Richmond off-topic postings

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Would any one of our resident CRE gurus have access to knowledge about who owns this property or what might be happening?

I am not finding much on this entity but this is the listed owner out of Williamsburg:

G Square Inc C/o Greg Granger

[I miss RVA]

13 minutes ago, Icetera said:

I am not finding much on this entity but this is the listed owner out of Williamsburg:

G Square Inc C/o Greg Granger

Now - we just need to locate and line up a developer chomping at the bit to position a nice 15 to 18 - story residential tower right smack in the middle of downtown RVA on the southern edge of the burgeoning City Center district. 

Whaddya think?

[I miss RVA]

RVA to is featured prominently in the first two installments of this season's version of the award-winning series "The Good Road" on PBS. National publicity -- and keeping the name "Richmond" in the public eye and in people's minds -- super important. Co-host/co-creator Craig Martin is based in Richmond (he lives in Carytown), and the show is partially produced in Richmond. Martin has lived in Richmond since 1990.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/03/01/locally-produced-the-good-road-turns-its-cameras-toward-richmond/

Edited March 1, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Shakman]

On 2/25/2022 at 3:54 PM, I miss RVA said:

Now - we just need to locate and line up a developer chomping at the bit to position a nice 15 to 18 - story residential tower right smack in the middle of downtown RVA on the southern edge of the burgeoning City Center district. 

Whaddya think?

I think more than 15 - 18 stories.  How about 40 floors?

Edited March 2, 2022 by Shakman

[I miss RVA]

9 minutes ago, Shakman said:

I think more than 15 - 18 stories.  How about 40 floors?

Well, this IS Richmond... 

Edited March 2, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Shakman]

Geez.  Thanks for popping my balloon.  I'll put away the Legos. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Shakman

[eandslee]

Alright!  I'm tired of the slow development news - someone has to get out and take some photos or something and post them here so that we have something to talk about.  I'm just not used to the lack of development news.  We're spoiled, I know.

I got to thinking why the slow news right now.  Perhaps it is because developers are waiting to see what's going to happen with the Diamond District and City Center?  Not sure, but either way, there should be a long list of projects starting about now.  Things are just so eerily quiet and I'm not liking it.  I'm having withdraws...I know, I'm addicted - is there such thing as an "RVA Development Anonymous?"  If so, I need to join TODAY!

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, eandslee said:

Alright!  I'm tired of the slow development news - someone has to get out and take some photos or something and post them here so that we have something to talk about.  I'm just not used to the lack of development news.  We're spoiled, I know.

I got to thinking why the slow news right now.  Perhaps it is because developers are waiting to see what's going to happen with the Diamond District and City Center?  Not sure, but either way, there should be a long list of projects starting about now.  Things are just so eerily quiet and I'm not liking it.  I'm having withdraws...I know, I'm addicted - is there such thing as an "RVA Development Anonymous?"  If so, I need to join TODAY!

It's just the lull before the storm. In this case, the storm is the construction storm. We've had SO many announcements, we have to shift into the construction phase now. So the announcement news might slow down for a little while - but what's missing is all the ground breakings and earth being turned and big excavators digging large holes and boom cranes rising... Plus, I'd imagine we'll see an uptick in announcements once we fully transition into spring.

For now, I want to see groundbreakings and construction activity starting up on all these previously announced projects.

Edited March 10, 2022 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

The city is outsourcing a portion of the review process for permit applications - and the results have been far from stellar.

A really good report from RBS - and the comments section is a worthwhile read as well. Bruce, as usual, is spot on in his analysis.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/03/21/time-is-money-richmond-outsources-some-building-plan-reviews-amid-backlog/

NOTE: I would be very curious to know if - and if so, how much - this backlog at City Hall has impacted projects that have been either truncated (Block D & the residential building at 512 Hull in particular) or apparently tabled for the foreseeable future (River's Edge II) in that the delays were SO LONG that they pushed back potential start dates (relative to when these projects were first announced) to the point that the inflation and meteoric explosion in construction costs, unavailability of supplies, etc.) that were not a factor at the time the projects were announced rose up and strangled the financial viability of these projects?

In short - is the city at least partially to blame for the truncation of at least two projects and the limbo status of at least a third?

