What do you think? Will the residential sale market stablize, drop more, or inch up in 2010?

Rhino: re coops/condos. The difference between real property much of which is jointly owned and managed and shares in a corporation that owns real property is not large. Both are property. Both are joint. Both have governance issues.

Rhino: It is easier to speculate on condos, to the extent that coops have rules against it and condos don't. That'll make condos go up and down more in bubbles and busts. But only to some degree, since the rules aren't that different.

Rhino: In easy markets, condos require less of a downpayment. In tight credit markets, coops usually do, at least off of Park Avenue.

Finance guy wrote:

"Conversely, rental markets tend to have a market for lemons problem because it is hard to write a lease that (1) smooths out market fluctuations to protect tenants, (2) allows landlords to pass costs through long term without allowing them to profiteer from their local monopoly and tenant immobility, and (3) makes it easy to foreclose on tenants who don't pay while guaranteeing tenure on good behavior for those who do. A properly designed rent stabilization regime solves these problems and would make coops and rentals closely competitive. Unfortunately, vacancy decontrol and income caps destroy the utility of the rent stabilization regime for NYC luxury rentals. Coops solve these problems by having the tenants own the landlord."

I've enjoyed your posts but this paragraph is unclear at best, and contains an apparent bizarre endorsement of rent stabilization regulation. And doesn't annual freemarket resets of rents address some of your issues.

Financeguy are you in NYC? if you think condos and coops are the same...then explain why one of the two trades consistently at a large premium. For a guy who keeps wanting to value these things on a strict rental equivalent...the striking difference in rental permissions (limited scope vs. near complete freedom) should set a light in your head.

"The difference between real property much of which is jointly owned and managed and shares in a corporation that owns real property is not large"

No.

jimstreeteasy: What's bizarre about endorsing rent stabilization? There is no city with a successful rental market without it. Without it, you get the usual non-NYC US result: no rental market for people with choices.

Annual freemarket resets don't solve the problem because it is expensive and painful for tenants to move and landlords can exploit that vulnerability -- that's why this board is full of people claiming that renting is only for the young and unencumbered.

In the commercial market, where tenants generally have better legal advice, the annual freemarket reset of rent doesn't exist.

Rhino, During the bubble, routine condos were better speculative vehicles, so they sold for more.

Where and when speculation is less an issue, coops sell for more (assuming you include a pro-rata share of the underlying mortgage in the cost of the unit) -- on Park Ave because of the country-club/gated community factor of controlling the neighbors, and in the boros also because of the lower down payment requirement.

"So saying that the underlying mortgage reduces value makes very little sense. "

Given that most all of them do, then it makes very much sense.

The exclusive coops that sell at a per sqft premium to "like" condos are the exception in Manhattan. If you simply look at the numbers, there is no debate that condos trade at a premium and always have, even if you make adjustments for condition where you have neighborhoods where condos are better overall spaces.

In the boros you can put less down on a coop than you would need to on a coop? I dont think thats true. And if it is, I am talking about Manhattan anyway.

Rhino: Fundamentally, condos are more linked to the rental market than are coops, since it is painless to move a condo unit from one market to the other.

But in a bubble, the fact that it is easier to speculate on condos becomes more important than the fundamental linkage. So condos will be more variable in price than coops.

But the three -- condos, coops and rentals -- are all basically substitutes for most developers and investors, so their value cannot stay very different for long.

Finance guy wrote : "Similarly, there is no rule that Coops must have detailed restrictions -- they could adopt condo-like rules. In each case, the coop has an option, not a requirement." ...and then he goes on to discuss economic incentives.

I have the impression that some coop board rule setters are not motivated by maximizing building value, are long term residents, and are primarily concerned about settings rules for the building that make it a nice place for them to live according to their preferences. For example, even if relaxed subletting rules would increase building value, they would never go for it. Also, the coop boards can become venues for sicko personalities to exercise control, so they derive utility from making others miserable. ..This is jut my impression from anecdotes...

what is so bizarre about finance guy endorsing rent stabilization? It is bizarre because it follows many paragraphs of somewhat theoretical free-market analysis of the nyc housing market. Suffice it to say that rent stabilization is a price control mechanism, and that many economists believe that it long terms leads to less product (housing) at less affordable prices (rents). Rent control could become a whole thread, so I will drop it as a topic.

Rhino: lenders (used to) require 20% down on purchase of coop and condo.

