Residential Real Estate in your city

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by SteveD

There's an enormous amount of retail in a 3 to 5 minute walk from there. Absolutely enormous. As in one of the largest retail districts in the southeast.

Originally Posted by SteveD

I sure wouldn't live there...I'll take my EAV any day of the week. I just wasn't surprised to not have that street lined with retail with so MUCH retail immediately adjacent.

lol not in that view. not for blocks as far as you can see. and no people outside, only cars, so. wait, you realize i meant to go outside and get a coffee or some chewing gum or a loaf of bread or something at a corner store and not bloomingdales, right? not "lined with retail." or maybe you don't?? oh well, there is truly a place for everyone to be happy i guess, but also true it would be hell for others.

[edale]

I've not been to Charlotte, and frankly I have little desire to visit, but this area SW of downtown looks pretty Atlanta-ish to me: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Charlo...d35.2270869!4d-80.8431267!16zL20vMGZzYjg

A good amount of density, built right on a rail line, pretty good street interaction...I think that's pretty decent!

Continuing south, there's more TOD around the rail line: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2020706,...PPAjIZQTQznmfLPy1YHTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A block off of here is typical sunbelt sprawl, but it's really encouraging to see the density and urbanization along the rail line at least.

More of the same here, but north/northeast of downtown: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.248125,-...ffg16AsTRPd59I-KnJ-3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Charlotte seems to making great progress with developing urban nodes. I'd say it far exceeds whatever is going on in Austin, which mostly is building an impressive skyline while having an under-built, lackluster built environment outside of downtown. Basically same note for Nashville.

[edale]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Even if it is a 3-5 min walk, no one is walking to there.

Check it out:
https://goo.gl/maps/oQpGRELfbQhCVwiy5
https://goo.gl/maps/EZJxF1KCnq1QtzYu7
https://goo.gl/maps/4uEktxKtq2C8GgLc9
https://goo.gl/maps/UJzRaxaKHuXA3QMi8

This area reminds me a bit of LA. Especially the area right around the Century City Mall: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0598976,...5p_vrnZTn37HrMrHjWzNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192.

People can walk there, but it's pretty unpleasant, and definitely not set up for the pedestrian.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by edale

I've not been to Charlotte, and frankly I have little desire to visit, but this area SW of downtown looks pretty Atlanta-ish to me: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Charlo...d35.2270869!4d-80.8431267!16zL20vMGZzYjg

A good amount of density, built right on a rail line, pretty good street interaction...I think that's pretty decent!

Continuing south, there's more TOD around the rail line: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2020706,...PPAjIZQTQznmfLPy1YHTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A block off of here is typical sunbelt sprawl, but it's really encouraging to see the density and urbanization along the rail line at least.

More of the same here, but north/northeast of downtown: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.248125,-...ffg16AsTRPd59I-KnJ-3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Charlotte seems to making great progress with developing urban nodes. I'd say it far exceeds whatever is going on in Austin, which mostly is building an impressive skyline while having an under-built, lackluster built environment outside of downtown. Basically same note for Nashville.

agreed. charlotte is definitely starting to go beyond uptown in building up some nodes. plaza midwood is another area. i think this is is on par with what atlanta's doing, or close, but i don't see it as being "much better"

[BnaBreaker]

You'll get zero argument from me that Nashville has a pretty long way to go to even get to the point of respectability, much less admirability, in the urbanity department. And yes, it does still, despite many attempts to rectify the situation, sorely lack in the mass transit department. And yes, it is a bit of a hot mess in large swaths of the city (especially those closer to the outskirts) as many once sleepy areas that felt more like a small southern town just a decade ago scramble to keep up with the sudden unprecedented (for Nashville) demand for urban living and completely change their stripes.

