HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1041  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 3:08 AM
Mopacs's Avatar
Mopacs Mopacs is offline
Austinite
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin.TX.USA
Posts: 4,624
__________________
Austin.Texas.USA
Home of the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns
     
     
  #1042  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 3:08 AM
Mopacs's Avatar
Mopacs Mopacs is offline
Austinite
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin.TX.USA
Posts: 4,624


Excuse the large size, but its notable for the details...
__________________
Austin.Texas.USA
Home of the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns
     
     
  #1043  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 3:19 AM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
It's a combination of things. As a general rule the land cost - on the net sellable space (condo sf), should be around 10% or less. The low-rise product has lower land costs AND lower construction costs. In Austin, low-rise construction is about $110-120 PSF, while High-rise is $180-$200 PSF.

It's the "density" that determines what effect the land cost has on a development. If the FAR (Floor-Area-Ratio) of these low-rises is 3, they'd get 3 sellable SF for each SF of land. Therefore, if the land cost is $40 PSF, after the FAR the per-unit cost (sellable condo SF) would be about $13 PSF, plus interest, a total of $15. For a high-rise development the land may cost $100 PSF, but with a FAR of 8-10, the per-unit cost (condo SF) of the land would be similar. I recall Novares total land cost to be about $100 PSF, which equated to $15-20 PSF on the per-unit cost (condo SF).

I've rarely seen the land costs, even on projects in major cities with higher land costs, exceed 10-15% of the costs of the finished product - the sellable condo space. It's not the LAND.

The difficulty in high-rise development is hardly ever the land costs - they are minimal compared to the total construction and soft costs (design, finance and marketing).

So, when someone (especially a dumb reporter) says the "land costs are driving up the prices of luxury condos"... simply roll your eyes. Land cost drives the density, not the price of the units. The land is only worth the density it achieves. Construction costs and the construction interest (how long construction lasts and how long you have to carry the project) is a much bigger problem. Construction costs have stalled most projects - they've risen 20-40% in the last year.

Typical high-rise condo costs (on net sellable SF):

1. Land
Land Cost - $15.00
Land Interest - $5.00 (3 years)

LAND TOTAL: $20.00 PSF

2. Hard Costs
Res Const. - $200.00
Parking Const. - $50.00

HARD COST TOTAL: $250.00 PSF

3. Soft Costs
Design - $10.00
Const. Interest $20.00
Marketing - $10.00

SOFT COST TOTAL: $40.00 PSF

TOTAL DEVELOPED COST: $310 PSF (Break-even)

*Net sellable is generally 80-90% of the total residential construction. This is why the above numbers seem a bit higher than construction estimates. They can't sell all the SF they build, but they still have to pay for it.

Novare must get $310 PSF in average prices for the 360 - just to break even. This means a typical 1,000 SF unit will start at $315,000 on the lowest floor. Of course, this is contrary to their stated objective of "affordable luxury" with units starting in the 190s - unless they are willing to lose money on the lower floors and make it up on the higher floors - a possible form of "subsidized housing."

I would guess that the risk in the Novare deal would require a 20-30% return to the equtiy investors. Assuming they put up $30 million to satisfy lenders, they'd require a return of at least $20 million (over 3 years). This would raise the Novare break even to the $330 PSF on condos. Therefore, the total prices Novare must achieve would be +$350 PSF or more ($300 PSF on lower floors to $500 PSF on upper floors).

When you do the math on Novare, Spring, T. Stacy, 200 Congress and the Hyatt Condos - it just doesn't make economic sense. Austin does not have a ready supply of buyers for $400-500 PSF luxury condos (Stacy and 200 Congress have even said some of their units would be $600-700 PSF). This isn't NYC or even Dallas. Dallas has trouble selling 500 units a year in this price range.

I think we'll keep seeing many low-rise condo deals before we see any luxury high-rise deals breaking ground (Hot SoCo).

Some will try to fool people (Milago did) by selling a cheap apartment as a luxury condo. But, even there the prices didn't exceed $300 PSF and probably averaged around $270 PSF.

Hopefully, the "W" on Block 21 will help change the dynamics. Look for pre-sales this Summer. Novare, Spring and even Tom Stacy look like the numbers won't work (Pelli or not). They can't afford to build them at prices the market can absorb. The "W" is a valuable, established brand that allows for $500 PSF prices.
Please share those PMs with the Forum.
     
     
  #1044  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 5:08 PM
greenbelt's Avatar
greenbelt greenbelt is offline
hike and bike
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
When you do the math on Novare, Spring, T. Stacy, 200 Congress and the Hyatt Condos - it just doesn't make economic sense. Austin does not have a ready supply of buyers for $400-500 PSF luxury condos (Stacy and 200 Congress have even said some of their units would be $600-700 PSF). This isn't NYC or even Dallas. Dallas has trouble selling 500 units a year in this price range.
Hopefully these builders aren't as smart as you and they'll just build it anyway. Or, maybe they'll wisen up and build something "more affordable" and less glamorous that will work and will get people downtown for much less. I'd like to see some warehouse/brewery spaces like downtown Portland, OR like this http://www.breweryblocks.com/.

