So I'm thinking of moving to City Place apts Downtown, and i need to know whats the building's like. I have a few friends that live there, but i don't trust friends opinions...cause they just want you to move in lol. I know it used to be a subsidised building, and not exactly aesthetically pleasing. If anybody lives there...let me know how it is.
I own two condos at City Place. I live in one, and rent out the other.
The building is no longer apartments. It converted to condos in late 2006. Prior to that it was HUD/Section 8 housing where the tenants were given the first right of refusal: buy the apartment, or leave. 99% of the people left.
The guy downstairs that has the "sales and leasing office" bought the remaining 60 or so condos from the developer in a short sale. He's pretty much set up his own monopoly down there and undercut everyone else who owns in the building in rents and/or purchase price.
The building was constructed in 1949 as a hotel and the walls are solid concrete, so the piping and conduit are outside of the wall in a series of pipes along the ceiling and in some cases the walls. But the inside of the condo itself makes for a very QUIET space, in lieu of the 11" solid concrete. In both of my spaces, crown moulding or drywall hide the pipes, but some people like it and opted to keep it visible.
It's not an "ugly" building and the location is "fair" at best, but you're only 7 blocks from the landing/waterfront, and 2 from Hemming Park and FCCJ/FSCJ. With FBC down the street, the Fire & Safety Building across the street, and the Metropolitan Lofts just around the corner, it's a pretty safe and comfy spot. The lobby area and hallways are ceramic tile and have fresh paint on the walls... we don't have crystal chandeliers or anything like that. The management is on site from 9-5 and there's security from 5-1:00 AM. The building requires an access card to get into it. Parking is affordable on either side of the building, across the street. I have not had any problems with vehicles parked and I've lived here for over 2 years. We have garbage collection, and the community laundry room downstairs is clean. That's the extent of the building amenities.
The views from a majority of the condo spaces are quite spectacular - one of the benefits of being a little farther back from everything, where you get to see it. Most of the condo units are small - ranging from 450 square foot studios to 475-560 square foot one bedrooms. I think there are five or six total 2 bedroom condos in the entire building.
So with the pros and cons to consider at City Place, one thing is for certain: it's a very good price for being downtown.
The views from the corner units (SE corner), on the higher levels are AMAZING. You can see EVERY DT Bridge and the Broward bridge too.
Quote from: braeburn on August 03, 2009, 10:43:06 PM
one thing is for certain: it's a very good price for being downtown.
Indeed. It's an amazing price, even though the units are tiny and the location is a bit drab.
Frankly, at the prices being offered, I'd say it'd be worth it to buy two adjacent units and make yourself a nice 2br unit. It would still be cheaper than any other 1,000 sqft unit downtown. The only roadblock is you'd still be liable for two condo fees.
I was going to do this, but there would be no guarantee of allowance of this now that the association is no longer developer owned. A lot of the walls in between the units are also load bearing, so even with an engineering permit and a lot of money I don't believe this would make sense. Two seperate air conditioning units, two front doors, two condo fees....
The condo fees are .45 / sqft., putting studios and the smaller 1 bedrooms at around $200 per month.
But hey, owning just one isn't bad either :-)
So omarvelous, giving up on Springfield?!
Thanks for the lowdown braeburn. It's a shame about the load-bearing walls. Especially since the condo fees are by the sqft anyway, the two unit combo would have been cool (I could deal with the two A/Cs and two doors). But yeah, interior load-bearing walls kind of change everything.
Did you notice any change in the neighborhood once the Metropolitan lofts opened? Even though the streetscape of that part of downtown isn't the best, I would think there's a nice concentration of young professionals around the area now?
I have been thinking about buying there. What is the demographic (ie. younger/older) of the building? How much does parking cost? Does it feel secure and safe?
I am considering city place myself. Does the condo association allow cats ;) or small dogs?
Quote from: Deuce on August 04, 2009, 09:02:57 AM
So omarvelous, giving up on Springfield?!
Lol.. no i own in springfield. but honestly its too big to manage. I would like to rent my house, and buy/rent something smaller.
omarvelous, if you move to cityplace, you can rent your current house to your neighbor who can then open another homeless shelter. a win-win solution. ;)
Quote from: fatcat on August 04, 2009, 12:57:37 PM
omarvelous, if you move to cityplace, you can rent your current house to your neighbor who can then open another homeless shelter. a win-win solution. ;)
Haha.. it crossed my mind, but that wouldnt be right. :-\
The Metropolitan Lofts doesn't deserve all of the credit for the neighborhood "changing" or "improving," so to speak.
When I first purchased at City Place I was 1 of 8 people total that lived in the building. There are 202 total units; I'd say about 75% are occupied at this point. I am not certain as to the proportion of renters vs. owners.
With FBC right up the street, and the Fire Safety Building right across the street, and the new courthouse being built 2 streets away from the block, for the price it makes perfect sense for a very safe Downtown location.
I am a Realtor, but this isn't a sales spin ;D
Pets are allowed in the building - the association amended the condo docs to allow for them. In the first two years, no pets were allowed, but people were bringing them in anyways.
Is it safe? Speaking for myself, I haven't had a problem. I kept my 2008 Tacoma parked across the street in the parking lot, and never had an issue. Nobody's tried to break into my condos. We have gated access and security.
