I saw this in the Stranger and thought it should be posted. There has been a relatively high amount of condos that are being resold on the market now at 2200, and it explains, at least partially, why. Seattle doesn't have a large percentage of condos that are bought on spec and then resold like San Diego, Las Vegas & Miami, so I thought it was curious when I started hearing the rumours a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=196477

A lot of current projects, such as Gallery where I'm buying, have strict contract language against flipping. So there shouldn't be this sort of turnover, or much turnover at all, when they open. PS, only 1/3 of the Gallery units are still listed on the website. Pretty good news.

Buyers were allowed to purchase more than one unit. This is probably what is causing the number of resales that we are seeing at projects like 2200 and Cosmo. I have noticed that many new projects are having strict policies against investors. I know that Olive 8 has cracked down on allowing multiple purchases and Gallery, Moda, Veer will not allow resales for one or more years. Some of these policies are to protect the developer, but they also weed out the flippers...so it works out for both parties.

I am in the lending business and we won't touch the building due to owner concentration. Lenders frown on any owner owning more than 10% of a project which is (or at least was) the case with 2200.

Good news is that you may be able the get a really good deal on some of these units soon!! Nice finishes on the units I've seen.

And flip properties are bad news too (part of the sub-prime collapse). Those partaking do so exercising great risk as lenders respond to the trend, interest rates, and the flood of inventory which may be coming sooner than expected.

www.seattlebubble.com

I find this blog to be fascinating. At first I was incredulous about the rent v own arguments most on the site put forth, but with enough time I can around to the arguments that now is a terrible time to buy a condo for myself, as a young professional single person. Anyway, worth a read

www.seattlebubble.com

I find this blog to be fascinating. At first I was incredulous about the rent v own arguments most on the site put forth, but with enough time I can around to the arguments that now is a terrible time to buy a condo for myself, as a young professional single person. Anyway, worth a read

you fell into their propaganda :ohno:

that site is a bunch of bitter people who can't afford what they want here in seattle so all they do is complain about the market

The truth is somewhere in the middle, generally.

One point bloggers often don't realize is that rents are going to skyrocket in the next few years for reasons I've discussed before. In a nutshell, fast-rising demand coupled with not much new construction coming on line until 2010 or so.

I am in the lending business and we won't touch the building due to owner concentration. Lenders frown on any owner owning more than 10% of a project which is (or at least was) the case with 2200.

Good news is that you may be able the get a really good deal on some of these units soon!! Nice finishes on the units I've seen.

And flip properties are bad news too (part of the sub-prime collapse). Those partaking do so exercising great risk as lenders respond to the trend, interest rates, and the flood of inventory which may be coming sooner than expected.

What shop are you working with?

One point bloggers often don't realize is that rents are going to skyrocket in the next few years for reasons I've discussed before

I'm hoping so, seeing as my firms developing apartments. That said, we'd need 6-7 years of 7% increases to get us back in equilibrium. We're probably a year plus or minus from a recession so have rent jump 7-7-6 precent for 2007-2008-2009 as predicted by Dupre and Scott and most of the big developers I speak with will be tough. that said, there has been little appreciation since 2000, so we have some catching up to do

BTW, take a look at this graph and see what thoughts jump to mind

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

I noticed this letter to the Stranger editor about the article:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=202513

HAPPY HOMEOWNER

MR. JONAH SPANGENTHAL-LEE: When you called me last week, you stated you were writing an article on the new 2200 building, of which I am a resident. I specifically asked what the focus of your story was.

You stated you just wanted to get a feel from the residents of their experience of living there and if Vulcan had met their expectations. I went on to say that it has been a great experience and that I very much enjoyed living there. You stated that many residents have had problems and that things were not getting completed or had shoddy workmanship. I stated this was not my case and that I was happy with the work and had not incurred these same problems you mentioned of others.

But in your article ["Trouble in Paradise," April 12] you lumped me together with an "anonymous" tenant and went on to mention many problems, inferring that I, too, was in a similar situation. I stated to you that my situation was quite the contrary and that my transition was a smooth one. In the second part of the same paragraph, you use the phrase "they say" when I did not say any of those things.

In one of the later paragraphs, you said I remarked, "The building is not full" when of course I stated, "The building is not full yet because people are still moving in."

I asked if my views would be fairly presented and even restated things so as not to be misquoted. I could tell by the leading questions where your article was going, but you assured me that both sides would be fairly represented.

I find this bush-league journalism and although I have been misquoted by the media in the past, I cannot remember such a blatant misrepresentation of my thoughts and words.

Jim Dierst (Happy 2200 Resident)

JONAH SPANGENTHAL-LEE RESPONDS: In discussing the focus of my story, I told you I was looking into residents' complaints about 2200. You obviously have a positive opinion about Vulcan's 2200 project. However, you did provide examples of problems in your own unit: furnace problems and water leaking from a unit above you. Your statement that "the building is not full, but people are still moving in" highlights a point from the article: The property remains unfilled seven months after opening.

I expect nothing more from the Stranger. Highly-opinionated writers that write stories that support their original views. Maybe there's some truth to their POV, but they tend to spin things way out of control.