Seattle Bubble

News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Seattle Bubble - News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Entries Tagged as 'young_professionals'

Developers! Developers! Developers!

By synthetik on April 24th, 2007 at 11:25 AM · 3 Comments

Reporter Aubrey Cohen and the Seattle PI are at it again, this time pimping new development in Columbia City.

A Seattle developer has proposed a mixed-use project in Columbia City aimed at providing homes typical workers can afford to buy, while another developer also has condo plans in the up-and-coming South Seattle neighborhood.

The 63-condo development, called Columbia City Place, would be built on a vacant former auto lot at 5201 Rainier Ave. S., and units would cost between $200,000 and $400,000 — plus whatever inflation tacks on in the two years before the project is completed, said Scott Shapiro, managing director of Eagle Rock Ventures LLC.

Shapiro said he and partner Murray Kahn are keeping prices down by using more basic finishes and wood construction for the upper floors, rather than concrete and steel, by installing above-ground parking and by building in Columbia City, where land is cheaper.

“It’s a huge risk because no one’s done condos of this scale in Columbia City,” Shapiro said. “I could be in the right place at the right time or I could be three years early.”

Or maybe three years too late?

“We’ve already explored heading north,” he said. “We can’t go east and we can’t go west. Continued development going down the Rainier Valley is going to be a foregone conclusion.”

While other developers are thinking about building in the area, Shapiro’s project is “pioneering,” Gardner said. “I think he’s on the leading edge, definitely.”

More like bleeding edge!

Columbia City is “a little neighborhood with a soul,” said Denny Onslow, Harbor’s chief development officer.

Projects such as these would have been “unthinkable” a decade ago, said Darryl Smith, who bought his Columbia City home in 1994 and became a Windermere Real Estate agent there the following year.

Smith said the projects would create new housing opportunities for people who cannot afford a house or those who might want a smaller home within walking distance of shopping and services. He also praised Harbor officials for saying they want to work with community members on their project and respect Columbia City’s character.

Does anyone else call BS on this? If you need to sell something, simply cite affordability or the environment (or both!) and it’s in the bag! Evidently Columbia City is the new Ballard.

Check out some of the comments on PI’s blog:

“Face Reality” said “What this really means is that land and housing in Ballard, Fremont, Cap Hill, etc has become so expensive that even most developers can’t afford to build because housing there is now beyond the reach of even the most affluent. …Say goodbye to affordable housing in Rainier, hello to gentrification. As has already occurred in the “real” Columbia City.”

“heebie_jeebies” added “I don’t know why we have to accept these monster townhouse cookie-cutter firetraps…I live on Capitol Hill and have NOTHING good to say about allowing development and density that is absolutely killing our neighborhoods.”

“financeguru” chimed in with “Wont development increase the property values of people that currently own near the new condo development? YES! I currently own a condo at the edge of Downtown and First Hill…and yes there are many areas that have high levels of drug usage and other things. Im getting my MBA at SU and it would be nice to see some of these abandoned buildings in the Capital Hill area cleaned up…”

(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle PI, 04-20-2007)

→ 3 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Vulcan Ridiculous @ 2200

By synthetik on April 14th, 2007 at 5:44 PM · 10 Comments

Ah, the joys condodebtorship.

When Jerry O’Leary, 54 and retired, put down over $100,000 dollars toward a new million-dollar condominium in February 2005, he thought he was buying his way into an innovative downtown lifestyle proposed by Vulcan Inc. Vulcan Real Estate’s $200 million 2200 project on two and a half acres at Westlake Avenue…

However, on March 26, 2007 O’Leary filed suit…after a series of delays and construction disputes left him with a condo that…was “substantially [different] from the scope, nature, and extent of the project as it was described”…O’Leary recounts, “The quality, as promised, sounded great.” Instead, he describes the building to The Stranger as “basically a Motel 6.“

Oh, snap!

…some of the problems include irreparably damaged door and window frames; a poured concrete deck that sloped toward his apartment, causing leaks in the unit below; mounting construction delays; and unmet expectations. …O’Leary is not the only person to encounter problems with 2200.