As always, @wrldcoupe4, @upzoningisgoodand all the gurus of our community who are in the know on these matters -- your insights are much appreciated!

Edited March 21, 2022 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

Part 2 of Richmond BizSense's series on the problem with the bottleneck in the thru-put of the permit process in the planning department. This MUST be fixed - or we will lose projects left and right before all is said and done.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/03/28/city-councilman-experiences-permitting-delay-firsthand-trying-to-open-a-gym/

[eandslee]

3 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Part 2 of Richmond BizSense's series on the problem with the bottleneck in the thru-put of the permit process in the planning department. This MUST be fixed - or we will lose projects left and right before all is said and done.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/03/28/city-councilman-experiences-permitting-delay-firsthand-trying-to-open-a-gym/

I’m glad this is getting attention. Hopefully, the negative press regarding the city’s permitting office will drive some serious change for the better.  Would love to see developers wanting to do projects in the city due to its quick, smooth, and helpful permitting process.  Just think about how huge that change would be!  Developments would be popping up all over the place…well, they currently are, but just think how many more would!!

[I miss RVA]

20 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I’m glad this is getting attention. Hopefully, the negative press regarding the city’s permitting office will drive some serious change for the better.  Would love to see developers wanting to do projects in the city due to its quick, smooth, and helpful permitting process.  Just think about how huge that change would be!  Developments would be popping up all over the place…well, they currently are, but just think how many more would!!

One question I have: given the projects that have gotten truncated or tabled in the last six months, (Block D, 512 Hull Street, River's Edge II) - how many of them were impacted by these undue delays? Given the time frames from the announcement of at least two of them (512 Hull and River's Edge II) -- I'm curious if they got so severely delayed that the rising construction costs became problematic? I know inflation wasn't what it is now six, 10 or even 18 months ago, but I believe those two projects date to 2020 if not earlier. And there were huge delays and rising costs even then. I can't help but wonder if these delays are long enough to completely gut the feasibility of a project - turning what could have been, for example, a 12-story apartment building into a five-story building with a footprint of at best 40% of the original building's (and the other 60% taken up by surface parking)...

[I miss RVA]

The third and final installment of RBS's three-part series on the huge problem with the permitting process and the backlog of paperwork that's been holding up projects for exceptionally - and unacceptably -- long amounts of time.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/04/04/city-hall-critics-fear-retribution-for-complaining-about-permit-delays/

[eandslee]

JP Morgan -

Richmond could use your headquarters downtown...NYC has enough tall buildings!

Wow!  What if Richmond landed something like this!

https://newyorkyimby.com/2022/04/first-official-renderings-revealed-for-jpmorgans-1388-foot-headquarters-at-270-park-avenue-in-midtown-east-manhattan.html

Edited April 17, 2022 by eandslee

[I miss RVA]

41 minutes ago, eandslee said:

JP Morgan -

Richmond could use your headquarters downtown...NYC has enough tall buildings!

Wow!  What if Richmond landed something like this!

https://newyorkyimby.com/2022/04/first-official-renderings-revealed-for-jpmorgans-1388-foot-headquarters-at-270-park-avenue-in-midtown-east-manhattan.html

As the Beach Boys once sang: "Wouldn't it be nice!"

[I miss RVA]

@upzoningisgoodand @wrldcoupe4brought the idea to the forum a couple of months ago of how RVA builders could in theory save on construction costs and increase building heights (within certain limits) by using cross-laminated timber instead of steel or concrete flooring and framing when going above certain heights. In other words, build taller for less money.

With that in mind, I offer for your consideration the following fantastic and interesting article on the topic in this week's editions of The New Yorker magazine about how this is being applied in Scandinavia. Definitely some food for thought.

