U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 04-03-2009, 05:42 PM
 
4,794 posts, read 10,076,022 times
Reputation: 2660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjaminNicholas View Post
Good points Cat. I can only agree that I hope ALL of these already in-progress buildings are finished, lest we have what happened to the project that's sitting under 281/37 on Broadway. What an incredibly ugly eyesore and nothing but a safe haven for bad news. The city should have demanded it be torn down years ago.
BN
Yes!...that's the one I'm referring. It was on the news last week and they are trying to untangle the legal mess. The original owner has tried to buy it back to get it moving but there is some international legal entanglement. In the mean time, Lake Flato is working on plans to finish it out once that gets resolved. I thought it was going to be a parking garage for a long time....an ugly one at that!
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2009, 12:15 PM
 
284 posts, read 496,111 times
Reputation: 116
The view from the bottom third, facing Broadway/Hildebrand, is horrendous. The large intersection, too many CPS poles, a huge billboard - not to mention the noise. I guess the proximity to Central Market will pointlessly thrill many potential residents.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 12:59 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,134,243 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by wCat View Post
I don't have a problem with the location IF is stays a residential property. OTH, if it goes commercial (and no one is saying it will), then parking maybe be a bigger problem. I see houses and Cheesy Janes being razed to accomdate a parking garage! I hope that it doesn't come to that.

No one is saying Koontz and McCombs are immune to financial setbacks. As mentions above...this project was started at least 5 years ago (check BC records for property acquisition date!)....and the plans had to be finished and a prospectus would have to be presented to the investors long before that sale even occurred. They can't be held responsible for what has happened to the stock market, real estate and the economy. Bad luck for them and the people wanting to purchase property there. For SA's sake, I hope things can pull out in time to make it a success.

Look at that condo mess that is adjacent to SAMA! That was halted in mid construction years ago when the economy was good!.....and now tied up in a complicated legal knot! Lake Flato is slated to take what's there and hopefully bring it back to life for the River North Extension. Hopefully, that will soon be a success as well.
wCat -

The building already has a sub-grade parking garage. But there are other "issues" that would greatly complicate the building's conversion into an office use.

Keep in mind the "McCombs" part of Koontz-McCombs.....he's a billionaire, and while he's absolutely not immune from economic problems, the total amount of $$$ to finish the building is a relatively small number given his overall net worth.

With regards to the Broadway Lofts project (started by George Geiss), the project was stopped because Geiss and the original contractor had "issues" (because the project's construction plans were incomplete when they were approved by CoSA, but that's a different issue altogether). It didn't have anything to do with the economy, or demand, or rents, etc. Lake-Flato's design looks good.....and when capital markets return to normal, it should be a great project.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 02:12 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
944 posts, read 2,128,047 times
Reputation: 256
Leslie b, now why in the world would anyone believe that real estate prices should be in line with incomes???? Get with the times. That's so 1820-2001!!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 04:54 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,134,243 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello13685 View Post
Leslie b, now why in the world would anyone believe that real estate prices should be in line with incomes???? Get with the times. That's so 1820-2001!!
The problem with your point-of-view, Hello, is that you seem to think that everyone in SA makes less than $40k/year.

Whether or not you believe it, there are many people in SA that make enough $$$ (or have enough $$$) to afford a $1mm condo.

A more appropriate debate is whether or not the person that can afford a $1mm home will choose to purchase a condo, especially when they can own a larger new home (in the same neighborhood, on a large lot) for the same price.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 05:26 PM
 
1,131 posts, read 814,420 times
Reputation: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr View Post
The problem with your point-of-view, Hello, is that you seem to think that everyone in SA makes less than $40k/year.

Whether or not you believe it, there are many people in SA that make enough $$$ (or have enough $$$) to afford a $1mm condo.

