Jump to content

SouthEnd Midrise Projects


atlrvr

Recommended Posts


Is there any precident of a 30% view premium? Are they selling the same floor plan on the non-skyline view side of Arlington for 1/3 off?

I'm not trying to argue this at all and I'm not even sure if this is a fair comparison, but I will for the hell of it throw it out there;

Using Royal Court as an example and their Dilworth vs. Uptown view pricing, Floor 9, 2 bed 2 bath, and similar sq footage this is the price difference for what view you have: Uptown Side- $505,500, Dilworth Side- $380,500 (20 sq ft bigger). It is about a 25% premium in this care. Needless to say, I don't think that something being built that may block a view that you may or may not have had is justifiable. If this were the case, there are thousands of properties that are constantly going to be pissed by new buildings going up. A lot of Dilworth is in this boat, residential behind Metropolitian, views will be lost when the new parcels are built up. I think this has been beaten enough...

http://www.royalcourtcondos.com/level9.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Royal Court has 10x better view then the Arlington does. Its completely unobstructed and shows the full "width" of the skyline. Not saying the Arlington will not loose value, but I'd put it closer to 10% then 25%. Also, the Arlington will gain some value from being in close proximity to more amenities and more life around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time a new high rise goes up in Uptown, someone will lose a view. When the Vue is completed, people in the Avenue and Trademark will lose some view, so the project at 1200 South Blvd is no different than any other project. I do not know if a person could get a lawsuit and win if they lose a view. Just about every building in uptown has some view blocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of units in Avenue and Trademark have no skyline views, and many of the ones that do not only have their view 'blocked', but they have a building 30' away from their window. Those units did not sell for 25% less, did they?

Maybe this is a just a situation where if you are outside of the activity, you rely on the view as an amenity for value and if you are in the activity, it is less important. I still hold that while some units might have a reduction in value from the view, that being next door to a lot more activity helps off set that. Right now, the Carson Station area is quite lacking in activity, and it makes the Arlington's location much less important than if surrounded by large projects.

While I am in no place to know if this is a good idea, but this stuff hasn't happened yet, why not try to move now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time a new high rise goes up in Uptown, someone will lose a view. When the Vue is completed, people in the Avenue and Trademark will lose some view, so the project at 1200 South Blvd is no different than any other project. I do not know if a person could get a lawsuit and win if they lose a view. Just about every building in uptown has some view blocked.

The view I'll lose from the Trademark will not be nearly as pronounced at 2inthepink's. I've seen his view and it IS spectacular. While our unit at The Trademark faces directly towards The Vue, the view will not really be hampered as it's two blocks away and will be but a sliver against a pretty bland landscape. He really does stand to lose a lot more than us.

FWIW, we looked at a few units in The Arlington before we bought where we are. Even the sales reps (6 months ago) were boasting that the view towards town wouldn't be blocked because of ordinances against tall structures. That said, there're still some pretty good views facing south. You can watch the Lynx come and go. That's pretty cool, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is a 25% premium for city side views.

And if the project is build to current plans the views

south would have a significantly better view.

As far as moving, i would have a moral obligation to tell prospective

buyers about the situation. I could not sleep at night knowing I screwed

someone like that. I think there is a legal obligation as well.

Edited by 2inthePink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a highrise dweller so my perspective may be skewed...but Charlotte has no natural viewshed to admire outside of our tree canopy and the distant mountains on clear days. I think there would be more discontent if we had waterfront or close in mountain views. As it is the "view" is other tall buildings closer or farther away, what's the difference?

Edited by voyager12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news. I have been contacted by Land Design, the firm working on the layout. We have set up a meeting for them, the architects, and Harris to come and look at what the effect would be here at the Arlington. I see this as a great opportunity to work out a compromise. I hope a lawsuit will not be necessary. No one really wins in the end in that.

At no point in time has a court ruled that zoning offers protection of views. 2inthepink, you need to quit complaining and try to work with the developers. You have no leg to stand on saying that your view should never be blocked. No ordinance in Charlotte has ever been adopted saying that height outside of Uptown will never exceed 120'. Simply put, you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At no point in time has a court ruled that zoning offers protection of views. 2inthepink, you need to quit complaining and try to work with the developers. You have no leg to stand on saying that your view should never be blocked. No ordinance in Charlotte has ever been adopted saying that height outside of Uptown will never exceed 120'. Simply put, you are wrong.

Seems to me "working with the developer" is exactly what he's doing. Unfortunately, it takes the threat of a lawsuit to bring developers around to talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, we looked at a few units in The Arlington before we bought where we are. Even the sales reps (6 months ago) were boasting that the view towards town wouldn't be blocked because of ordinances against tall structures.

If a lawsuit would work against anyone this is who -- but still not really a chance of winning. If the agents there said this they are fools who opened themselves up to LOTS of liability.

A lawsuit to prevent this type of development would be expensive and very very likely fail - there just aren't guarantees ever that things won't change AND the developer of this site isn't the one that promised people on the adjoining site that thier views were permanent or protected.

Furthermore, 'proving' the potential to lose value is simply an opinion that can't be proven until the action actually happens. As of now it is just opinion without any real basis -- each side could readily 'prove' their case either way.

Not trying to rain on the parade, but that is just how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who really have a say in how tall the building next door will be is the city council. Have you talked to any of them to gauge how they feel about this project?

Council is really looking for density and a mixture of uses on this site. They are looking for the type of development that will get people out of their cars and on the train. Given the proximity to the light rail station and Uptown, this is the most logical site to approve additional height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I'm not so sure we can expect council to push this project away when this is the very thing they wanted to spur by light rail. The height difference actually gains credence because of the fact that it is next to Arlington.

Council seems to consider maintenance of property values, but just like other places where people have panicked about their values (think: Carmel and Colony become the slums because of the million dollar condos going in), I think this might be a slight overreaction. It is possible, though, that a few specific units on lower floors might have a reduction in value, but the whole area will be see better value with the jobs and other uses nearby.

It is up to council, but I don't see it ending well for 2inthepink, as this type of project is pretty much exactly what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what is going on....they haven't applied for buildinging permits yet....they could start some site work though without them.

Also, their website has been partially updated with the new renderings from the redesign, but it doesn't appear everything has been updated....not sure how far along in pre-sells they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this thing has completely changed. The building plans are now Ls instead of Donuts. I guess the reason nothing has happened is because they were going through a total redesign.

They redesigned the building because only the units with views were selling, basically nothing inside the donut was so they had to give everyone an opportunity to have a view. Its too bad they had to do that, but as long as it happens I'm happy.

Edited by 83alphaunder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what is going on....they haven't applied for buildinging permits yet....they could start some site work though without them.

I suppose they could start grading? Half of the site has a good 8-10 ft drop off... I'm sure it would've only been a matter of time before someone leaving Mac's backed into it since people were parking there (I was guilty just like 83alphaunder).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this project takes shape and I dig the redesign. Ryan Homes should check out the archticture.:)

Do you think they will allow all of us that can never find parking at Mac's in the deck? Or will it be like going to Picasso's were they threaten to tow if you park where the condos are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.