But if the coop has an underlying mortgage, this is an illusion. Developer wants 1m for apt. Condo: sells for 1m, buyer must put down 200k. Coop: Developer takes out 500k as underlying mortgage, sells unit for 500k -- buyer need only put down 100k.

In the 80's boom, much new development was coop for this reason. In this bubble, banks didn't care about downpayments anyway and European speculators didn't understand coops, so condos got the advantage.

But there is nothing fundamental here. It's all a function of relatively short term market irrationalities. Medium run, renting, secured financing (coop) and mortgages are all variants on a theme: you get to live in an apt so long as you make the monthly payments.

I say we all meet again in a couple of years and see who was less wrong.

Jimstreeteasy: markets only work within legal frameworks; there's no such thing as a "free" market independent of legal regulation. Rent stabilization (along roughly modern NYC lines) isn't a price control mechanism and has no effect on supply. New supply comes in at market rates. It is a local anti-monopoly (anti-trust) regulation to correct an obvious market failure.

Well, obviously it controls the price of a particular contract. Stating that "there is no such thing as a free market" is obviously true, but that proposition also obviously does not justify any particular regulation, so it adds nothing to a discussion about a particular regulation. My point was that it was ironic that you are fairly doctinaire about markets in most of your posts, but less so on rent stabilizatiion. I am skeptical about rent stabilization but I think it would have to be a whole other thread, but to act as if it is universal accepted truth that it is a good thing is simply inaccurate.

spinny... it'll take jsut 6 months... bonus in 3-10', sales thru 7-10'.... and if mkt can't bounce with all of this liquidity... it's KO time for NYC RE imho....not so humble

Condos will continue to be overvalued re: coops because there is a larger pool of buyers. Foreign buyers -- both the buyers who want pied a terres and those who are investing and renting out apts cannot gain purchase in coops. This is a significant % of the market and will probably continue to be so for a few years. Plus there are many requirements in coops for large down payments that have nothing to do with bank requirements. And, finally there are people like me who were so burned by the coop experience that have NEVER AGAIN tattooed on their left lobe.

yes, jim, this was my experience to a T: Also, the coop boards can become venues for sicko personalities to exercise control, so they derive utility from making others miserable. ..

sales thru 7-10'.... and if mkt can't bounce with all of this liquidity... it's KO time for NYC RE imho.

don't forget that the "lesser job loss" reaction won't hold up either. In addition to recovering all the lost jobs, the economy has to create thousands of jobs each month to absorb new job seekers coming into the market. there are credible calls for 11% unemployment by next summer.

Jim -- as you say, the merits of particular regulations is a difficult issue, and you are right that we should leave the particulars of particular rent stabilization regimes for another forum.

My only point was that luxury decontrol means that we have no rent stabilized rentals competing with 2 br coops/condos. That lack of competition clearly was a contributing factor to why we ended up in bubble trouble.

As for doctrinaire, it is easy to be doctrinaire about basic stuff. 1+1 almost always equals 2, trees rarely grow to the sky, and well known and obvious opportunities for excess profit in moderately competitive capitalist markets rarely remain unexploited forever.

I try to be more cautious about complicated stuff, like what the prognosis is for this recession, or what the triggering event might be for a break in a market where momentum is downward and prices are well above fundamentals, or whether rents will go up or down faster than (general) inflation in the short run. Predicting those kind of things requires details and chaotic models, not arithmetic.

Condos have unfettered rights and no share of mortgage to carry. They have always been worth more in manhattan.

Apt23:

If enough people are indifferent, the people who will only live in coops or only in condos won't affect market prices. The indifferent people will just move to the cheaper one until the prices are back in balance. Similarly, if condos are higher priced for comparable product, developers will only make condos, thus pulling relative prices back towards balance.

This kind of arbitrage is difficult and slow. Still, it makes significant, lasting, price differences unlikely even if more people prefer condos to coops. (The optical illusion, in which coops have lower prices because part of the price is financed through the higher maintenance fee/underlying mortgage, is a permanent feature, however. To compare coop prices to condo prices, you need to add back the pro-rata share of any underlying mortgage.)

Short term is another story of course. Europeans fleeing a declining market compounded by a declining dollar could well pull condos down faster than coops for a while. So could disappointed rent-to-flip speculators or developers sitting on excess inventory. Or not.

Rhino:

To compare condo prices to coop, you must add the underlying mortgage to the coop price. Do you have data that is properly corrected and goes back far enough to exclude the effect of the bubble cycle? Have condos even been significant long enough to tell?