A more appropriate debate is whether or not the person that can afford a $1mm home will choose to purchase a condo, especially when they can own a larger new home (in the same neighborhood, on a large lot) for the same price.
That's so true.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 06:18 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
944 posts, read 2,128,047 times
Reputation: 256
Of course there are people who can afford $1 million homes. I was reacting (jokingly, yet truthfully) to Leslie b's income vs. price comment in the general sense. Yes, let's look at the Broadway Tower scenario. Who did the developers target with the Broadway project, and what happened that they did not envision? What I suspect they did, and this gets is spot on re: the price to income argument, is that they targeted singles, youngish couples without children, and retirees--most of whom could not afford those prices, but could indeed afford them with the wacky, creative, fictitious financing that had existed THAT WAS NOT IN LINE WITH TRADITIONAL PRICE TO INCOME RATIOS.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 08:03 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,758 posts, read 8,878,154 times
Reputation: 14215
Here we go again.....

It's good...we ALL understand YOU don't want to buy a house....

but believe it or not there ARE some of us that do. Build a bridge and get over that fact.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 09:12 PM
 
616 posts, read 1,339,379 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Of course there are people who can afford $1 million homes. I was reacting (jokingly, yet truthfully) to Leslie b's income vs. price comment in the general sense. Yes, let's look at the Broadway Tower scenario. Who did the developers target with the Broadway project, and what happened that they did not envision? What I suspect they did, and this gets is spot on re: the price to income argument, is that they targeted singles, youngish couples without children, and retirees--most of whom could not afford those prices, but could indeed afford them with the wacky, creative, fictitious financing that had existed THAT WAS NOT IN LINE WITH TRADITIONAL PRICE TO INCOME RATIOS.
Hello, I think you know that I normally agree with you vis a vis the insanity of the housing market and the insidious fungal spread of creative financing the past six or eight years, but I do disagree slightly with your inclusion of retirees in the group of people who could not afford the prices. That might be true of retirees in general, but the Broadway is targetting a very specific subsection of retirees: upper and upper-middle class homeowners in the AH/TH/OP/Monte Vista corridor who are ready to shed the burden of that six bedroom Georgian on a one acre Ivy Lane lot and embrace the maintenance free lifestyle of concierge services and downtown views. These are the kind of people who'd pay cash.

Of course, the problem with targetting this group is that the high-end market has ground almost to a standstill in the bubble. Between the general slowing of the market, and that rapscallion Randall Stephenson absconding to Dallas and flooding the market with homes, it's gotten a lot harder for these people to get rid of the Georgian ball and chain. It's not like it's causing them undue economic harm to have to hold on to their homes for a while, but it is keeping them from leaping wholeheartedly into a binding contract with Koontz-McCombs.

This particular project has a few wrinkles like that that make me less likely to lump it in with other real estate disasters quite yet. If it does go **** up, I will be the first to say I was wrong.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2009, 11:30 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,134,243 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello13685 View Post
Of course there are people who can afford $1 million homes. I was reacting (jokingly, yet truthfully) to Leslie b's income vs. price comment in the general sense. Yes, let's look at the Broadway Tower scenario. Who did the developers target with the Broadway project, and what happened that they did not envision? What I suspect they did, and this gets is spot on re: the price to income argument, is that they targeted singles, youngish couples without children, and retirees--most of whom could not afford those prices, but could indeed afford them with the wacky, creative, fictitious financing that had existed THAT WAS NOT IN LINE WITH TRADITIONAL PRICE TO INCOME RATIOS.
I don't agree.

They didn't target people who couldn't afford "those prices"; precisely the opposite (targeting people who can afford what you're building is generally the idea in the real estate development business). And I doubt they were relying on "wacky, creative, fictitious financing" for the project to succeed. People buying in that price range (with jumbo loans) generally don't require that type of financing, anyway.

Further, it's silly to talk about "what happened", because nothing's happened yet. But if the project isn't a economic success, I would guess it has more to do with the project being overpriced than some price-to-income ratio problem (that you're convinced exists).

You seem to be convinced that the sky is going to fall with respect to real estate values. It's instructive to check out Bexar County's website, and see how many homes are being foreclosed on in the following neighborhoods: Alamo Heights, Terrell Hills, Olmos Park, King William, Monte Vista. Not very many...
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top