Would love to hear thoughts of our veteran and expert CRE gurus such as Upzoning and Coupe -- and all of our community gurus -- and get weigh-ins on this concept and how it might be applied in RVA.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/25/transforming-trees-into-skyscrapers?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_041922&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=5bea116a24c17c6adf1c7448&cndid=52743904&hasha=0bc2bdb8965299a1bd1919f2bacb70c7&hashb=357e255d89235f53402b286ef2f71f3bf8e107aa&hashc=c2bbc27b13765f177dd5062e118b8e98eaa715828a0ffe5f0f1cbc4eaa575b4b&esrc=bounceX&mbid=CRMNYR012019

Edited April 19, 2022 by I miss RVA

[upzoningisgood]

Whatever effect it has will be slow. Richmond (and, to be fair, almost every city) has to update their code to allow CLT for multifamily. Most municipalities are not perfectly up to date. Some are using the 2015 or 2018 code iterations, for example. I think RVA is using one of those two. Once approved, it would still take a few years for a developer who decided he/she wanted to use CLT to actually get the financing and construction done and have people move in. It's a long process, period. You should think of CLT impacting RVA in the next 10 years, not the next 5 imo.

When the ball gets rolling, I think CLT will have a few impacts. 1), IIRC, CLT lets you build 7 or 8 stories above a concrete podium with similar fireproofing as 1+5s have, so I think in high-demand markets and submarkets, 1+7s become the new 1+5s. But, you still need the market to be robust enough to absorb 40% more people in your building, so SA and Manchester probably see 1+7s and like Brook Road probably still has 1+5s. 2) It opens up buildings taller than 6 stories to be made out of CLT instead of steel (with tons of fireproofing mind you) so the economics of mid and mid-high rises changes. I straight up don't think RVA has the rents to justify an apartment taller than 12 stories right now given construction costs unless it's really unique (Opus getting to chill on parking, for example, or it's like 1 building in Scott's Addition that was financed pre-pandemic) but CLT makes that possible sooner. So like, maybe the rent threshold for 12+ stories goes from something like (I'm making this up) $2.85/SF to $2.50/SF. RVA isn't there yet but $2.50/SF is way easier to hit. 3) Early indications are that CLT is maybe more expensive on the materials side but drives major savings by cutting down on the labor required. It's unclear if the materials thing is structural or just because the industry is in its infancy. In any event, wages are sticky so construction labor costs will probably be higher going forward so I think in the long run CLT substitutes for wood on medium-scale projects. So 1+5s in smaller markets/submarkets but made out of timber. 

If you legalized CLT today, I don't think the buildings in RVA proper would be that much bulkier because I just don't think there are enough warm bodies looking to move to RVA at rents that pencil out to need to go super huge--maybe just a couple stories more with an exception or two in SA/Manchester. But, if RVA rents blew up, you'd see the a swarm of 10+ story buildings hit the pipeline instead of 1+5s and you'd definitely notice that. 

[I miss RVA]

27 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

Whatever effect it has will be slow. Richmond (and, to be fair, almost every city) has to update their code to allow CLT for multifamily. Most municipalities are not perfectly up to date. Some are using the 2015 or 2018 code iterations, for example. I think RVA is using one of those two. Once approved, it would still take a few years for a developer who decided he/she wanted to use CLT to actually get the financing and construction done and have people move in. It's a long process, period. You should think of CLT impacting RVA in the next 10 years, not the next 5 imo.

When the ball gets rolling, I think CLT will have a few impacts. 1), IIRC, CLT lets you build 7 or 8 stories above a concrete podium with similar fireproofing as 1+5s have, so I think in high-demand markets and submarkets, 1+7s become the new 1+5s. But, you still need the market to be robust enough to absorb 40% more people in your building, so SA and Manchester probably see 1+7s and like Brook Road probably still has 1+5s. 2) It opens up buildings taller than 6 stories to be made out of CLT instead of steel (with tons of fireproofing mind you) so the economics of mid and mid-high rises changes. I straight up don't think RVA has the rents to justify an apartment taller than 12 stories right now given construction costs unless it's really unique (Opus getting to chill on parking, for example, or it's like 1 building in Scott's Addition that was financed pre-pandemic) but CLT makes that possible sooner. So like, maybe the rent threshold for 12+ stories goes from something like (I'm making this up) $2.85/SF to $2.50/SF. RVA isn't there yet but $2.50/SF is way easier to hit. 3) Early indications are that CLT is maybe more expensive on the materials side but drives major savings by cutting down on the labor required. It's unclear if the materials thing is structural or just because the industry is in its infancy. In any event, wages are sticky so construction labor costs will probably be higher going forward so I think in the long run CLT substitutes for wood on medium-scale projects. So 1+5s in smaller markets/submarkets but made out of timber. 

