Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Again, the difference is the legal form of ownership. After that, there is no difference. Not walls, not quality of construction, nothing.
Again I very strongly disagree.
Condo conversions in our environment are significantly inferior to purpose built condos to the extent that we counsel our clients not to buy the conversions.
This says, de facto, that purpose built condos are built differently than apartments. De jure either can be physically the same.
So you mislead when you suggest the difference is only legal.
Condo conversions in our environment are significantly inferior to purpose built condos to the extent that we counsel our clients not to buy the conversions.
This says, de facto, that purpose built condos are built differently than apartments. De jure either can be physically the same.
So you mislead when you suggest the difference is only legal.
Hmmm, How many condo's have you ever built? converted? Whether you counsel your clients or not, whether they are inferior or not, condos are a legal form of ownership - not a construction quality benchmark. There are well-built condos and poorly built condos. It doesn't matter - what does matter is the form of ownership.
Hmmm, How many condo's have you ever built? converted? Whether you counsel your clients or not, whether they are inferior or not, condos are a legal form of ownership - not a construction quality benchmark. There are well-built condos and poorly built condos. It doesn't matter - what does matter is the form of ownership.
I am an engineer Buckhead. I do understand construction and building systems.
I would point out that everyone in this town uses a disclosure for all condo conversions. You think that is the standard because they are just like purpose built?
Not in this case. The guy is asking will he be better off in a condo than in an apartment. Around here the answer is clearly yes if the condo is purpose built. Now I understand that you have built tens of thousands of condos and apartment units and have done detailed measurements on them all so you are precisely sure in aggregate that theses classes are indistinguishable.
Unfortunately you are also wrong...at least in Las Vegas and I suspect many other places.
Realtors tell me with the apt to condo conversions it is very hard to get conventional financing which is why the builder always offers it. When it was built to apartment codes it was not ever meant to meet FHA lending standards.
Condo conversions in our environment are significantly inferior to purpose built condos to the extent that we counsel our clients not to buy the conversions.
This says, de facto, that purpose built condos are built differently than apartments. De jure either can be physically the same.
So you mislead when you suggest the difference is only legal.
I dont always agree with olecapt but I do here. I been in involved in construction of condos, apartments, apartment to condo conversions and any other structure you can name. Condo conversions are indeed significantly inferior.
An apartment building is built very poorly, especially the older ones. When they are converted to condos there is absolutely nothing done structurally to improve the structure in any way at all. They get new paint, carpet, new front door, a very cheap junky kitchen with a splurge for granite tops and a whole paint job for the entire complex. I know this because I put kitchens in hundreds of them, probably more then a thousand of them.
You still have the thin walls, rarely do you have the firewall between residences like in a brand new condo to code. The builders skate around little things like that in the conversions.
Realtors tell me with the apt to condo conversions it is very hard to get conventional financing which is why the builder always offers it. When it was built to apartment codes it was not ever meant to meet FHA lending standards.
Ohh - You been in One Queensridge? That is a condo...but hardly a filing cabinet.
... condos are a legal form of ownership - - what does matter is the form of ownership.
You are correct. Condominium is a legal form of ownership. The owner has title to the airspace as sole and separate ownership and, usually, as a tenant in common with all other owners in the “common” area.
Ohh - You been in One Queensridge? That is a condo...but hardly a filing cabinet.
Do you mean that big giant monster thing on Rampart and Alta I think it is? I feel bad for those who had their views ruined and have to look at that thing.
I think you are saying it is ultra luxurious. No matter what the level of luxuriousness it's still an eye sore. How that thing ever got past zoning is beyond me. It belongs in NYC rather then here.
Any idea what they cost? And whatever it is, one could probably buy one of of those expensive ones right on the strip for the same money.
Hi,
I am exactly in process of hunting condo for sale now. Its area of high demand so most variants I saw are on the first floor, they are usually about 20K cheaper than other floors.
Is there some specific reason for that? Do I encounter problem when I will look for tenants in future?
Mostly these condo are in 50-70 appartment complexes, good mantained, amenities etc.
Thnx.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