However, I do feel the need to push back ever so slightly against the assertions that Nashville isn't comparable to Austin or Charlotte when it comes to walkable urban neighborhoods. In my opinion it has just as many, if not more walkable urban (or at least trending toward urban for a sunbelt city lol) neighborhoods as either of them do, due in no small part to the fact that Nashville was a well established city of note well before either of them were. Obviously Nashville was never some vast metropolis or anything, but the remnants of those old bones are still evident in many ways, which I think results in a feeling, when you're in the historic core anyway, of being in a more established, lived-in city than those other two, which both feel like cities that sprung up out of a pasture almost overnight, in my opinion. Charlotte is 'starting to build urban nodes?' Nashville has had an established Midtown complete with highrises for a hundred years now. I mean just one glance at an aerial map will show you that Nashville's historic urban grid/core is larger than both and even surpasses Atlanta's in terms of geographical size. Please don't misread that as me asserting that Atlanta's urban core isn't denser or doesn't provide a more high quality urban experience than Nashville, because it clearly does, and factor in MARTA, and it's no contest. I'm just saying, the bones are there, the potential is there, and Nashville is finally starting to realize that potential, and I think deserves at least as much respect as it's other two fast growing cousins. Just my two cents.

As a small illustration, below is a current aerial of a fairly significant section of what could be considered the core OF the historic urban core... the area featured in this shot has some 70-ish buildings of 12 stories or more (and no, not just hotels lol) either proposed or under construction as we speak. And I mean I'm just saying...does the city have a long way to go? Hell yes... but I mean, it's not just some sprawly trash heap on one giant strode lined with fast food drive thrus and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 tonks either.



Photo credit to Kalucci

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

You'll get zero argument from me that Nashville has a pretty long way to go to even get to the point of respectability, much less admirability, in the urbanity department. And yes, it does still, despite many attempts to rectify the situation, sorely lack in the mass transit department. And yes, it is a bit of a hot mess in large swaths of the city (especially those closer to the outskirts) as many once sleepy areas that felt more like a small southern town just a decade ago scramble to keep up with the sudden unprecedented (for Nashville) demand for urban living and completely change their stripes.

However, I do feel the need to push back ever so slightly against the assertions that Nashville isn't comparable to Austin or Charlotte when it comes to walkable urban neighborhoods. In my opinion it has just as many, if not more walkable urban (or at least trending toward urban for a sunbelt city lol) neighborhoods as either of them do, due in no small part to the fact that Nashville was a well established city of note well before either of them were. Obviously Nashville was never some vast metropolis or anything, but the remnants of those old bones are still evident in many ways, which I think results in a feeling, when you're in the historic core anyway, of being in a more established, lived-in city than those other two, which both feel like cities that sprung up out of a pasture almost overnight, in my opinion. I mean just one glance at an aerial map will show you that Nashville's historic urban grid/core is larger than both and even surpasses Atlanta's in terms of size. Please don't misread that as me asserting that Atlanta's urban core isn't denser or doesn't provide a more high quality urban experience than Nashville, because it clearly does. I'm just saying, the bones are there, the potential is there, and Nashville is finally starting to realize that potential, and I think deserves at least as much respect as it's other two fast growing cousins. Just my two cents.

As a small illustration, below is a current aerial of a fairly significant section of what could be considered the core of historic urban core... the area featured in this shot has some 70-ish buildings of 12 stories or more (and no, not just hotels lol) either proposed or under construction as we speak. And I mean I'm just saying...does the city have a long way to go? Hell yes... but I mean, it's not just some sprawly trash heap on one giant strode lined with fast food drive thrus and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 tonks either.

Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville inevitably get compared, but they're actually really, really different so far as their central areas. There really isn't a single commonality, as their street layouts and typical major/side street contrasts are very different.

I think you're sharing my point, which is that Nashville's core (the area I outlined in black) has the potential to be much more walkable because many streets and blocks are small, and the gaps (such as the freeway and railroad gulches) aren't particularly wide. In fact, the new hi-rises built alongside the gulch viaducts are effectively narrowing the breaks. It's much more likely that we'll see caps built over the railroad and freeway gulches in Nashville than in Atlanta, since the interstates are still in their original, narrow form from the 1960s.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville inevitably get compared, but they're actually really, really different so far as their central areas. There really isn't a single commonality, as their layouts and typical major/side street contrasts are very different contrasts.

I think you're sharing my point, which is that Nashville's core (the area I outlined in black) has the potential to be much more walkable because many streets and blocks are small, and the gaps (such as the freeway and railroad gulches) aren't particularly wide. In fact, the new hi-rises built alongside the gulch viaducts are effectively narrowing the breaks. It's much more likely that we'll see caps built over the railroad and freeway gulches in Nashville than in Atlanta, since the interstates are still in their original, narrow form from the 1960s.

