Jump to content

Trademark


49er

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

He hotel? Well, it was very ugly...Both outside and inside...At least if the bathroom of the rooms were "clean" we could have stay here, but it seemed no one was maintaining them, ar almost not : anyway, we had to look for another hotel (In my case, "perhaps" I could have stay, but my mother really wanted to leave it)...Such a hotel in the core of the city, it looks like some sort of "dirty spot" in the dowtown. To bad, because the view form the hotel was very nice.

Well, it wasn't SO horrible, but for a hotel in the United States, in the downtown of a city, it was quite weird : not the kind of service you're expecting to have (mostly because on the Internet, where we ordered the fly and the room, it said it was a good hotel)...I mean 5 years ago we were in Vietnman, I remember, in "normal hotels", no "luxury hotels for tourisms", and except a very few, the majority of them were better than the Center City Inn...

Perhaps I can find some pics we took in the hotel...OK, but I don't know how to put pictures in a post (perhaps with the hyperlink button...), and I'm to lazy to look for that know...

The exterior of the hotel :

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12903762/

Two views of downtown from our room, it was nice : http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12903788/

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12903818/

And the bathroom, seem nice in the fotos, but sadly it wasn't like that in reallity! You can't see it in the second picture, but water was running down tap, even if you turned it off, and the white thing of the bath (I don't know of you say it) was breaking off.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12903841/

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/12903868/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone could compare Blvd. Centro projects to the Park.  The park is more expensive b/c it is a different project.  Maybe 230 Tryon, but not Blvd. Centro work.  It appeals to two different clients which is why it isn't on that side of Tryon. 

The price difference makes sense b/c the Park is luxury, this is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The comparison was between the Park and Trademark. If the Trademark isn't a luxury project, then I don't know what is. The Trademark has all the same amenities, a better location, lower HO fees, niftier design (arguably opinion on that one) all at less per square foot than the Park.

With respect to your second question, I would expect that construction isn't going to start soon given the steadily increasing number of units making it back up for sale on MLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion, and I'm not sure which is luxury and which isn't, although I think highrise condo's may be their own category because of the special amenities inherent in the highrises (dillution of city noise, birds-eye views, concrete structure).

One point in defense of the park, the price per square feet may be slightly skewed because the most common floorplan in the Park has 2 stories and 2 large balconies. Both amenities hurt the square foot numbers, but add a large amount of value and liveability. The park has massive balconies, 10'x20' (the size of a garage!), plus a second 10x10 balcony on those 2 story condos. When i looked into moving to the park when we first bought a place in Charlotte, in 2001, i heavily weighed the large balconies into my equation. In the end, we chose to buy something that was already built (glad i didn't decide to wait :), or that would have been a lot of rent).

One point in defense of the trademark, the location compensates for most any other fault it has in condo size or design. Also, the vertical stack of the condos is much more true about the park than the trademark, as the south facing part of trademark is very different as you go up in the floors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion, and I'm not sure which is luxury and which isn't, although I think highrise condo's may be their own category because of the special amenities inherent in the highrises (dillution of city noise, birds-eye views, concrete structure). 

One point in defense of the park, the price per square feet may be slightly skewed because the most common floorplan in the Park has 2 stories and 2 large balconies.  Both amenities hurt the square foot numbers, but add a large amount of value and liveability.  The park has massive balconies, 10'x20' (the size of a garage!), plus a second 10x10 balcony on those 2 story condos.  When i looked into moving to the park when we first bought a place in Charlotte, in 2001, i heavily weighed the large balconies into my equation.  In the end, we chose to buy something that was already built (glad i didn't decide to wait :), or that would have been a lot of rent).

One point in defense of the trademark, the location compensates for most any other fault it has in condo size or design.  Also, the vertical stack of the condos is much more true about the park than the trademark, as the south facing part of trademark is very different as you go up in the floors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good explanation, that was information I wasn't aware of and explains the price differential somewhat. I'd also heard, however, that the Park was Verna's little experimental project with fancy trash, heating and cooling systems to enable the entire roof to be used as a recreation area. These extras were apparently very expensive. They could turn out to be groundbreaking or a total bust that someone buying a resale won't give you credit for - like most upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fancy trash process, and such, may not have a direct impact on resale prices, but may (if they really do turn out to improve liveability and coolness) have an indirect impact on people willing to buy. I think that often happens with upgrades. You may not get an exact return, but without them, people may not even be in the market for your unit. Upgrades just end up being non-negatives, which in turn helps you find your buyer.

