[awg]

I think you are right... I misunderstood your direction about the scale being from the building side of it, not the living in it side of it. I don't think there is much of a difference between living at 100' above the street or 400' above the street (except the wind perhaps).

But there is a difference in cost between living in existing high-rise construction and new high-rise construction. I'm curious how many of the reservations for either of the proposed high-rises would have been converted to purchases. I know that where I'm at, the average cost of a home in the city is around $300k. A new, nice condo in downtown would run someone from $350k - $600k (and up to the millions). So there is probably a premium, but an affordable one.

What is the average suburban house in Sacramento? I would think either of those high rises would have started in the $700 a sq ft range and with little precedent for condo living, most buyers would expect 1200-1400 sf units = $840,000 - $980,000. (and at that, they would think those were dinky)

Aside from the inexperience of developing these kinds of buildings, I wonder if another pitfall was simply the cost of the units vs the cost of suburban houses. Having to find 1200 buyers that are willing to spend upwards of $1,000,000 for 1400 sf when they can buy a 3000 sf house for half of that was undoubtedly no small feat in itself.