO!

This is a good way to think about it. People buy a house and can be stunned with the additional hidden costs. By the way, let's say worst case scenario your condo, or home, doesn't appreciate, at least that money you put in is into something you own, at which point has value "equity" and can be sold. I would argue if that if the property doesn't even appreciate at all, you have built wealth and most likely if you rented or didn't own, those funds would be wasted. Anyway, I think we're all on the same page here and at the same time, also off-topic a bit. I wish this property well but I think the mission of it is a stupid one. 

To answer the question of how can downtown provide ownership opportunities, well, I am not sure! I'd imagine there would need to be some partnerships between developers and developers would need incentives to do things like that. Right now the city is happy just to get investment in, even if it's a bunch of rentals. Maybe at some point it will change. 

[ChiDev]

I think the argument Jvest55 is making here fails to center on reality. 

"I wish big developers would do more to help people buy affordable homes and build wealth"  - What incentive do they have to do this? 

This kind of NIMBYism is the worst.  Its not only frivolous & demanding, it completely forgets that free market economics are driven by individual incentive.   Minimum price to build a mid rise structure (on hard costs) now is 155K, add in 25% soft costs of doing development (193k) plus a margin of profit for the developer (8%  -standard for for sale product - to the tune of 209k)  & this would be the broad stroke minimum (meaning low end finishes).   Now add the value of land you are talking anywhere from 220k-250k per unit in the downtown scope.

How are Millennials who are saddled with student debt supposed to come up with a 25k down payment?  In an economy where the average number of lifetime positions (for the millenial generation) equals 8-11 different jobs, why would they want to make a non-liquid capital  investment when they very well might have to move?  Most of the new home buyer demographic now consists of 30-35 year olds (as the age has pushed back), why would they be looking to purchase a small downtown unit instead of a larger one in a less urban setting (family planning)?

The argument never touched on a single one of the driving factors that affect the affordability & choice pattern of the current renter base.  Instead it posited everything on the "It SHOULD be this way" because that would be the most beneficial for the city, while addressing none of the reality. 

Bottom line: its fun to have an argument about the inequities in society, but so long as they are just platitudes you're not really discussing anything of substance toward meaningful change.  HOW WOULD YOU ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AFFORDABLE FOR SALE PRODUCT.  That is what you should be asking.  Not just finger wagging developers & renters for not fitting your paradigm.

 

[Jvest55]

1 hour ago, ChiDev said:

I think the argument Jvest55 is making here fails to center on reality. 

"I wish big developers would do more to help people buy affordable homes and build wealth"  - What incentive do they have to do this? 

This kind of NIMBYism is the worst.  Its not only frivolous & demanding, it completely forgets that free market economics are driven by individual incentive.   Minimum price to build a mid rise structure (on hard costs) now is 155K, add in 25% soft costs of doing development (193k) plus a margin of profit for the developer (8%  -standard for for sale product - to the tune of 209k)  & this would be the broad stroke minimum (meaning low end finishes).   Now add the value of land you are talking anywhere from 220k-250k per unit in the downtown scope.

How are Millennials who are saddled with student debt supposed to come up with a 25k down payment?  In an economy where the average number of lifetime positions (for the millenial generation) equals 8-11 different jobs, why would they want to make a non-liquid capital  investment when they very well might have to move?  Most of the new home buyer demographic now consists of 30-35 year olds (as the age has pushed back), why would they be looking to purchase a small downtown unit instead of a larger one in a less urban setting (family planning)?

The argument never touched on a single one of the driving factors that affect the affordability & choice pattern of the current renter base.  Instead it posited everything on the "It SHOULD be this way" because that would be the most beneficial for the city, while addressing none of the reality. 

Bottom line: its fun to have an argument about the inequities in society, but so long as they are just platitudes you're not really discussing anything of substance toward meaningful change.  HOW WOULD YOU ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AFFORDABLE FOR SALE PRODUCT.  That is what you should be asking.  Not just finger wagging developers & renters for not fitting your paradigm.

 

This is coming from somebody who is extremely biased.  By the way, I am a capitalist. I didn't necessarily mean it's all on the developers, the city should work with the developers and provide incentives. You took my comment way out of context. Did you read what I said or just copy and pasted something very selective? Downtown Orlando is getting rolled over and spanked by big rental developers and I am pretty sure the city will regret it.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Jvest55

[ChiDev]

You started this argument by saying that Rentals and Micro-units were "Garbage" with very little argument behind it other than they weren't opportunities for ownership (once again, these were rentals, so I don't know if you actually did make a point).