I live in a townhouse uptown, and my unit has hardwoods and floodlighting for the kitchen. Other units have carpet and fluorescent kitchen lighting. I may not be able to get the 4587.53 more (just a random number) than they could for my unit because of those upgrades, but they might have a lot more trouble selling because it people willing to pay 200k+ won't even bother with places that look like apartments inside.

I must say, though, it is beyond me, sometimes, how people get what they get for their places, and others stay on the market for ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fancy trash process, and such, may not have a direct impact on resale prices, but may (if they really do turn out to improve liveability and coolness) have an indirect impact on people willing to buy.  I think that often happens with upgrades.  You may not get an exact return, but without them, people may not even be in the market for your unit.  Upgrades just end up being non-negatives, which in turn helps you find your buyer.

I live in a townhouse uptown, and my unit has hardwoods and floodlighting for the kitchen.  Other units have carpet and fluorescent kitchen lighting.  I may not be able to get the 4587.53 more (just a random number) than they could for my unit because of those upgrades, but they might have a lot more trouble selling because it people willing to pay 200k+ won't even bother with places that look like apartments inside. 

I must say, though, it is beyond me, sometimes, how people get what they get for their places, and others stay on the market for ages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you said, everyone wants those options, they just don't want to pay for them.

Essentially, then, you've paid for a bunch of upgrades on new construction that you won't get your money back on. This may go unnoticed with prices rising as they have. But, I sold my new construction home a year ago and prices hadn't gone up due to other new construction as competition. I did sell it in a relatively short period of time (3 months) helped by the upgrades but I basically had to unload it at what all the others were selling at raw price per square foot without the upgrades priced in and lost a substantial amount of money. Ergo, when the price per square foot is about the same, a person would logically buy the one with the nicer amenities, but they won't pay for those amenities.

In the Park, they are charging you upfront an extremely high amount for those amenities and if I were a buyer I'd be really, really edgy that I would pressured downwards in the direction of the price per square foot of the prevailing market. Price per square foot in similar locations is, in my experience, the overwhelming factor and the Park appears to be on the very high end.

You don't want to be 50% higher than the market average, even with the vaunted luxury label. A mere 10% drop in value on a $300K house is $30,000. Interest rates move up and kill the boom, and you get in a situation where you have to sell, you might be in a very unpleasant circumstance.

I think I've beat this horse to a pulp, so I'll end it here. Just wanted others to learn from my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are all really good points, elric.

It seems like upgrades work a lot like the car in the driveway. The more you pay, the fancier the life you live, but you'll never get back what you paid for it.

Beige carpeting, fluorescent lighting, laminate counters are like a chevy or dodge - they get the job done, but don't impress many people. Granite counters, fancy lights, wood floors, crown moulding, etc., are like a benz or lexus- They are minimum standards for upper-mid classes, and still impress a lot of folks.

You don't buy the upgrades or fancy car for their resale value, but rather to support the lifestyle you expect, to impress your friends or your parents (:)). No matter what, though, you'll always get screwed on trade-in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

does anyone have an opinion on how much prices should go up per floor for the same floorplan in a building like Trademark? i have a spot reserved on the 8th floor (second lowest residential but the lowest for my floorplan). the prices go up 5K per floor. in other words, the top floor in my same layout is 95K (19 floors) more than I would pay. by the way - I think sales have gone well as prices are 10-15K higher for all units than original. this is a great building but i am wondering how Novare's offer will compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think $5K seems a bit pricey, but it is the market right now. Looking at it purely from an investment point of view, I would take a lower floor that was less expensive, as your downside is likely much less than one of the higher, premium priced floors.

monsoon, I understand your point about competing against new contruction, but 5 years seems like a long holding period to get appreciation. With each new condo project announced, it appears selling price per foot are higher - if that trend continues, doesn't that bode well for existing condo owners?