If you legalized CLT today, I don't think the buildings in RVA proper would be that much bulkier because I just don't think there are enough warm bodies looking to move to RVA at rents that pencil out to need to go super huge--maybe just a couple stories more with an exception or two in SA/Manchester. But, if RVA rents blew up, you'd see the a swarm of 10+ story buildings hit the pipeline instead of 1+5s and you'd definitely notice that. 

Thanks for the good information, @upzoningisgood! I feel like we (who are not in the field) go to school when you or Coupe explain this stuff. It's interesting as hell - I don't always understand all the technical ins and outs - but getting the concepts down helps a lot.

Regarding height - what about downtown/Monroe Ward? Pinecrest upped the ante and added a floor to go to 16 stories. The Admiral is planned for 12 stories in JW. And the two Foushee & Grace buildings are being discussed/proposed/etc. to be built out at 11 and 12 stories respectively. Plus over in Manchester, South Falls II at 14 stories - and if Tom Papa builds the condo building, he's looking at hitting 11. And unless construction costs have made it so untenable, we know that the folks looking to do the Silos project have given that 17-to-20 story range for that project. So there are some folks in the market who are seeing justification for bringing some height in, no?

Another really uneducation question: if RVA doesn't have the warm bodies now to justify rents that would push a developer to up the floor count much past 12 - how is it that 50 or so years ago, there were that handful of residential buildings that all ended up between 16 and 20 stories on Franklin Street in Monroe Ward? How has RVA changed? I get that construction costs, no doubt, have changed. But what would have justified putting up a 20 story residential building at Belvidere and Franklin in 1972 that wouldn't be in place now to get a building built much over 12 floors?

Just trying to understand the dynamics involved.

Thanks so much for your patience and for explaining all of this stuff. It's very much appreciated! 

Edited April 20, 2022 by I miss RVA

[upzoningisgood]

46 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Regarding height - what about downtown/Monroe Ward? Pinecrest upped the ante and added a floor to go to 16 stories. The Admiral is planned for 12 stories in JW. And the two Foushee & Grace buildings are being discussed/proposed/etc. to be built out at 11 and 12 stories respectively. Plus over in Manchester, South Falls II at 14 stories - and if Tom Papa builds the condo building, he's looking at hitting 11. And unless construction costs have made it so untenable, we know that the folks looking to do the Silos project have given that 17-to-20 story range for that project. So there are some folks in the market who are seeing justification for bringing some height in, no?

 

Key word in there is "proposed". You might notice many of these projects have been quiet for awhile. The construction cost spike is crazy. Now, I work in Nashville--from Richmond, love Richmond deeply, intend to move back eventually,  but I work in Nashville--and the exploding construction costs here haven't tanked the development pipeline because rents and building sale prices are high enough to overcome it. Like, on a per/SF basis, Scott's Addition is about the same as Nashville's version of Chesterfield Town Center. 1BRs for new apartments are easily in the 2000s. My understanding is that construction costs are relatively similar in both high and medium-sized markets--like, constructing in and Nashville and Louisville costs about the same. I therefore assume Nashville and Richmond's construction costs are comparable. When a 1BR costs in Richmond costs1400 instead of 2100 and construction materials costs rise by 55% in 2021, a lot of deals in Richmond will die or be put on ice.

This is 100% speculation, but I bet those deals are on pause (or canceled) until construction costs drop/rents increase to profitable levels. 

To answer the other question (which is good): I don't have a definite answer, but I'll put forward a few possibilities. 1) it was stupidly easy to get loans in the 80s so you could afford to go big. You didn't need rents to be that high because financing was so good. 2) The current construction cost spike is literally unprecedented and really warps things, so things are not possible now that were definitely possible in 2019. 3) (The second half of this is totally out of my a** but it might have some truth) Multifamily construction is a relatively low-productivity-growth industry. Not 0 (I learned from last time!) but still low. So it might be hit by Baumol's cost disease extra hard now because it hasn't been able to productivity-growth its way out and, reasoning backwards, wouldn't have been nearly as afflicted in the 70s and 80s. So constructing then would have been relatively cheap. Again, totally theory crafting the Baumol angle on #3 so definitely take that one with a grain of salt lol. 4) There might have been reasons (in retrospect misplaced) optimism in the early 70s that made the project seem to make sense.

