If our math holds, 10 or 11 condos have sold or otherwise gained occupants over the last 5 months at 2727 Kirby. Last October, the developers of the new 30-story highrise near Westheimer reported that 20 units in the tower were occupied.
Now the Chronicle‘s Nancy Sarnoff reports that the building’s owners have turned over management of the building to a separate agency:
The group has hired Houston-based Association Management to take over now that the building has more residents, said Sherri Atlas, who owns the unsold units in the high-rise with another investor. Fortress is the lender on the project.
Atlas said occupancy is at about 40 percent in the building, which has 77 high-end units.
- Hiring out the managing [Houston Chronicle]
- 2727 Kirby coverage [Swamplot]
Photo: Ziegler Cooper Architects
and the basic HCAD search reveals a grand total of……
FIVE units in end user hands on the tax rolls. all with a 1/1/10 effective date. (there is a significant delay so it might be higher) but that isn’t 20, is it? makes me doubt the 40% number even more now.
Online clerk’s records show 25 warranty deeds to date granted by Kirby Tower LP since sales began May 2009. That is less than 40%– but then again “occupancies” and “closings” are not necessarily the same thing. Also, no deeds issued yet this year.
I inquired about the smallest unit when this project was in early stages, and an efficiency apt was close to $ ONE MILLION $. Hmmm . . . can’t imagine why it is having a tough sell.
JK-
great color!
Hahaha…I am remembering the crazy angry rant that someone put on here last year when Swamplot reported on the questionable occupancy rate…I think the owner was claiming a much higher rate than was revealed by a nighttime window light counted by a voyeur.
The whiner was all in a tiff, claiming that these naysayers and busybodies were sabotaging the project and ruining peoples’ lives. Maybe they were right after all? Did Swamplot hamper their aspirations??? 40% seems aawwwwfffuuulll low…who will be the scapegoat???
40% would actually be respectable, given the price point and the size of the project. Having said that, I don’t trust anybody’s numbers. If Sherri Atlas still owns a majority of the units, then she can change the association bylaws however she likes in order to achieve good press or to appear to meet objectives on time.
Hold up, where did the 77 total units in building come from? The architect said in its press release once the building topped out that it had 96 units (30 stories). That means there are 20% less units than when the building was topped out? I’m left to wonder if many units (or even entire floors) haven’t been finished out due to slow sales, so the developer is not yet “counting” those units in determining her “occupancy” percentage. If anything, in this economy, they should be decreasing the unit size on build out (in order to be more marketable), which would mean more total units than the original 96.
We have been trying to get my money back.
June 2009 was the day our condo was to be completed. The condo was not ready on that date and is still not completed.
I understand that there was a recent jury verdict where the jury ruled against the buyer’s that were trying to wrongfully cancel the contract. Sounds like all of those that had a change of heart because of the economy may have to close or loose significant earnest money. After all who ever heard of a real estate contract that someone could just “cancel.”
After all who ever heard of a real estate contract that someone could just “cancel.â€
______________________
There are various bases by which to terminate a contract and ask for return of the earnest money. But merely changing your mind is not one of them. Not being able to take possesion by a contractually stated date, however, is. Asking for the return of the earnest money and automiatically getting the earnest money sometimes are two different things. And sometimes the buyer has no recourse but to file suit. And if the contractual obligations of the seller were not fulfilled, well, I would like to see where a court ruled in favor of the seller.
With the exception of Bob Perry of course.