…tenants have dealt with minor annoyances such as low water pressure and leaky shower doors and pipes, as well as major design flaws like incorrectly positioned halogen lights that threatened to ignite kitchen cabinets. The problems were compounded, they say, by promises of room service from in-house restaurant Marazul, a rooftop “garden”—which according to a third resident is nothing more than “a big cement area with a couple of trees stuck in it,”

As of press time, several real-estate websites list 38 condos being resold in the building, and Craigslist reveals at least a dozen units available for rent or sale. … according to John L. Scott Real Estate agent Ben Kakimoto, the number of units being flipped by investors “seem[s] like a lot” when compared to other condo projects of similar scope. Some of these units have sat unsold for months, with several of the pricier units remaining on the market even after $100,000-plus price reductions.

While Vulcan would not release information on its vacancy rate, anecdotal evidence hints that 2200 currently isn’t the bustling urban utopia it was supposed to be. Resident Chris Tanaka notes that he “never see[s] that many people” in the buildings, and Dierst remarks that “the building is not full.”

Matt Goyer, the operator of Seattle condo blog Urbnlivn and a program manager at real-estate website Redfin…believes the problem is oversaturation. “It feels like they’re overbuilding in the higher-end market…. Goyer faults vacancies at 2200 to “people trying to make a fast buck. A lot of [these] people [have] unreasonable expectations.”

Huh? What’s so unrealistic about purchasing overpriced downtown condos during the peak of the greatest real estate asset bubble in history and expecting to flip them for an easy buck?

…units [at 2200] for sale have seen price reductions ranging from $1,000 to $175,000. And one seller is even throwing in a 42-inch flat-screen TV to sweeten the deal.

Is that 1080i or 1080p?

Addressing the O’Leary lawsuit, Jeffries states, “I don’t know why Mr. O’Leary feels like that’s something he needed to go to the media about.” She would not respond to anonymous complaints about the development (nor did she return several calls after a few residents put their names by the complaints). “We’re doing everything we can to take care of our homeowners. The vast majority of people at 2200 are really happy,” she originally told us. We asked Vulcan to put us in touch with some of those tenants, they did not respond to the request.

On a recent Saturday night, as 2200’s three concrete and glass towers loomed in the night—the downtown skyline to the southwest…many of the windows were dark, save for the glow of several flat-screen TVs large enough to be viewed from the street.

During 2005 in downtown San Diego, I noticed much the same. At the time I just assumed that everyone was simply still working at 10pm each night, desperately trying to make their $4500 mortgage payments.

When I am ready to purchase my next house after the crash, it certainly won’t be a condo. I probably won’t buy anything made after 2000 as they’ve likely been built of balsa wood and bailing wire.

While it’s difficult to tell if Seattle will be hurt as badly as other bubbly areas such as San Diego (and this is only the beginning), it certainly won’t be pretty. Be patient – a sixteen year speculative bull market in housing doesn’t land quickly – and certainly not “softly”.

As they like to say on HB, “got popcorn?”

(Jonah Spangethal-Lee,The Stranger, 04.12.2007)

→ 10 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Condomania in Tacoma!

By synthetik on March 26th, 2007 at 8:10 PM · 41 Comments

Tacoma: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to sell 1,500 high-end condos in 14 months:

Hundreds of new, pricey condominiums exclude young singles needed for a thriving city core, according to the author of a study analyzing the downtown housing market.

Builders and developers say land costs and water views push prices beyond the mid-$200,000 range generally considered doable for the first-time buyer. And even though the number of unsold units remains high in some neighborhoods, they say demand is strong for high-end condos. Tacoma’s average new condominium price, according to the study, was $348,893 at the end of last year.

The 149-page report, finished last week, identified three kinds of future condo buyers: female baby boomers, young professionals, and married folks with no children at home. It recommended adding edgy lofts and more small spaces that Generation Y buyers can afford.
…
As of December, all six neighborhoods surveyed averaged 14 months of condominium inventory, which measures how long it would take to sell everything built and approved.

A healthy market for new construction tends to be in the six- to 12-month range, said Deanna Sihon, the study’s author.
…
Since 2004, nearly 400 condos have been sold downtown with another 525 for sale and about 1,500 proposed, according to the study.
…
A year ago, a hot market meant condo shoppers had to make rapid buying decisions, said RE/MAX real estate agent George Pilant.

Not so now.