In any event, a clientele effect would create a premium for condos when (1) there aren't enough to meet demand for pied-a-terre/speculator/rental units and (2) all new construction is condo. But clientele effects are eventually competed away for the same reason that bubbles are. This is not a stable price difference for people on longer time frames (i.e., people considering buying today).

In the end, prices should tend to reflect costs, and the legal form is pretty much irrelevant to costs barring some oddity of the finance market.

Rhino:
1880s (?) to 1964, coops were definitely worth more than condos in Manhattan. Condos were illegal.

1964 to about 1994 coops appear to have been worth more than condos, since virtually all new construction and conversion was coop, not condo.

So by "always," do you mean "during the bubble"?

I guess I mean since they came into existance in manhattan. I am willing to pay for
flexibility. I'm not alone. It doesn't need
to be everyone to set a higher price.

Did you make your point by telling me they haven't been around as long?

Are you saying from 1989 to 1994 when the market was crying and people were walking away from coops, that condos (with relative safety) were trading below coops? I find that hard to believe. I also find it strange that you want to include 1994-2001 as 'bubble'...or is that just for effect? I think its for effect. Like condo properties have been more expensive than coops since I have been following this first hand. In other words, according to your data, since condos have on to the scene...which is no later than the mid 1980s.

I don't have any data (other than that for 30 years condos were legal and unusual) and it appears you don't either. I don't know how to generate data anyway, given the quality differences between units and the non-public finances of coops.

So we are back to theory. In competitive markets, clientele effects don't change prices, just who buys which, so long as some people are indifferent. Developers are indifferent, so they'll switch if the market does.

In tough times, it seems safer to be in a coop than be dependent on failed speculators to pay maintenance and taxes. It's easier to evict on a lease than foreclose on a condo.

And when credit is loose and the market bubbly, condo prices should go up faster than coops; coops have some (partially effective) limits on speculation.

If the 'burbs or McDonalds are any evidence, most Americans are more willing to pay for predictability than for flexibility.

But usually you don't have to "pay a premium" just because you are willing to. Markets adjust so that prices equal costs even on popular items.

If condos aren't worth more for flexibility why has everything new
since 1990 been condo? Why isn't it clear to you that if you can buy and rent out without restriction that that has value? Why isn't it clear that restrictions detract? It's harder to sell a coop because the buyer needs to meet a second hurdle. With a condo it's just the bank.

"...buy or rent out without restriction ... has value"

For some people and not for others.

"...restrictions detract..."

For some people and not for others.

The others would include me. I wouldn't want to be partners in a building with just anyone who walked in the door, e.g. speculators, non-resident owners, and so on. Fortunately there're enough choices to keep everyone who wants to own happy.

It's cool that you two disagree with me. The market agrees with me and has for 25 years. This is just about as long as condos have become available in manhattan.

Not actually disagreeing. Just a caveat.

More like 40+ years. NYS law was changed in 1964, and the St. Tropez went up in 1965.

dive dive dive sell chop to all

I find that in my target neighborhoods (Tribeca, Soho) and price range (~$1.25mm), I have not been able to find inventory that is half decent over the past year. Where are all the good, affordable loft apartments hiding in this market?

Based on my educated guess, prices in my target area and price range will stay flat in 2010. And I hope more inventory will come on the market. Unlikely that prices will go below 2004-2005 levels in 2010.

But the case for buying an investment property holds little water--I could make more money in a 12-month CD at 1.5 to 2%.

Here's an enigma: if restrictions are what make Coop's worth less than Condo's, why is it that the Coop's with the most restrictions are the most expensive one's?

That's a prestige thing. Tell me this, in your experience have condos always traded at a premium? Do you think I have the wrong reasons?

Nwt still puzzled by your post. This isn't I'm ok you're ok. It's a fact that condos trade at a premium and always have for obvious reasons. The marginal buyer makes the market not the people who like the exclusivity of coops.

The blanket statement "condos are more valuable than co-ops" requires a qualifier like "on average and in bulk" and/or "for some (or even most) buyers". They're not more valuable to me, for one, and for lots of other people. If I'd had a choice between the two, as in two generic UES postwar buildings, when I was buying, I'd have taken the co-op, gotten what I'd wanted, and probably saved money doing it. The fact is, though, that if you want a certain kind of (physical) building, there aren't many condos. I don't know that they're more expensive after you factor in the absence of an underlying mortgage and the probable absence of a reserve fund.