Yep, I think I'd agree with that analysis... as for the caps, I think the interstate cap, at least for four or five blocks there will probably happen eventually... the railroad cap I'm not so sure about just because I know that CSX is notoriously difficult to convince to get on board with any alterations or (what it views as) obstructions of tracks they own. I think that is one of the primary obstacles od the pedestrian bridge over the railroad yard that has been on the table for years now. Fingers crossed though... as much as I like the sort of gritty aesthetic the railyard gives to the core, in terms of connectivity it is wide enough in certain areas that it almost acts like a second river... so a cap of some sort would be ideal, AND, to keep this topical, would certainly stand to raise real estate values in the area even more.

[sopas ej]

From the Los Angeles Times:

Drake wants $88 million for Beverly Crest mega-mansion he bought last year for $75 million



The Tuscan-style home has 10 bedrooms and 22 bathrooms across three stories and 24,000 square feet.(Marc & Tiffany Angeles)

BY JACK FLEMMING | STAFF WRITER
MAY 10, 2023 1:46 PM PT

Drake spent longer looking for an L.A. home than living in it. A year after dropping $75 million on a mega-mansion in Beverly Crest, the rapper has put it back on the market with an even bigger price tag: $88 million.

It’s a surprising move for the hip-hop star, who spent over a year scouring the Southern California market in search of the perfect estate. He eventually settled on the home of singer-songwriter Robbie Williams, and the $75 million he spent was more than double the $32.67 million that Williams paid for it in 2015.

If Drake gets his price, it’ll be Southern California’s priciest home sale so far this year and a shot in the arm for L.A.’s lagging luxury real estate market, which has slowed significantly since Measure ULA went into effect in April, bringing a hefty transfer tax to L.A. property sales above $5 million.

Since the compound is found in Beverly Crest — an affluent enclave above Beverly Hills, but technically in the city of L.A. — it’ll be subject to the transfer tax when it sells. At $88 million, the sale would raise $4.84 million for affordable housing and homelessness prevention efforts.

The impressive estate is currently the priciest property up for grabs in the 90210 ZIP Code due to its rare combination of size and scale. The house itself spans more than 24,000 square feet, and the property covers roughly 20 acres — more than double the acreage of any other house currently on the market in the area.

Built in 2001, the Tuscan-style showplace includes 10 bedrooms, 22 bathrooms and a host of amenities including a wine cellar, gym, library, game room, movie theater and 11-car garage. Sweeping staircases and an elevator navigate the three-story floor plan.

Lawns, gardens and a mosaic-tile swimming pool overlook the city out back, and paths descend to a tennis court and orchard.

Branden and Rayni Williams of the Beverly Hills Estates hold the listing with Marc Bretter of Oakwood Realty Corp.



Mark & Tiffany Angeles



Mark & Tiffany Angeles



Mark & Tiffany Angeles



For more pictures and the article, click the link: https://www.latimes.com/california/story...nsion-he-bought-last-year-for-75-million

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by edale

I've not been to Charlotte, and frankly I have little desire to visit, but this area SW of downtown looks pretty Atlanta-ish to me: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Charlo...d35.2270869!4d-80.8431267!16zL20vMGZzYjg

A good amount of density, built right on a rail line, pretty good street interaction...I think that's pretty decent!

Continuing south, there's more TOD around the rail line: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2020706,...PPAjIZQTQznmfLPy1YHTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A block off of here is typical sunbelt sprawl, but it's really encouraging to see the density and urbanization along the rail line at least.

More of the same here, but north/northeast of downtown: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.248125,-...ffg16AsTRPd59I-KnJ-3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Charlotte seems to making great progress with developing urban nodes. I'd say it far exceeds whatever is going on in Austin, which mostly is building an impressive skyline while having an under-built, lackluster built environment outside of downtown. Basically same note for Nashville.

As mentioned in my earlier post, this notion that Nashville is effectively just a tourist trap downtown surrounded by nothing but sprawl is simply false.