 

[I miss RVA]

11 hours ago, upzoningisgood said:

Key word in there is "proposed". You might notice many of these projects have been quiet for awhile. The construction cost spike is crazy. Now, I work in Nashville--from Richmond, love Richmond deeply, intend to move back eventually,  but I work in Nashville--and the exploding construction costs here haven't tanked the development pipeline because rents and building sale prices are high enough to overcome it. Like, on a per/SF basis, Scott's Addition is about the same as Nashville's version of Chesterfield Town Center. 1BRs for new apartments are easily in the 2000s. My understanding is that construction costs are relatively similar in both high and medium-sized markets--like, constructing in and Nashville and Louisville costs about the same. I therefore assume Nashville and Richmond's construction costs are comparable. When a 1BR costs in Richmond costs1400 instead of 2100 and construction materials costs rise by 55% in 2021, a lot of deals in Richmond will die or be put on ice.

This is 100% speculation, but I bet those deals are on pause (or canceled) until construction costs drop/rents increase to profitable levels. 

To answer the other question (which is good): I don't have a definite answer, but I'll put forward a few possibilities. 1) it was stupidly easy to get loans in the 80s so you could afford to go big. You didn't need rents to be that high because financing was so good. 2) The current construction cost spike is literally unprecedented and really warps things, so things are not possible now that were definitely possible in 2019. 3) (The second half of this is totally out of my a** but it might have some truth) Multifamily construction is a relatively low-productivity-growth industry. Not 0 (I learned from last time!) but still low. So it might be hit by Baumol's cost disease extra hard now because it hasn't been able to productivity-growth its way out and, reasoning backwards, wouldn't have been nearly as afflicted in the 70s and 80s. So constructing then would have been relatively cheap. Again, totally theory crafting the Baumol angle on #3 so definitely take that one with a grain of salt lol. 4) There might have been reasons (in retrospect misplaced) optimism in the early 70s that made the project seem to make sense.

 

Wow - so this insane construction cost spike is kryptonite to RVA development - whereas other cities, not so much. Wow... that's disheartening. Of course, the war overseas no doubt isn't helping. The lingering pandemic isn't helping. A lot of political BS happening in this country for certain isn't helping. I'm curious how long this will last and what the impact will be for RVA development. Coupe pointed out that following cost spikes, even when mitigating factors settle, the prices themselves never return to pre-spike levels for materials, etc. How realistic is it to think that this is the one thing that actually could potentially derail the big roll RVA has been on for multiple years?

Again ... this is really disheartening.

Edited April 20, 2022 by I miss RVA

[upzoningisgood]

It’s not just Richmond that’s affected—anywhere where rents aren’t (by national standards) that high will be affected. Like Louisville or NOLA or OK City or wherever is in the same boat. 

Coupe is completely right about construction costs—go look at the 55% link I included to see what he/I mean. However, the caveat (and I think he would agree) is that what has happened recently is so unprecedented thar historical trends may only be but so helpful. I don’t think construction costs stay *this* elevated because I think the supply chain will mostly work itself out in the long run (lumber futures are starting to decrease for example), but I think they are elevated decently above 2019 because nominal wages usually don’t decrease and MF productivity growth is not *that* high.

I don’t think elevated construction costs will kill development in Richmond—if Richmond adds 10000 jobs, housing in some form or another will get built. But there might be a more adaptive reuse, more surface parked deals, and more townhomes and midrises vs high rises going forward assuming rents do not unexpectedly spike. Elevated construction costs don’t prevent high-rises, they just change how high the rents have to be to see high-rises get built. 

[I miss RVA]

53 minutes ago, upzoningisgood said:

1.) It’s not just Richmond that’s affected—anywhere where rents aren’t (by national standards) that high will be affected. Like Louisville or NOLA or OK City or wherever is in the same boat. 