Forgot to mention, co-ownership of property is a business, like any partnership. There's no point if any riff-raff who can scare up a loan gets to throw his oar in.

They cost more. This is a fact. This is getting boring. That there have been only new condos and no new coops for a long while should be a clue. That condos trade 25 percent higher or more tells you that your preference doesn't matter.

Yes, people do like new. New cars, new housing, etc., and will pay more for it. If "more" is the same going in and going out, it doesn't matter. Just that you've lost the use of that premium over the term of your ownership. Makes no sense to me, as I don't want what that premium is paying for, and my preference does matter.

Boring is right. Like all of these generic discussions, we've all said it all over and over again.

NWT --"valuable" here refers, obviously, to what you can sell something for, not what it is worth to you.

Rhino -- I agree with your points in general but is it possible that some part of the premium stems from the fact that condos tend to be newer";

"That's a prestige thing."

Right. Prestige as in "provenance" and "exclusivity". Just like any other exclusive "club". Remind me again how condos can do that?

At the high end coops are more expensive. prestige, and money usually not being an object. reserves preventing all but the excessively qualified from obtaining the home. but there is nothing particularly prestigous about 80%ish of the coops out there. they are inferior product with nonetheless additional barriers to ownership. it is within that category that many people have been willing to pay a premium for a condo for the amenities, newness, and certainly the ease of purchase (particularly the low down payment). my personal experience is fairly narrow, but i know that condos for the less than premium product were trading at more per square foot than coops from the mid-1990s through 2003, prior to the mega-bubble.

Aboutready: Exactly

Jimstreeteasy: I dont think so. People pay for condition not age in my opinion.

30yrs: Condos cant do that. However, see aboutreadys post.

Again, still trying to understand this debate over something that is clear in the numbers. I dont think the fact that Park Ave coops trade like exclusive club memberships negates the fact that all over city comparable condos trade at big premiums to coops. Most people appear to value the flexibility.

"...and certainly the ease of purchase (particularly the low down payment)"

I'm not so sure this statement still holds true, particularly in devs that don't meet underwriting guidelines. In many you'll be paying premium lending rates, assuming of course you can even get a mortgage.

With the well publicized problems many developments are having, coupled with the looming threat of shadow inventory diluting the stock and threatening prices, the move toward coops is understandable.

I wonder how will that shiny new tiki bar, engineered wood flooring and mirrored lobby will look through the life of your mortgage? What will be the ongoing cost of maintaining these high cost amenities that nobody uses past their first 3 months of ownership? What will happen to price premiums when tax abatements begin to run out?

Sure if a condo is distressed thats a different story. Put it this way. Look at a decent 1980s vintage condo like like Princeton House on Broadway and 96th or the Fitzgerald down in the 70s and Amsterdam. They trade at a 25% premium to like coops spaces. Its easier to find a buyer when you sell. You have the option to rent. You do not carry the interest cost of your share of an underlying mortgage. And you are less open to changes made by a coop board that you dont agree with. Some of you may value the exclusivity of a coop. However, you must be the minority because the facts of where the market traded here are pretty clear.

Does it help the conversation to use the phrase 'midtown condo with tiki bar' in place of condo...or does it just help support your fantasy that coops have already 'paid their dues'? Who is even limiting this discussion to new developments? Who is limiting it to midtown?

The one thing of value you have pointed out is that all things being equal, the price of these condos are going to be hampered by the run-out of the abatements.

Rhino are you the new SE hall monitor for hyperbole now?

"but there is nothing particularly prestigous about 80%ish of the coops out there. they are inferior product with nonetheless additional barriers to ownership...my personal experience is fairly narrow, but i know that condos for the less than premium product were trading at more per square foot than coops from the mid-1990s through 2003, prior to the mega-bubble"

Agree completely. In fact, I live in one of the 80%. We bought it because we wanted space for a price rather than newness, amenities or the real option value of being able to rent it out. We couldn't get our heads around paying maybe 30% more psf (rough estimate based on what we looked at) for slightly nicer condo space that in the end was going to look worn anyway after a few years of little kids knocking around. Board package was a hassle, but in the end it really just took a weekend to bang it out and we never felt that approval was in doubt. Selling will probably be a bigger hassle but I think still tolerable vs. the alternative of having paid 30% more upfront.