For example, a friend of mine bought a condo at Jefferson Square on North Church (5 stories high?), owned it for a year before recently moving to Chicago for a new job. Taking advantage of the higher price/sq.ft. on other condos, He sold it for a tidy $20K profit. The building was nice, but nothing necessarily cool, different, or anything else to set it apart from other buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think $5K seems a bit pricey, but it is the market right now.  Looking at it purely from an investment point of view, I would take a lower floor that was less expensive, as your downside is likely much less than one of the higher, premium priced floors.

monsoon, I understand your point about competing against new contruction, but 5 years seems like a long holding period to get appreciation.  With each new condo project announced, it appears selling price per foot are higher - if that trend continues, doesn't that bode well for existing condo owners?

For example, a friend of mine bought a condo at Jefferson Square on North Church (5 stories high?), owned it for a year before recently moving to Chicago for a new job.  Taking advantage of the higher price/sq.ft. on other condos, He sold it for a tidy $20K profit.  The building was nice, but nothing necessarily cool, different, or anything else to set it apart from other buildings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My understanding is that most Boulevard Centro condos have done quite well. All of the townhouse Boulevard Centro condos in First Ward have done extraordinarily well - around 16% increase per year in the past four years, regardless of whether they were new construction or not. Those selling for $170,000 in 2001 are now selling quite briskly at the mid $200K range. There are even nicer ones (like the Cityview Townes) selling at mid $300K range, an easy $100,000 markup from their original cost less than 3 years ago.

That being said, one can't expect such increases forever. Whether or not there will be a levelling off at the end of the boom, or a downward slide, it is hard to tell. But, one thing I have noticed, is that Furman and Boulevard Centro seem to keep their prices at the bottom of whatever the range is at the time those units go on the market. I bought mine on the 5th floor of Courtside for a little over $200 per square foot which is now LESS than what loft condos in Tivoli way out in the corner of First Ward are selling for. Compare also to the Trademark which is like $260 per square foot.

Of course there's always the Park at $300 per square foot, but of course it is a "luxury" building. On the other hand, you can see my opinion of the "luxury" moniker earlier in this or some other thread.

Notably, the Boulevard Company's condos are well known for losing value after their initial sale. But, you'll see that their prices are on the high end of the range. For example, the ones down in Gateway took a hit because people paid over $200 per square foot for many of them. This was pretty high until recent increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that most Boulevard Centro condos have done quite well.  All of the townhouse Boulevard Centro condos in First Ward have done extraordinarily well - around 16% increase per year in the past four years, regardless of whether they were new construction or not.  Those selling for $170,000 in 2001 are now selling quite briskly at the mid $200K range.  There are even nicer ones (like the Cityview Townes) selling at mid $300K range, an easy $100,000 markup from their original cost less than 3 years ago.

That being said, one can't expect such increases forever.  Whether or not there will be a levelling off at the end of the boom, or a downward slide, it is hard to tell.  But, one thing I have noticed, is that Furman and Boulevard Centro seem to keep their prices at the bottom of whatever the range is at the time those units go on the market.  I bought mine on the 5th floor of Courtside for a little over $200 per square foot which is now LESS than what loft condos in Tivoli way out in the corner of First Ward are selling for.  Compare also to the Trademark which is like $260 per square foot.

Of course there's always the Park at $300 per square foot, but of course it is a "luxury" building.  On the other hand, you can see my opinion of the "luxury" moniker earlier in this or some other thread.

Notably, the Boulevard Company's condos are well known for losing value after their initial sale.  But, you'll see that their prices are on the high end of the range.  For example, the ones down in Gateway took a hit because people paid over $200 per square foot for many of them.  This was pretty high until recent increases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Duplex just across the street from me in First Ward just sold last week for $500K. They bought it new in 2002 for $250K. I know of another unit on 10th St that was bought for $200K in 2003 and sold earlier this year for $300K....the markert is on fire right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Duplex just across the street from me in First Ward just sold last week for $500K. They bought it new in 2002 for $250K. I know of another unit on 10th St that was bought for $200K in 2003 and sold earlier this year for $300K....the markert is on fire right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gawd, that's a nice place and all, but it is still a duplex. The single family home on 10th with 200 more square feet sold for $400K over the summer. I'm not sure how they justified paying that much for the duplex. The only thing I can think of is that it is further away from the noise of 277 and has the nice terrace on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.