Housing Market: Condomania

This morning I was bitching to a friend who lives in my building about the massive new "condo hotel" conversion going on behind us, keeping us awake at all hours, destroying our trees and sidewalks, and generally serving no purpose.

Why, we wondered, were condo developers continuing to put down stakes on massive new high rises and conversions in such a bearish market as this? Who did they think would buy those units?

Vinnie Tong from the AP sheds some light on this particular condo conundrum:

Hotel-condo projects can be found in different stages of development in cities such as Berkeley, Calif.; Provo, Utah; Pittsburgh and Little Rock, Ark. And they've been proposed for towns as varied as Yankeetown, Fla.; Asheville, N.C.; and West Wendover, Nev.

I think the key to the heavy investment spate lies more in the whole "spreading risk around" angle than it does anything relating to New Urbanism. Condo developers can be true shysters--get in, get the deposits, and break out again. The idea of passing on the risk and making a profit enables these folks to lure in citydwellers like the proverbial moths to the flame.

I'd probably buy a condo before a home in the burbs, but I'd rent before buying a condo. It seems like it combines all the worst aspects of renting (lack of space, intrusive landlords, nosy neighbors) with owning (property taxes, assessments, hidden fees, HOAs, etc.). Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Speaking of New Urbanism, I found a hysterical quote from a discussion at Planetizen that goes even further to explain the condomania:

The New Urbanist allegory works because it connects to the complex concerns of middle- and upper-income Americans. They want to be near other people and to have new and different experiences, as long as the other people aren't scary and the experiences seem safe. That's why people who would never ride a bus or walk around on a crowded New York City street are willing to take a tram from the parking lot at Walt Disney World and spend their days in congested and car-free surroundings.

I disagree with the guy's thesis, but that IS some funny shit. :) And doesn't that picture actually look like your typical sh%tbox development? I didn't choose the title of this entry for no reason, after all. :)

Posted at August 17, 2006 05:20 PM

digg this story

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblog.housing.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/223

This morning I was bitching to a friend who lives in my building about the massive new "condo hotel" conversion going on behind us, keeping us awake at all hours, destroying our trees and sidewalks, and generally serving no purpose. Why, we wondered, were condo developers continuing to put down stakes on massive new high rises and conversions in such a bearish market as this? Who did they think would buy those units? Vinnie Tong from the AP sheds some light on this particular condo conundrum: Hotel-condo projects can be found in different stages of development in cities such as Berkeley, Calif.; Provo, Utah; Pittsburgh and Little Rock, Ark. And they've been proposed for towns as varied as Yankeetown, Fla.; Asheville, N.C.; and West Wendover, Nev. I think the key to the heavy investment spate lies more in the whole "spreading risk around" angle than it does anything relating to New Urbanism. Condo developers can be true shysters--get in, get the deposits, and break out again. The idea of passing on the risk and making a profit enables these folks to lure in citydwellers like the proverbial moths to the flame. I'd probably buy a condo before a home in the burbs, but I'd rent before buying a condo. It seems like it combines all the worst aspects of renting (lack of space, intrusive landlords, nosy neighbors) with owning (property taxes, assessments, hidden fees, HOAs, etc.). Your mileage, of course, may vary. Speaking of New Urbanism, I found a hysterical quote from a discussion at Planetizen that goes even further to explain the condomania: The New Urbanist allegory works because it connects to the complex concerns of middle- and upper-income Americans. They want to be near other people and to have new and different experiences, as long as the other people aren't scary and the experiences seem safe. That's why people who would never ride a bus or walk around on a crowded New York City street are willing to take a tram from the parking lot at Walt Disney World and spend their days in congested and car-free surroundings. I disagree with the guy's thesis, but that IS some funny shit. :) And doesn't that picture actually look like your typical sh%tbox development? I didn't choose the title of this entry for no reason, after all. :)