 2.) I don’t think construction costs stay *this* elevated because I think the supply chain will mostly work itself out in the long run 

3.) If Richmond adds 10000 jobs

4.) Surface parked deals

5.) Elevated construction costs don’t prevent high-rises, they just change how high the rents have to be to see high-rises get built. 

Great information as always, @upzoningisgoodAgain, thank you for being patient with me asking so many questions. This really is educational.

Quick follow-ups (and thoughts)

1.) Not just RVA: that makes sense and -- in a way -- is good to know that RVA is in some pretty good company in this same (sinking ; - just kidding!!) boat.

2.) Costs won't stay THIS high: From your keyboard to God's eyes, my friend! 

3.) RVA adding 10,000 jobs: Over the course of ... how long? I'm not sure that RVA CITY added 10K jobs in the decade of the teens, when the city saw a robust boom in population and economic development. Now is this just the city or the region where this needs to happen? That's a tall order - but I get where you're coming from - that level of employment increase would bring sufficient numbers of people to the city and the metro to pump up demand and thus pump up the rent floor/ceiling.

4.) Surface parked deals: I'm not clear on what these are. Can you detail?

5.) Elevated construction costs/changing how high rents need to be: Here's hoping (and praying) that the costs come back down to earth sufficiently to get us back to where we were even in 2020. I know it would be asking for the impossible to get us back to 2019 levels. Still - if that gap between rents and costs can be narrowed such that -- at a minimum -- projects in the pipeline don't get butchered or kiboshed altogether, I'd breathe much more easily.

To your point about adding 10K jobs and housing getting built: I would HOPE that if RVA added 10K jobs we could do a HELL of a lot better than adaptive reuse, townhouses and midrises. RVA seems to be forever stuck in that place of those small, rather limited types of housing being the "best" we seem to be able to do. It's only been in the last couple of years when so many larger projects got built (and many more were proposed) that it was FEELING (at least!!) that RVA was finally starting to break out of that constrained place. I'm guessing that feeling was fool's gold. 

[wrldcoupe4]

1 hour ago, upzoningisgood said:

It’s not just Richmond that’s affected—anywhere where rents aren’t (by national standards) that high will be affected. Like Louisville or NOLA or OK City or wherever is in the same boat. 

Coupe is completely right about construction costs—go look at the 55% link I included to see what he/I mean. However, the caveat (and I think he would agree) is that what has happened recently is so unprecedented thar historical trends may only be but so helpful. I don’t think construction costs stay *this* elevated because I think the supply chain will mostly work itself out in the long run (lumber futures are starting to decrease for example), but I think they are elevated decently above 2019 because nominal wages usually don’t decrease and MF productivity growth is not *that* high.

I don’t think elevated construction costs will kill development in Richmond—if Richmond adds 10000 jobs, housing in some form or another will get built. But there might be a more adaptive reuse, more surface parked deals, and more townhomes and midrises vs high rises going forward assuming rents do not unexpectedly spike. Elevated construction costs don’t prevent high-rises, they just change how high the rents have to be to see high-rises get built. 

Agreed.

Surface parked deals are projects that have a parking lot, or a combination with parking under the concrete podium vs below grade or structured parking. While it's less attractive from a density and planning perspective, it's about half the cost or more and helps the deals pencil.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Agreed.

Surface parked deals are projects that have a parking lot, or a combination with parking under the concrete podium vs below grade or structured parking. While it's less attractive from a density and planning perspective, it's about half the cost or more and helps the deals pencil.

Thanks, Coupe! That makes sense.

And RVA has been seeing PLENTY of these kinds or projects in Scott's and Manchester, yes? 

If construction costs abate (PLEASE GOD!!!) what's the likelihood that we could still see 12-story projects -- even if it's only 8 or 9 floors of residential built atop a parking podium? If I recall, the original proposal for 512 Hull was something like a 5 or 6 story "tower" portion built on top of maybe 2 floors of residential on top of 3 or 4 'floors' worth of podium/structured parking. And that building was perfectly FINE for the corner of E. 6th and Hull!  

Could we potentially see at least those kinds of buildings hitting 12 total stories?

[Richmonopoly]

I saw what looks to be the entrance to a below-grade deck on the rear of Opus. I could be wrong, but if so, how many levels of parking?