I also think he underestimates the marketing and closing costs at 6%.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 8 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
And the concept that all the units will be sold by the time the building is ready to open is more than totally disproven using the exact building as he chooses for his examples.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by ximon
about 8 years ago
Posts: 1196
Member since: Aug 2012
Super luxury high rise condos do nothing to alleviate the lack of affordable housing. And residential skyscrapers are a new phenomenon and I doubt anyone moves to Manhattan simply to gawk at these monoliths.
Its a mildly interesting analysis that lacks any real numbers to verify and does not account for current market conditions. A better analysis, and better public service, would be to analyze the cost and feasibility of building ownership housing that the middle class that made this city great can afford.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 8 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
He also counts as financing costs only a construction loan for the total project costs for 2 years. But what about the land acquisition loan?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
about 8 years ago
Posts: 10539
Member since: Feb 2007
I think the analysis is only ballpark at best but better than any other public source info I have seen. He is also assuming full amount invested for all 5 years. In reality, the money gets spent over time. Who is to say 5 year is the right time? It could be 3years for a project sold quickly or 10 years for projects not sold.
From Jonathan Miller’s blog
Considering extell just paid over $1,000 per square foot for air rights his use of $750 seems low.
https://therealdeal.com/2017/11/27/extell-triples-height-of-controversial-uws-tower-with-202m-air-rights-deal/
I also think he underestimates the marketing and closing costs at 6%.
And the concept that all the units will be sold by the time the building is ready to open is more than totally disproven using the exact building as he chooses for his examples.
Super luxury high rise condos do nothing to alleviate the lack of affordable housing. And residential skyscrapers are a new phenomenon and I doubt anyone moves to Manhattan simply to gawk at these monoliths.
Its a mildly interesting analysis that lacks any real numbers to verify and does not account for current market conditions. A better analysis, and better public service, would be to analyze the cost and feasibility of building ownership housing that the middle class that made this city great can afford.
He also counts as financing costs only a construction loan for the total project costs for 2 years. But what about the land acquisition loan?
I think the analysis is only ballpark at best but better than any other public source info I have seen. He is also assuming full amount invested for all 5 years. In reality, the money gets spent over time. Who is to say 5 year is the right time? It could be 3years for a project sold quickly or 10 years for projects not sold.