Right but key is you saved money by accepting hassle and restrictions.

sidelinesitter - once you get beyond the premiums for living in a condo you then face the worry of exactly what you describe -inferior construction and durability of materials and a design that will become dated. Once the shine wears off will your premium hold up? I came to the same conclusion.

Rhino - just looked at the Princeton House you mentioned. Avg price per square foot for active sales is 947, which is lower than in the coop I just left at 215 W92nd. Wonder what happened to the condo premium there.

Of course. Everyone has their own utility function. We saw the fact that the market perceives a non-exclusive coop as an inferior product as an opportunity to buy the space we wanted cheaper in return for not having some things that we didn't really value anyway. What I take from these boards is that many others would choose differently, which they are free to do.

I jumped a post - the "of course" was to Rhino two above.

spin - I won't claim credit for having thought the condo quality/durability question through as you suggest. My comment was more a cosmetic one. Other aspects of the price differential - freedom to rent, no board hassle coming or going, on the other side of the ledger the fear of "renters" (ooh, scary!) that people use to bash condos from time to time - don't fade with age. How the net of all this is manifested in price just depends on people's preferences.

I need to check out. The data is clear. Condos adjusted for all the differences in finish and quality have and always have been 20-30%+ more expensive than coops in Manhattan. Clearly the summations of market preferences gives us the correct answer here.

Clearly.

Steph is busy but she asked me to tell everyone that if this thread reaches 500 posts that she and Corcoran will be hosting an open bar cocktail gathering for SE posters at a "prestige location" .

this thread is rich... like a hollandaise...

oooh, luscious, hollandaise.

forgive me if this has been covered, don't have time to read the entire thread. BUT... it seems to me as though everyone here is assuming that all condos are your UES '80s construction, or new development. there ARE pre-war condos, although not a ton of them uptown. downtown a not insignificant percentage of the better-quality units are condos, including some decent recent conversions (not talking new fi-di conversions).

spin, i was talking historically, as i think my post implied. new construction today is its own world, and obviously financing has changed things dramatically.

apologies AR, wasn't sure what part fit with what time period.

Today it is pure smoke and mirrors marketing tactics that bring us timeless amenities like the rooftop tiki bar/ lap pool / screening room / yoga den, and finishes like imported, sustainable plantation grown prefinished Brazilian cherry hardwood flooring set against the tragic hipness of chemically infused zebra wood patterns in laminate shells of formaldehyde laden particleboard cabinets. All this geared towards helping youngsters justify the premiums they were asked to pay but no longer can.

The market is much more active that many people think. When I do searches for buyers in our internal listing system, streeteasy or on brokerage websitea, a significant number of properties have accepted offers and signed contracts, but the brokers are no longer updating until the property is closed. This is happening across all price ranges 1mil-10mil.
Re the condo market we have very active european buyers in the 1.5-5mil range who are very enthuastic about buying in New York.
Re developments. This only applies to the most desirable buildings, but If a quality development is almost fully sold and a buyer walks from their contract, there are new buyers waiting to step in. I have found this at the Rushmore (which gets terrible press) and the superior ink(buyers hoping that aome units will not close)

how many units are closed at the rushmore? what percent of the total does that represent?

"but If a quality development is almost fully sold and a buyer walks from their contract, there are new buyers waiting to step in. I have found this at the Rushmore" Non-sequitur alert. The Rushmore and a development that is almost fully sold are different things.

query to the other brokers who post here. is it really true that real estate brokers would prefer to have the market appear slower than it actually is and thus be delaying their updating of property status?

i call bullshit.

Sas, great brokerbabble! Thanks for the update!

Rhino, I see where you spent your weekend....on this thread. Congrats!

Spin...Thanks for the tiki bar paragraph. When I look at all this ludicrous crap in buildings I sneer a little, I sort of try not to start laughing, I think that the attractive chick show this stuff and enthusing so much is pretty and dumb, I think "how much will it cost to keep up this bullshit", I think "can someone with a brain get on the condo board and unplug some of this crap in the future", but mostly I just think how stupid and superficial a hell of a lot of people must be. To me it is pitiful if you're a say 30 something professional and you think it is worth paying a premium to live in a place where the COMMON AREAS (as in places that have to inhabited with people who are not your family or friends) have some designer this or this, or some assinine fireplace amenity. Geez. If you live in your apartment why in the hell you would go hang out in the lobby of your building with wifi is beyond me -- people do that in hotels because they are meeting colleaugues and THEY DONT LIVE THERE. To me one of the key signs of the idiotic bubble is just all this crap. I remember on the Caledonia thread some guy talking about all the cool amenities -- and also the super professional doormen (yeah, right, that is so hard to find), as a reason to justify 1300+ psf.