Last edited by greenbelt; May 19, 2006 at 2:05 AM.
     
     
  #1045  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 5:13 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbelt
Hopefully these builders aren't as smart as you and they'll just build it anyway. Or, maybe they'll wise up and build something "more affordable" and less glamorous that will work and will get people downtown for much less. I'd like to see some more warehouse/brewery spaces like downtown Portland, OR.
I can smell the sarcasm dripping from this post
     
     
  #1046  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 5:54 PM
ariesjow ariesjow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 318
I really like that new Austin tower proposal. Can't wait to see what it will look like in the skyline.
     
     
  #1047  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 6:56 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,320
I cant see the building being that transparent. I think that is likely for effect. I mean, I wouldnt want to live in a glass house :p
     
     
  #1048  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 8:18 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbelt
Hopefully these builders aren't as smart as you and they'll just build it anyway. Or, maybe they'll wise up and build something "more affordable" and less glamorous that will work and will get people downtown for much less. I'd like to see some more warehouse/brewery spaces like downtown Portland, OR.
They're stupid for proposing the projects without financing or even the hope of financing. "Money" isn't stupid - or even sarcastic Stooge. The money decides if AND when a building gets constructed, not the builder or developer. It's that simple.
     
     
  #1049  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 9:55 PM
greenbelt's Avatar
greenbelt greenbelt is offline
hike and bike
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
They're stupid for proposing the projects without financing or even the hope of financing. "Money" isn't stupid - or even sarcastic Stooge. The money decides if AND when a building gets constructed, not the builder or developer. It's that simple.
yeah, thanks, i think we're all simply hopeful of a brighter tomorrow when speaking of austin's skyline. that's all.
thanks for clearing things up. it's not what i, or anyone else really wants to hear, but you speak of true money facts, and
i hope where there's a will (wynn)...that things will add up, including new towers.

Last edited by greenbelt; May 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM.
     
     
  #1050  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 10:18 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
They're stupid for proposing the projects without financing or even the hope of financing. "Money" isn't stupid - or even sarcastic Stooge. The money decides if AND when a building gets constructed, not the builder or developer. It's that simple.
I don't doubt that you know what you are talking about. I just think you are a bit cynical. Obviously Tom Stacey isnt going to spend the sort of out of pocket money he is to try and secure investors if he doesnt think there is a chance of doing so. Obviously alot of what we see is a dog and poney show to try and stir up excitement for a project to try and generate capital, but there has to be some substance to these plans other than pipe dreams.

These companies are risking their good names when they announce projects like this that never get build. Obviously they think the projects are profitable because their good names are even more at risk if they actually get the financing and the building bombs. I'm sure there are market studies or *something* that gives them reason to move forward with these projects. Why would they be this far into the process otherwise?
     
     
  #1051  
Old Posted May 18, 2006, 11:24 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE
I don't doubt that you know what you are talking about. I just think you are a bit cynical. Obviously Tom Stacey isnt going to spend the sort of out of pocket money he is to try and secure investors if he doesnt think there is a chance of doing so. Obviously alot of what we see is a dog and poney show to try and stir up excitement for a project to try and generate capital, but there has to be some substance to these plans other than pipe dreams.

These companies are risking their good names when they announce projects like this that never get build. Obviously they think the projects are profitable because their good names are even more at risk if they actually get the financing and the building bombs. I'm sure there are market studies or *something* that gives them reason to move forward with these projects. Why would they be this far into the process otherwise?
That's all true. I'm not cynical. It's just well-deserved skepticism. If it's an office building you need tenants. If it's condos you need buyers.

I'm just suggesting that they're real when they have money - T. Stacy doesn't have the money. I suppose he hopes to pre-sell the condos and then convince a bank that they are real buyers. His competition is the "W."

It will be interesting to watch. I hope everything announced gets built (excpet more junk like Milago) and that everything not-yet-announced gets built, too. Austin needs to grow UP.
     
     
  #1052  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 12:25 AM
jmanh jmanh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbelt
yeah, thanks, i think we're all simply hopeful of a brighter tomorrow when speaking of austin's skyline. that's all.
thanks for clearing things up. it's not what i, or anyone else really wants to hear, but you speak of true money facts, and
i hope where there's a will (wynn)...that things will add up, including new towers.
I'd like a better Austin skyline too. But how downtown looks and feels from the pedestrian vantage point is more important to me. Building skyscrapers doesn't translate automatically into a more vibrant and stimulating downtown. Just take a stroll by the Frost Tower, and you'll know what I mean.

I realize that high-rises lead to higher density and that's a good thing. However, given the number of empty lots downtown it seems that there are feasible alternatives to developing high-rises for increasing downtown density and making it a more interesting place. My hunch based on what I've picked up on the forum is that the real-estate market is such that low-rises and mid-rises are far less risky and therefore more doable projects than the 40+ story high-rises that are getting so much publicity now.

