Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa
With a condo the buyers are assuming a lot of the risk (and once the building is registered all of the risk). A "tallest building" condo is prestigious to investors (particularly overseas investors). With a rental building the developer assumes all of the risk. Which probably why there are so few primarily rental tall buildings.
|
Condo or purpose-built apartment buildings have different types of "risks" for "investors." I guess if a condo unit owner has a tenant who skips out on the rent, the condo owner might be up the creek. If a condo owner gets a lien on their unit, the rest of the building's owners have assumed part of that risk (or the corp on their behalf). There are condo investors with many units, but there are smaller ones too who only own a couple of units.
Apartment building firms who own and manage a lot of units assume a risk as they're the owners, yes... it's probably a risk that's more spread out for the large companies, though. This city has a few rental firms with multiple highrises around town, and each firm has thousands of units all together, just not with any single building as tall as this development. Anyway, this is to be a mixed-use building with lots of office and retail space planned... that reduces some of the risk too.
I'm not into real estate investment at all, just find it all interesting... the reaction to the added height in this one project has gotten disproportionate (argh) attention compared to what would've happened with shorter skyscrapers with the exact same density. I find that a bit absurd at the end of the day. Anyone could build thousands (or tens of thousands) of housing units outside the greenbelt, and you'd hear hardly a peep about it, either about the "livability" or the aesthetics...