Daily Demolition Report: Mason Dislodge

Behold, the makings of a few Legends. Pardon the noise.


Commercial and Community Structures


Photo of 1909 Woodhead St.: HAR

15 Comment

  • The one on Woodhead St is going! Yea! Now find your way to the abadoned complex and empty lot on Indiana please.

  • 5652 Petty, A B & C

    “Will Sale Quickly”. Really inspires confidence.

  • I tried several times to buy that woodhead property. They wanted too much to buy it as it stood as an apartment. There was no seller financing option and it wasn’t in a position where a lender would touch it (and not priced to be worth paying cash).
    Enter developer….
    Who wants a start a fund where some of these places can get bought? I know more than a handful of qualified operators would would borrow money at 10% to save these places. Too many people have money on the sidelines at 1% when they could be getting much more while improving the neighborhood.

  • RE: The Woodhead property. If I remember correctly, I knew a couple of people that lived in one of those apartments. From what I was told, the cooling costs were quite high because the HVAC was lacking. I forgot home much they were paying for rent. This was back in the early 90’s.

  • er..that should be HOW much, not home much.

  • Bye bye derelict Woodhead Apts. No Hights Cult style love for obsolete eyesores in Vermont Commons or Park!!!! Out with old. In with new.

    That’s how we do it in the neighborhood with no name.

  • I see those Woodhead style apartments all over California, but I imagine they last a bit longer when they’re not in a rainy environment. Its a clever design for the time (60’s?), but yeah im sure the developer is itching to put up a couple of $500k townhomes in its place.

  • Cody, I’d pitch in on a fund to save some of these places, just to fuck with Bernard.

  • Cody-
    This dirt is worth $450k. Please enlighten us as to how your numbers work for an all cash deal with our fantasy equity that only requires a 10% ROI.

    Purchase price = $450k
    + Cost to improve property = ????
    + Holding costs during renovation = ???
    + Leasing cost prior to revenue = ???
    ==== Total Investment

    Market rental rates = ????
    – Vacancy / Turnover loss = ????
    – Taxes = ???
    – Insurance = ???
    – Repair and maintenance = ???
    – Management Fee = ???
    – Utilities = ???
    – Leasing costs = ???
    – Reserve for Cap Ex = ???
    ==== Net Operating Income

    Value Upon Completion = ???

    they could be getting much more while improving the neighborhood.

    I hate to break it to you, but the best way to improve the neighborhood is by tearing this stuff down.

  • How could ANYONE complain about this property being razed? This is good for the neighborhood in many ways.

  • Bernard: I’m not saying that tearing a place down and building new isn’t a good thing. On some of the cooler (IMO) older buildings, I like to try to see them saved, but shiny in new doesn’t bother me either. I’m a free market guy that happens to have a personal preference, but also realize that money talks. Since buying places is my business, obviously I looked at the Woodhead property as a rental target rather than a development target but will I cry to see it blown up? Na.
    My point and statemnt were simply this: You have a lot of people (on and off this site) that get upset that these places are going away. A lot of these people (I would suspect) are in Montrose. A lot of them (I would also suspect) have a few bucks sitting in the bank making them nothing. So I was suggesting if “you” (those that want older places to be saved) want them saved, then a fund to help qualified operators buy them would be a good idea. Those investors could see their $ put to good use and get a good return. It would give people a chance to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ without having to be a landlord themselves or to pickup the whole bill.
    I’m happy to share my workup on this particular property. A swamplot comment isn’t that place but I’ve done my DD. Would every project support a 100% financed property with 10% DS? No. But that’s not what I’d suggest. An operator would have to have his own funds to help with the DS, and would need to have global cash flow / equity to support a property that’ll take time to rehab. I’ve put some thought into this and it’s more detailed than a simple comment would allow.
    We buy a new place every few months and analyze others daily as our business. We’re not starry eyed first timers talking about how we want to buy something someday. We buy all the time. Almost all the properties we buy and analyze are in Montrose. Sometimes that’s hard as the older buildings that need work are difficult to get financing on. So typically we try to buy via some type of alternate financing (or cash if the deal is good enough). There is only so much cash to go around. So when that historic, but in-need-of-aid 4plex comes up for sale, if people want it saved then it would be nice if there were a way to help fund it’s purchase.
    10% seems like a high rate, but we’re looking to buy a pretty large place that needs a LOT of help so some of our rehab money will be borrowed at 15%. Makes 10% seem like a sweet deal ;)

  • I grew up across the street form these apartments, they were pretty cool back in the heyday, but the owners never updated them and just let them get run into the ground, it would be nice to see some homes going up here instead of more 4 story townhomes….

  • i would just make a guess that the majority of montrose folks sitting on large piles of cash aren’t the ones interested in seeing these multi-family properties continue on. with all the new townhomes eliminating any possibility of on-street parking (good time to put in some dedicated walking/biking lanes once a street fills up with t-homes, right?) i’m growing weary of them myself.

    probably better all the young folks get pushed out and go east anyhow since we need to start building up the neighborhoods on that side of town.

  • joel, it’s not like the Fifth Ward is unoccupied. Poor folks gotta live somewhere.

    One could make a good argument that the Fifth isn’t an efficient use of space right next to downtown, though, certainly.

  • Been waiting for years for that eyesore to come down.