 

you then expanded on that ownership idea and mentioned "Rent to Own".  A reasonable concept worth merit for discussion.  This wasn't however what you followed with.

 

After that you took a turn toward only owners being capable of "Contributing to the wealth of a city".  you state that "You contribute to downtown when you pay your property taxes for one. When you own, and your property value increases, for another. If you live in downtown and are in a rental, the only thing you are contributing to is the investors bottom line. Sorry. " as if these commercial rental buildings AREN'T PAYING TAXES?   We can debate tax levels, but your argument here is a nonsensical position, and ignores that a city gains wealth by an increased Tax Roll - essentially a city's Gross Rent variable.

 

But wait there is more: "I don't think you have a serious salary if you cannot afford a condo in downtown, which range from as low as 200K and up. "  So the range includes deals from as late as the 60s.  Do you not recognize that cost of replacement has gone up?  to build something similar downtown as I have mentioned of any size (particularly starter home size) would take ad minimum 150% of your floor amount.  Most "Junior Executives are made up of millenials, who oft live rent to rent, and struggle to make student loan payments.  You laugh at the notion of micro units & co-living (more affordable than current market standard) but think its preposterous to imagine a generation that cannot afford a 30k downpayment & subsequent homeownership costs?  (once again, a generation that has 8-11 careers in lifetime, highly mobile vs fixed capital).  We can save all of this argument for later, but I think you are deeply missing the reality at hand.

 

"Big development companies really taking advantage. If people think owning is hard now, wait until 10 years from now when the only thing that is built in the last decade is a rental. "  here is what I was responding to.  You claim to be a capitalist but you seem to forget supply and demand.  You would think that if demand for downtown condos were enough then developers would be building them right?  Whelp they aren't, and one would surmise that perhaps they don't make economic sense at the moment.  Your a capitalist right? but the developers who build rental are the bad kind of capitalism huh?  You're preaching, not establishing an argument.

 

A post later you convert to blaming the government, abandoning the argument above.  " I guess if you want to blame somebody, it's the government. " - You don't make any suggestions for policy, just "government bad".

 

Later you talk about flipping condos "it can be a good choice for a family in downtown who doesn't necessarily care about ROI. Most people who do those projects do it for themselves, and if they have a hard time selling it, then they deal with it. "  - I thought we were talking about "Junior Executives" as we agreed the X would serve?  are we now talking about people who have enough $ to convert condos and dont care about throwing money on a bad investment? You lost me.

 

Finally you suggest that  you dont have a solution: "how can downtown provide ownership opportunities, well, I am not sure! I'd imagine there would need to be some partnerships between developers and developers would need incentives to do things like that. Right now the city is happy just to get investment in, even if it's a bunch of rentals. Maybe at some point it will change. "

It was at this point that I said you decided to finger wag without any solutions, and you said I didn't read your argument.  Better?  My only bias is for bad faith debate.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DreS0803]

$270M three-tower project to break ground downtown
 

Property Markets Group Inc. expects to start construction in February on the three-tower, 889-unit project called X Orlando

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2019/12/16/skyline-redesign-270m-three-tower-project-to-break.html?iana=hpmvp_orl_news_headline

 

[Uncommon]

Biz Journal? I’ll believe when the first shovel is in the ground.

[spenser1058]

7 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

Biz Journal? I’ll believe when the first shovel is in the ground.

Thankfully, the Sentinel has been on a roll lately. I gave up my subscription to OBJ when their info became more fiction than fact (not to mention their editorial page seemed to be sublet to the NFIB); if it’s gotten better in the last couple of years, hopefully one of our intrepid posters will let us know.

[Uncommon]

19 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Thankfully, the Sentinel has been on a roll lately. I gave up my subscription to OBJ when their info became more fiction than fact (not to mention their editorial page seemed to be sublet to the NFIB); if it’s gotten better in the last couple of years, hopefully one of our intrepid posters will let us know.

Their content is mostly cheerleading and full of “could” and “might” and “perhaps” and other wishful but non-commital terms. I’d never pay for it but I do enjoy reading some of their stuff at times, especially if ever I’m feeling bad about Orlando.