My intention is not to take anything away from Charlotte at all. They've got LRT which obviously wins them tremendous points on the livability front. I'm just saying, again, that when it comes to the built urban environment, in my opinion Nashville deserves at least as much (if not more) credit than it's two aforementioned peers. The area in your second link, for example, which is about two miles outside of downtown Charlotte gets your praise for it's supposed level of urbanity, while later in your post you claim Nashville is nothing outside of downtown. Meanwhile, this is what Nashville looks like the same distance from downtown and in the same direction:


https://maps.app.goo.gl/8LAAndBNrAGBnG8y9

Not sure if a link from the google maps app will work, so if you care to look, it's the corner of Broadway and Division... nothing special about that choice really, basically just tried to pick a spot in the same distance and direction. Not saying it's an urban wonderland or anything, but if the brand new neighborhood of beige stucco midrises garners your approval then I would think that that could, at the very least, be considered not nothing in terms of urbanity outside the downtown core, no? AT LEAST the Nashville section feels like you're in a city, even if that city is poorly planned, and not some random New Urbanist TOD plopped down in the middle of some sprawl.

And again, no disparagement to the Queen City intended at all. They've done a magnificent job of creating a very quality livable urban environment out of basically nothing over the past thirty years or so. All I'm saying whenever comparisons are made between the three cities, it is often almost just assumed for no real reason that Nashville is the least urban of the three, and I'm just trying to make the point that at the very least I think it deserves to be in the conversation.

Also, that first link isn't "SW of downtown," it is literally the very center of downtown (uptown, whatever lol) Charlotte, just for reference.

EDIT: I am realizing now that all you actually said about Nashville was "basically same note for Nashville," which I took to mean you were comparing it to Austin in that scenario... but it is entirely possible, given your verbiage, that you were comparing it to Charlotte, in which case, my apologies.

[jmecklenborg]

The LA Mansion Tax is poised to be a failure, as there are innumerable workarounds:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/nine-ideas-to-avoid-the-effect-of-9252962/

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

It was an asinine idea hatched by 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 advocates who have no idea how real life works and the pandering council members who are spineless jumped on board because it would make it look like they were trying to do something about the housing affordability issue when it reality of was obvious this would not work out the way they thought and would have severe consequences. I'm hopeful that the two lawsuits against this are successful and this can be put to bed. Their biggest mistake was starting the tax at 5 million. That's hitting a lot of mom and pop owners and developers. If it was at 50 million plus, no one would say anything and they could actually get some money into the fund

[Crawford]

I don't see what's wrong with having additional taxes on higher priced properties. Sounds reasonable to me. And $5 million is a high cutoff, even in LA. You're obviously only targeting high(er) net worth buyers/sellers.

Also, all those workarounds are dumb, and aren't going to be commonly used. A wealthy buyer wants to own the land too, obviously. They don't want to break the property down into multiple units, or do tenancy in common. Ground leases are hard sells. Why wouldn't they just pay the tax, instead of paying lawyers big bucks for all kinds of crazy workarounds that will lower the long-term value? It's like saying that, if my income taxes were raised, I would get a divorce so I'm under the new threshold. Who does that?

[sopas ej]

I would assume too that you can't just say "Hey, I'm gonna subdivide my property and sell each portion separately." There's the legality of subdivision, I would think each portion would have to be officially surveyed, rights-of-way and access to that property would have to be determined, etc.

Yeah, sounds more of a pain and money involved than it's worth. These are just hypothetical examples of how a rich person can game the system and find loopholes---🞵🞵🞵🞵 they do anyway.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what's wrong with having additional taxes on higher priced properties. Sounds reasonable to me. And $5 million is a high cutoff, even in LA. You're obviously only targeting high(er) net worth buyers/sellers.

Also, all those workarounds are dumb, and aren't going to be commonly used. A wealthy buyer wants to own the land too, obviously. They don't want to break the property down into multiple units, or do tenancy in common. Ground leases are hard sells. Why wouldn't they just pay the tax, instead of paying lawyers big bucks for all kinds of crazy workarounds that will lower the long-term value? It's like saying that, if my income taxes were raised, I would get a divorce so I'm under the new threshold. Who does that?

I don't get all the handwringing about the tax tbh, and I'm pretty conservative when it come to tax policy. Of course volume has slowed down during the transition period because sellers are 🞵🞵🞵🞵 hurt and refusing to put their properties on the market. Just like anything else, pricing will adjust to accommodate the policy and in the end it will likely be a wash.