The streetscape isn't awful - we have nice trees and shrubs planted on either sides of the street outside of the building. There's a healthy, good mix of people who live there - ranging from military, to blue collar, white collar and yes, there are young professionals and students such as myself and others who really like it there. :)
It fits my budget, and allows me to be 2 blocks from school, a few blocks from where I like to party and play, 5 minutes from Riverside, Avondale, Springfield, and San Marco, and very little need for driving. It's nice to know that there is affordable housing in Downtown - and no, it's not a ghetto! ;D
Quote from: TheProfessor on August 04, 2009, 09:44:38 AM
I have been thinking about buying there. What is the demographic (ie. younger/older) of the building? How much does parking cost? Does it feel secure and safe?
I can't really speak about the demographic of age as a comparison to younger/older (fair housing law). The cheapest parking last I knew was $15 per month at Pearl and Ashley St (the building is in between Pearl and Julia, on Ashley).
I feel very secure and safe living here, and have never had
any problems, whatsoever.
I heard some new-to-me info today regarding the guy downstairs in the sales/leasing office. A classmate of mine was telling me how he was doing some contract work in the building in late 2008 and it turns out some of those 60 units are desginated for low-income/government assistance housing.
Like I said, it's word of mouth from someone else who already had a negative perception of downtown, but if what he said is true it does seems like a bit of a stepbackwards in terms of urban renewal. That's pretty much what those units were used for before...
Quote from: David on August 04, 2009, 03:39:29 PM
I heard some new-to-me info today regarding the guy downstairs in the sales/leasing office. A classmate of mine was telling me how he was doing some contract work in the building in late 2008 and it turns out some of those 60 units are desginated for low-income/government assistance housing.
Like I said, it's word of mouth from someone else who already had a negative perception of downtown, but if what he said is true it does seems like a bit of a stepbackwards in terms of urban renewal. That's pretty much what those units were used for before...
Any truth to the above Braeburn?
The last remaining 60 or so units in the building were in a shortsale from the developer of the condo conversion, Eric Nathanson.
The guy who purchased them is Cetin Altan Demiray of Demiray Holdings, LLC. He purchased the last 60 or so residential units and the remaining commercial spaces (ca$h).
What he failed to realize was that in doing so he completely screwed everyone else who owned there and wanted to resell their property - generally, lenders won't finance on the place if one entity has that much ownership in an entire association. As of this writing, I believe the maximum is 10%. He's sitting at roughly 30%. It is also easy for him to steal customers that were procured from other owners, as he has a supposed "Sales and Leasing Office" downstairs that essentially makes him look like he's the developer. He is not, at all. The association is the residents, not a developer.
Given market circumstances, he also has an interest to cover the cost of the taxes and condo fees - which would total around 3-400 or so per month per unit. Multiply that by 60+ and you can figure that he would do anything he could to rent his properties out to cover those costs.
I believe anyone can accept Section 8 or HUD housing (rental) - it would be wise for the pocket, as Section 8 is a guaranteed tenant who will never *not* pay their rent. It does screw the other people who live in the building, but he doesn't care about that. He wants to sell his condos for double what he paid for them, and if he can't sell them he will rent them out. In a way he could potentially turn our building into a "partial" rental property, but that will never work because we are a condo association, not an apartment complex.
I am not certain as to this "contract" work that he has done, as I would never step foot into his office ever again. I can call the property management tomorrow though and find out if the rumor is true, or crack open the condo docs and take a look. I must say however, that I highly doubt the current "other" residents, including myself, and our new management company will ever allow the building to step backwards. Plenty of measures have been taken or are being undertaken to prevent the property from ever reverting back to what it used to be, which from what I have heard was quite a diabolical place.
Our condo association has to approve ANY prospective tenant who wishes to rent an owners condo - it is both background AND credit based. The association also requires ample deposit and also proof of ability to pay the rent. While in the past this used to not be enforced hardly at all, rest assured they have this one by the balls now. That much I do know. Anyone who breaks these rules will have their access card deactivated, and I believe they can also take other medieval actions to prevent any slumlording or breaking of the rules.
i think many condo association have the no-hud clause but I cannot imagine how do one deal with ownership of 30%.
The situation that braeburn described is very common. It's slightly unusual in that the surplus unit holder is normally the developer himself, not a third party investor. In South Florida, it is extremely common for the developer and the HOA to sue each other after completion of the project. A common reason is bitterness over developer-held units which cause the HOA some manner of grief - vacant units, renters, undercutting sales, etc.
Braeburn, in a way, you should actually be very happy about this Demiray guy. Often times, the developer has clauses in the condo docs that give them special rights - rights that supersede the rights of the HOA - as long as they hold a certain percentage of the units. However, Demiray is subject to the majority vote of the HOA. So your position is probably much stronger against him than against a developer that had retained 60 units.
I would rather the building not have someone with that many condos ;D
my friends and i are thinking of renting out a unit in cityplace by the 3rd week of september. do they still have available units for rent? or is someone here renting out their unit? im looking for a 1 bedroom/ 1 bathroom (not the studio type) fully furnished if possible.
Another thing...if you rent from the in-house realtor, do you have to pay building fees?
Not that I am aware of.
The "In-House" realtor is really just an agent for the guy who owns 60 of the condos. He's not a developer. The guy you'd be renting from ultimately is responsible for the fees... I cannot speak for if he is passing them down to his tenants or not.
Sorry to bring the thread back from the dead.
But tomorrow i hopefully will be signing a lease for City Place, a SE unit on the 16th floor. I know its a great unit. My mother visited it today for me because i am currently in Texas till march. I am returning from a tour to Iraq, and just want a place to call home. I love downtown.
My questions are what is the current demographic like here. Im not really too worried just curious. Also parking, i have a motorcycle, what would one recommend. I see 1st baptist has a garage. do they sell passes? If worst comes to worst ill just chain it to a telephone pole. NBD. but id rather resort to that as a last measure.
Thanks,
Shane