I am essentially a neophyte in real-estate, but I've always been surprised by contemplated projects like Spring and 360. It seems that the downtown density needs to be much higher before projects like these have a chance to succeed. In terms of residential development, it seems like there should be an orderly progression from low-rise to mid-rise to high-rise.
     
     
  #1053  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 1:59 AM
greenbelt's Avatar
greenbelt greenbelt is offline
hike and bike
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmanh
I'd like a better Austin skyline too. But how downtown looks and feels from the pedestrian vantage point is more important to me. Building skyscrapers doesn't translate automatically into a more vibrant and stimulating downtown. Just take a stroll by the Frost Tower, and you'll know what I mean.
JMANH, AS I STATED EARLIER: "Or, maybe they'll (builders) wisen up and build something "more affordable" and less glamorous that will work and will get people downtown for much less. I'd like to see some warehouse/brewery spaces like downtown Portland, OR. like this http://www.breweryblocks.com/"

Last edited by greenbelt; May 19, 2006 at 2:06 AM.
     
     
  #1054  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 3:43 AM
bluedogok's Avatar
bluedogok bluedogok is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 804
I did see one error in there, it was about how developers spend their own money, take it from me they don't. They do everything with some level of financing in place...at least that has been my experience with them.

We have 7 developer projects in various stages of design or construction at the moment and about 10 in the preliminary design/site analysis stage at this time. We also have 6 projects that came back to life in some way. Designed 5-6 years ago and the next phase or the entire projects is going through funding reviews now. You won't see many broke developers, that is if they know what they are doing.
     
     
  #1055  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 4:29 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedogok
I did see one error in there, it was about how developers spend their own money, take it from me they don't. They do everything with some level of financing in place...at least that has been my experience with them.

We have 7 developer projects in various stages of design or construction at the moment and about 10 in the preliminary design/site analysis stage at this time. We also have 6 projects that came back to life in some way. Designed 5-6 years ago and the next phase or the entire projects is going through funding reviews now. You won't see many broke developers, that is if they know what they are doing.
You mean they don't need our help ?

And do you also mean that they don't need our snide, skeptical remarks ?
     
     
  #1056  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 5:07 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin<--->Birmingham<--->Atlanta
Posts: 55,831
Man those renderings are sick.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
     
     
  #1057  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 6:34 PM
LookingUp LookingUp is offline
Living in the sky.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin - Boston
Posts: 131
Developer Odds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale
You mean they don't need our help ?

And do you also mean that they don't need our snide, skeptical remarks ?
Only 3-4 of ten proposals ever gets done - the reason? Financing. The ability to obtain financing depends primarily on the end user - office tenant or condo owner. It is NOT the architect, the builder, the developer, the actual design, the location or even the credibility of anyone involved. It must be pre-leased or pre-sold.

That isn't skepical or snide - it's the reality.
     
     
  #1058  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 6:53 PM
MichaelB MichaelB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 3,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas
Man those renderings are sick.
Which rederings Kevin?
     
     
  #1059  
Old Posted May 19, 2006, 9:49 PM
bluedogok's Avatar
bluedogok bluedogok is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale
You mean they don't need our help ?

And do you also mean that they don't need our snide, skeptical remarks ?
Not at all, the public and media talking about these projects helps raise awareness to those that make the decisions on where to office or live. Public approval may help sway some who are on the fence to go ahead.

But LookUp is right on the mark, many of our projects in various phases are basically a build-to-suit proposition and some are spec. The build-to-suit ones have a large potential tenant that the developer is working proposals with, they also have finance companies in the loop as sto status of negotiations, etc. The finance people (usually a large financial concern like Citigroup, GMAC, ING, etc.) is the one ultimately makes the decision whether the project is go or no go. Some of the smaller projects are financed by local banking, investment or venture capital concerns. But they almost always have a preliminary letter of intent from potential tenants to get approval.

The developer quote of mine was a little misleading, they do spend some moeny, but in the overall scheme of project cost they have a very small percentage but with that small percentage they have a chance to make a very large sum for pretty much putting the deal together. So it comes down to a marginal risk -> large reward if a project is completed. They do spend money on projects that never get built but they also keep them in mind for future proposals, that is what we are in the middle of right now. Designed 5 years ago and shelved, if it goes through we still have some work in code studies/changes and possible new tenant changes, CA, etc.

Just part of the business.
     
     
  #1060  
Old Posted May 20, 2006, 4:36 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingUp
Only 3-4 of ten proposals ever gets done - the reason? Financing. The ability to obtain financing depends primarily on the end user - office tenant or condo owner. It is NOT the architect, the builder, the developer, the actual design, the location or even the credibility of anyone involved. It must be pre-leased or pre-sold.

That isn't skepical or snide - it's the reality.
This is a positive zone. Positive gets it done.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.