I mean before the policy change, there was tons of press about people cutting their prices to get their properties sold and including extras like new Bentleys etc to entice a sale. They were literally forfeiting higher sale prices to avoid the tax. If anything, that proves the point.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

It was an asinine idea hatched by 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 advocates who have no idea how real life works and the pandering council members who are spineless jumped on board because it would make it look like they were trying to do something about the housing affordability issue when it reality of was obvious this would not work out the way they thought and would have severe consequences. I'm hopeful that the two lawsuits against this are successful and this can be put to bed. Their biggest mistake was starting the tax at 5 million. That's hitting a lot of mom and pop owners and developers. If it was at 50 million plus, no one would say anything and they could actually get some money into the fund

If they want to tax transactions for the purpose of funding affordable housing, the collection has to be less than the cost of the legal work necessary to skirt it.

That would mean they'd have to do a flat tax - for argumentative purposes let's say $10,000 - which would make the tax regressive.

[Crawford]

Just staging a home is like 1-1.25% of sale price. The agent fee is 5-6% of sale price. In NYC we have a state and a city transfer tax, + a "mansion tax" on anything above $1 million (and an additional tax on anything above $3 million), then lawyer fees, then capital gains taxes.

I know LA has somewhat different rules, but the gist will be similar, and I can't imagine long-term this will be that big of a deal. It will probably be split between buyer and seller. There's no way that celebrity types aren't going to live in LA bc they have an extra 200k in costs at closing.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what's wrong with having additional taxes on higher priced properties. Sounds reasonable to me. And $5 million is a high cutoff, even in LA. You're obviously only targeting high(er) net worth buyers/sellers.

Also, all those workarounds are dumb, and aren't going to be commonly used. A wealthy buyer wants to own the land too, obviously. They don't want to break the property down into multiple units, or do tenancy in common. Ground leases are hard sells. Why wouldn't they just pay the tax, instead of paying lawyers big bucks for all kinds of crazy workarounds that will lower the long-term value? It's like saying that, if my income taxes were raised, I would get a divorce so I'm under the new threshold. Who does that?

I think the biggest flaw with the ULA tax is that it doesn't just apply to residential property. A developer looking to buy a strip mall and replace it with a mixed use building, for example, would have to pay the 5% tax. Obviously this will have a chilling effect on the development market, and shift rents even higher so developers can recoup this added cost, if they can make projects pencil at all.

The tax was billed as a 'mansion tax', and I think most people who voted for it assumed it was just going to apply to residential properties. People envisioned taxing the sale of single family mansions in Bel Air, not stripmalls in Koreatown.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Just staging a home is like 1-1.25% of sale price. The agent fee is 5-6% of sale price. In NYC we have a state and a city transfer tax, + a "mansion tax" on anything above $1 million (and an additional tax on anything above $3 million), then lawyer fees, then capital gains taxes.

I know LA has somewhat different rules, but the gist will be similar, and I can't imagine long-term this will be that big of a deal. It will probably be split between buyer and seller. There's no way that celebrity types aren't going to live in LA bc they have an extra 200k in costs at closing.

The New York Mansion Tax is a)much lower and b)on a sliding scale.

The sloppiness of the LA tax seems to have been designed to make people selling expensive homes to look like whiners.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what's wrong with having additional taxes on higher priced properties. Sounds reasonable to me. And $5 million is a high cutoff, even in LA. You're obviously only targeting high(er) net worth buyers/sellers.

Also, all those workarounds are dumb, and aren't going to be commonly used. A wealthy buyer wants to own the land too, obviously. They don't want to break the property down into multiple units, or do tenancy in common. Ground leases are hard sells. Why wouldn't they just pay the tax, instead of paying lawyers big bucks for all kinds of crazy workarounds that will lower the long-term value? It's like saying that, if my income taxes were raised, I would get a divorce so I'm under the new threshold. Who does that?

Remember this is for ALL properties, not just residential. $5 million is literally nothing in LA in regards to commercial properties. So many development sites are no longer penciling as margins have been cut. This tax will have the opposite effect as to what the advocates wanted and because it was so sloppily written as eluded to by jmeck, it will likely lose in court. You can specify what a property tax is going to be used for as was done in this initiative, it has to go directly to the general fund.

[jmecklenborg]

I was over doing work at my rental house this past weekend for the first time this year...at some point earlier in the year the tenants wrestled a Hammond B-3 organ & leslie cabinet into the basement. So if these dudes disappear I might become the owner of these pieces of Americana:




Is there any heavier object that a tenant might maneuver into a basement?