Rant over.

Steph said that if this gets over 400 posts we need to start planning the celebration party that Corcoran is putting on. Just a heads up.

One thing you guys are overlooking: part of the historical premium on condos is rarity. It always used to be that only about 5% to maybe 10% of properties on the market were condos. But in the last 20 years, that has changed in a major way, so looking at the historical sales data of a market where the mix has significantly changed could easily be wrong/misleading. Looking on StreatEasy today, it looks as if HALF the units on the market are Condos. In ANY market for anything, what effects do you think there are of increasing the percentage of the market of and segment by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE????????

And another thing ***IF*** "the worst" happens and the economy and RE Market in Manhattan collapses, there is a very good chance that Condos will be much more affected than Coops in terms of financial stability/viability due to the priority of liens.

Also, the 80% of Coops is a bit misleading as well, since MANY of those buildings/units NEVER would be condos. You have to take all the grade C and below out of the mix entirely, and even a certain amount of the grade B- buildings. I disagree with the "adjusted for all the differences in finish and quality have and always have been 20-30%+ more expensive than coops in Manhattan" because you really can't make those adjustments in a lot of Coops because there just plain aren't Condos which are similar enough, or if there are, they are SO rare that the scarceness overrides the "condition", and the difference is noise". Seriously, how do you adjust for a 4th floor walk-up 650 SF 2 BR in Murray Hill to make it comparable to some Condo?

____________________

David Goldsmith
DG Neary Realty

Great point. In a few years, as the rarity factor continues to go away, and there're more prewar condo conversions with some history, we'll be able to see the extent of the premium and how it holds up.

When we were looking in the Village and the UWS in 1991, the question of condo vs. co-op never came up. Had there been a condo that met our criteria, we'd have seen it, but I guess nothing was on the market that summer. As it was there were just a few prewar condos in either neighborhood. 530 WEA, and I don't remember what was in the Village then.

aboutready sayid "...new construction today is its own world, and obviously financing has changed things dramatically."

Actually, that's a really good point. it is too easy to lump all condos together, and the new condos really are a category of their own. i'm still flummoxed by how ballsy developers got with floor plans in some of the highest-density (lots of studios, one-BRs) new buildings. Sure, the prices per sq foot are competitive, but the room sizes have gotten so small.

It's getting to the point where you can almost pinpoint the era something was built in within a couple of years, just by looking at the LR width. Seem to be a lot of 10 foot wide rooms built absolutely unapologetically, vs. 11 foot earlier in the decade, etc.

I wonder how resale value is going to pan out, once the advantage of being squeaky-new wears off, and, say, your 5-year old units with small floorplans compete against your, say, 12 year old unit with more generous sizes.

Is it that the smallish ones are just inherently a bet on an ever-increasing pied a terre market? I have a hard time grasping how big that market could ultimately get. (Baby boomers retiring, I guess.)

Many of bubble era condos were designed for the "investor" market. These aren't apartments to live in but apartments to buy and sell. Which, presumably, is one reason why they had a higher value in a bubble market where apartments were valued on bubble resale value, not use or replacement value.

anotherguy, if i were a baby boomer retiring i doubt i'd choose a condo where the tax and common charges alone are likely to be (or become as the abatement expires) close to the cost of renting.

financeguy - totally agree with that assessment. When my wife and I looked around (2 years ago now), we were very disappointed with what we saw in the new construction. The most egregious of these was the vriridian kitchen, if I remember right. The range and oven was an island between the kitchen and living room. Imagine frying some food and having grease splatter the back of the heads of people sitting on the couch! Worse was the incomplete area in the ceiling over the range where we thought a hood would go. The woman showing us around corrected us that that was not going to be a hood, but instead speakers for an i-device!

These didn't seem designed to be functional to me, but instead some kind of "showcase". I guess they were figuring everyone would be spending their time in the common areas (pool, community kid play room, etc)...

oh, get your hor deovres suggestions in order (menus were not covered in spelling class at my elementary school)

steph,,,steph....I thought about how you ran away tonight whenＩ　ｗａｔｃｈｅｄ：

Come Back, Little Sheba

No more fatty comments. I promise on my unicorn.