At last month’s Capitol Hill Housing annual meeting forum, HAL Real Estate Investments president Dana Behar dropped a bombshell. OK. Not really. But he did clear up some of our shoddy reporting on the re-start of development plans for the Cameo, a twin building planned for the lot across the street from its sibling Braeburn project at 15th and Pine. It turns out the project will not be the only condo building among the eight (and counting) developments that will be underway this summer. “The Cameo will not be condos,” Behar told CHS after his remarks about the project on stage at the forum. “There’s not money for condos.”
That brings the number of condo buildings underway on Capitol Hill and First Hill to…
Zero.
None. You can thank the limp real estate market for continued reluctance by banks to finance construction of new condos. It’s not that a bank won’t make a loan on a condo project — it’s that the financing won’t come as cheaply as money borrowed to build apartments in what is predicted to continue to be a hot market.
Behar also said there’s nothing to announce about a buyer for the Cameo project yet. As we reported previously, HAL will not be developing the Cameo and, instead, plans to hand off the reins to another investor. No sale is yet documented in King County records for the property.
Meanwhile, the public process for the apartment project rolls forward and cleared a significant hurdle as the development had to go back to the design review board because of changes since the Cameo was first approved years ago. Despite significant reservations from the Capitol Hill Design Review Board, the body voted to approve the project. You can see details of the board’s concerns and notes from the public comment below.
Hey Cameo devs, The Pearl (right across the street) totally screwed up their parking garage if you want some easy money from monthly parking.
It’s a 93 unit building with over 10 people on the waitlist for parking right now, and almost every spot is a compact.
I am disappointed to learn that none of the new developments will be condos. As a generalization, I think that people who purchase condos are more invested in and committed to their neighborhood over the longer run, as opposed to month-to-month. ( Of course, I do realize that many renters also care about the area where they live and that some of them stay in the same apartment for years). Ideally, there should be a balance of some sort in a densely-populated area like Capitol Hill. But market forces rule the day, and right now they favor apartments.
I’m also interested in this issue from a design perspective. Are units in a new apartment building significantly different than a new condo? If so, what is the difference? Can a developer squeeze more units into an apartment development vs. a condo?
“As a generalization, I think that people who purchase condos are more invested in and committed to their neighborhood over the longer run, as opposed to month-to-month”
Kind of a specious reasoning there. It’d make sense if this was the suburbs, but in a city, new (Amazon/MS/Boeing) money leads to purchases like these. People are literally invested in their purchase, but not necessarily “in their neighborhood” in the tangible ways you’re implying.
Typically, in an apartment building vs a condo, the big difference that you will notice is the level of finishes. An apartment building will generally have less expensive appliances, counters, etc. because apartments tend to experience more wear and tear and these things will eventually break and need to be replaced. Also, you will tend to have smaller units in an apartment vs a condo because renters would prefer a smaller one br at a cheaper price, vs say a one bedroom plus a den, that more people would be willing to pay for in a condo because they are purchasing the unit.
Ultimately, some of these buildings will probably be bought in the future and converted to condos though when the market for condos recovers. It is all a matter of supply and demand.
Wasn’t the big deal 8-10 years ago that apartments in this area were becoming scarce, because so many former apartments (and/or rented houses) were being torn down for condo development? I hardly think this little wave of apartment development is going to tip the scales the other direction.
Plus, my (purely anecdotal, I realize) experience has been that apartment dwellers tend to choose their neighborhood and when they have to move, they often find another rental situation in the same ‘hood, while condo owners are more likely to be buying houses for their next dwelling, which often means moving to a more affordable location.
I don’t think it’s entirely specious to generalize that “more invested in and committed to their neighborhood over the longer run”. It certainly was my experience. I owned a condo on CapHill which I rented out for 8 years when I bought my nearby house. In 8 years of renting I only had one set of tenants renew when the lease came due– and that was only half of the two. It was a very nice bldg and the rent I charged was VERY reasonable (too cheap, actually). They were all more or less ‘professional’ types too. They had the money, the place was nice, the rent was cheap. You just can’t dispute that renters tend to be more transient than owners. It costs too much in fixed costs to move a year or 2 after buying.
That’s not to say renters never care about their neighborhood. But by virtue of not staying as long, many just don’t tend to be as “invested” in it as owners do.
Well, how are you sincerely “more invested in and committed to their neighborhood over the longer run” in practice? How does your attitude alone change the neighborhood, if you’re renting the place out to other, temporary residents?
I never said an owner renting out a condo necessarily made them “invested in the neighborhood in the long run”. We were talking about the perspective of the renters, and how “invested” they are in a neighborhood if they’re renters, since they tend to live somewhere shorter term than owners, on average.
As for my (condo owner’s) perspective, it wasn’t just renting out the condo that kept me invested in the neighborhood– though it does, if for no other reason that to protect your investment– but also that I personally live in the same neighborhood, too.
The Pearl did not mess up, the developers didn’t want to build the required percentage of parking permits so the city gave them a special variance.
In one of the most difficult to park zones in the city.
Don’t expect any relief at Cameo because, you guessed it, they got a special variance as well. As well as Braeburn. As well as Chloe. As well as every large condo building on the hill.
and if that didn’t make you want to move out, look across the street to the upcoming Cascadia Center, their special variance means that they will only have to provide parking for 3 flex car spots. That’s right, a 3 story building with NO parking.