[TomD1228]

Originally Posted by bitman1

Love the units and am okay with the location (but not thrilled). Bought one at the August auction, but still haven't closed (long story). They're now telling me that the smaller units (911 sf) that didn't sell it auction are now getting offers at over their $160k asking price. Yet, I see foreclosures/short sales on larger units going for the low 100's. This doesn't add up. Plus, I agreed to a price of 125k on my 1065 sf unit. If these units are selling for that much more now, why aren't they anxious to cancel my deal and sell it to someone else for more? I really love the units there, but can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Thanks!

Have you verified that the 1065 sf number is correct?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TomD1228

Have you verified that the 1065 sf number is correct?

One sale of a 10XX unit for $ $138 psf, However a 14xx unit in the same time frame went for $80. I would hold to the low 100s as typical at this point. Four other recent sales in that range.

[TomD1228]

Originally Posted by olecapt

One sale of a 10XX unit for $ $138 psf, However a 14xx unit in the same time frame went for $80. I would hold to the low 100s as typical at this point. Four other recent sales in that range.

who is providing the sq. footage numbers for the units?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TomD1228

who is providing the sq. footage numbers for the units?

The MLS...which is linked to the County Assessors data base which is the official source.

Somewhat different from elsewhere it is rare here to have a SF dispute.

[TomD1228]

Originally Posted by olecapt

The MLS...which is linked to the County Assessors data base which is the official source.

Somewhat different from elsewhere it is rare here to have a SF dispute.

20 year architectural background here...but I'm not here to toot my horn

the MLS, the County Assessors, Oscar Goodman himself....I don't care what the "official" source says.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TomD1228

20 year architectural background here...but I'm not here to toot my horn

the MLS, the County Assessors, Oscar Goodman himself....I don't care what the "official" source says.

Heard Oscar just this morning...He was charming.

Your point? The procedure is known and universally used. I don't think it is in any way accurate...but it is consistent. In general a 1000SF condo has the same usable space as another 1000 SF condo. Note I did not claim it is the same as 1000 SF in a two story house.

But it works fine inside Newport Lofts.

I won't hold the 20 year architectural background against you...you had to make a living did you not?

[TomD1228]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Heard Oscar just this morning...He was charming.

Your point? The procedure is known and universally used. I don't think it is in any way accurate...but it is consistent. In general a 1000SF condo has the same usable space as another 1000 SF condo. Note I did not claim it is the same as 1000 SF in a two story house.

But it works fine inside Newport Lofts.

I won't hold the 20 year architectural background against you...you had to make a living did you not?

The only way to truly determine the square footage of a unit would be to have the computer floor plans, a strong background in architecture, a history of determining square footage for residential, commercial and institutional buildings and an AutoCad program to determine the numbers down to the sq. inch.....Then you can determine if the numbers are off slightly or way off.

I seldom speak out of turn

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TomD1228

The only way to truly determine the square footage of a unit would be to have the computer floor plans, a strong background in architecture, a history of determining square footage for residential, commercial and institutional buildings and an AutoCad program to determine the numbers down to the sq. inch.....Then you can determine if the numbers are off slightly or way off.

We have now gone existential. There are at least a half dozen definitions of what is the useful square feet of a building. So first we have to agree on what definition we are using. That takes three lawyers, two architects and a consulting engineer a year or two. Then we can have a computer draftsmen measure it to the desired accuracy.

Or we can decide that Clark County has it mostly correct at least within a building.

If you wish to fight the battle of course you have every right to do so...

I await the contract language you will use to assert your new found right.

[TomD1228]

Originally Posted by olecapt

We have now gone existential. There are at least a half dozen definitions of what is the useful square feet of a building. So first we have to agree on what definition we are using. That takes three lawyers, two architects and a consulting engineer a year or two. Then we can have a computer draftsmen measure it to the desired accuracy.

Or we can decide that Clark County has it mostly correct at least within a building.

If you wish to fight the battle of course you have every right to do so...

I await the contract language you will use to assert your new found right.

agree on the definition?...absolutely. There are many give and take definitions for measuring commercial and residential spaces. I've used them all. I know them all. We don't need a lawyer, an architect, an engineer or a draftsman to measure to the outer reaches of 20' x 20' space. Last time I checked, it's 400sf. Why on earth would you decide Clark County has the mostly correct number? I'm not looking to fight a battle. I'm simply concerned with the idea that if I pay for 100 jelly beans, I don't get 75. I would only be concerned if the numbers were grossly exaggerated. Get my point?

Not to add to the dialogue, but a lot of realtors are doing away with noting sq. footage numbers on listings. There's good reason for it.

Oh, forgot. The typical method for homes is ANSI Z765. While there is no standard for condo's....the basics don't fall far from the tree

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by TomD1228

agree on the definition?...absolutely. There are many give and take definitions for measuring commercial and residential spaces. I've used them all. I know them all. We don't need a lawyer, an architect, an engineer or a draftsman to measure to the outer reaches of 20' x 20' space. Last time I checked, it's 400sf. Why on earth would you decide Clark County has the mostly correct number? I'm not looking to fight a battle. I'm simply concerned with the idea that if I pay for 100 jelly beans, I don't get 75. I would only be concerned if the numbers were grossly exaggerated. Get my point?

Not to add to the dialogue, but a lot of realtors are doing away with noting sq. footage numbers on listings. There's good reason for it.

You are correct. But not here. We have a working standard that everyone can live with. And it is run by the county assessor. So we love area. It is interesting to see agents join us from elsewhere who have been trained to stay away from it.

The real problem is with the way it deals with one versus two or more stories. But the algorithm works pretty well in any one floor scheme. Bascially measure the outside dimensions of the space and subtract the garage. They even show the calculation on the form. So you can pull it and see exactly how they arrived at your SF. I can argue with it as it does not deal with usable SF...but it is close enough and consistent. Only thing that would screw it up would be thick wall constructon or such. For now we can deal with that by an asterisk.