“Buyers have so many choices they don’t feel a sense of urgency,” he said.
…
As in any type of residential real estate, demand is driven by population and job growth, said Paul Turek, an economist with the state Employment Security Department.

But condos are a niche product that at higher inventory levels, he said, raise this question: Will good-paying jobs needed to sell such downtown housing continue to be created?

“I suppose that’s where the gamble is,” he said. “In the Tacoma area, we have some high-paying jobs. Whether there’s enough to support the building of the condos remains to be seen.”

Good luck with that. Seriously.

(Devona Wells, Tacoma News-Tribune, 03.25.2007)

→ 41 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Condomania in Everett!

By synthetik on March 26th, 2007 at 7:53 PM · 6 Comments

Better be careful the next time you drive through Everett, you’re likely to get burned, the condo market there is so hot!

On paper at least, downtown Everett is poised for explosive growth.

Nearly 800 new downtown condos and apartments are in various stages of planning.

There’s a good chance some of the projects scattered across a dozen development sites will not get off the ground, officials acknowledge.

Still, long-term growth, a property tax subsidy and a strong local economy, buoyed by jet sales at the Boeing Co.’s Everett factory, work in the city’s favor.

…

The condo market in the Puget Sound area remains hot, in spite of a wave of foreclosures and slumping housing sales creating jitters and sliding prices elsewhere.

Developers in Everett talk about “pent-up demand” and say they aren’t deeply concerned their projects will create a glut of vacant condos for sale, as is the case in Las Vegas and parts of Florida.

“I think the local market is way stronger than people realize,” said Joe Zlab, who plans to break ground on Rockefeller Square, a 40-unit condo building on Rockefeller Avenue, north of Everett Avenue, this spring.

…

It’s only a matter of time before Everett begins to resemble more affluent Seattle suburbs, including Bellevue or Kirkland, said Anthony Aversano, a Mountlake Terrace remodeling contractor.

“Seattle is overpriced, Bellevue has access problems and is also too expensive,” Aversano said. “It’s not a place where people can go unless you’re working for Microsoft and have been there for a long time.”

Gus Boutsinis, a Mill Creek developer working on a 130-unit condo project on 41st Street and Colby Avenue, agrees.

“We think Everett is ready,” he said. “It’s where Seattle was 15 or 20 years ago.

Yow! Smokin!

(David Chircop, Everett Herald, 03.25.2007)

→ 6 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Who’s Buying Condos in Kirkland?

By The Tim on January 15th, 2007 at 4:21 PM · 3 Comments

We’re used to hearing unsupported claims that “young professionals” and “empty-nesters” are providing the bulk of the demand for condos. Well, finally we have a first-hand account of who’s actually buying condos (in downtown Kirkland, anyway).

Amie Lynn is the community sales manager for Miller Condominium Marketing, which recently opened The Boulevard, a 119-unit condo building at 598 Central Way, and 128onState, a 124-unit building at 128 State St.

She said most of the two-bedroom condominiums — which make up about a third of the stock — sell to empty-nesters who are downsizing into smaller, lower-maintenance places in more urban areas.

“They can afford the higher price points because they had great appreciation in their last house,” Lynn said. “More and more people want to spend their weekends not maintaining a home. They want to enjoy what the city has to offer.”

Retirees, too, have purchased condos downtown as second homes, Lynn said. They winter in California or Arizona and come back to Kirkland in the summer to visit old friends and family.

The remaining studios and one-bedroom condos go to single people ranging in age from their 20s to their 50s, Lynn said, though the majority are in their 30s.

So it sounds like “young professionals” are in the minority in Kirkland. I can’t say I’m surprised that “most” of the condos are selling to people that are actually downgrading their home. When prices spiral upward out of control like they have lately, young people have a hard time buying, and existing homeowners looking to upgrade find that they can’t even afford to trade up.

What’s not springing up downtown are young families — the condominium units that are big enough for couples with children are typically more expensive than they can afford. But Lynn said that’s something that could be changing over the next decade.

Whoops! Looks like the writer let a little bit of truth slip in there. Maybe they figure that they can get away with implying that prices might actually be headed down soon because the King County Journal hasn’t got anything to lose.

(Erica Hall, King County Journal, 01.15.2007)

→ 3 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,