Active Tchaka!

Radius


The latest residential addition to the downtown Hollywood area is Radius.  Rising 15 stories it is the premier luxury high-rise condo building in the area.   The downtown area of Hollywood has been somewhat blighted and is undergoing revitalization so the opening of Radius is yet another positive step in the transformation of the downtown area. 

Radius offers One Bedroom/One Bath units up to Three Bedroom/Two Bath ones, with prices currently ranging from $215k to $560k.  They currently rent from $1600 to $2600 per month.  Each unit comes with Italian cabinetry, stainless-steel appliances and granite countertops throughout.  Flooring includes selections of tile or carpet.

Amenities in the building include a clubhouse, 24-hour concierge, internet access, a rooftop pool, fitness center, covered controlled access parking, optional valet parking and more.

Best of all is the location of Radius – its proximity to Downtown Hollywood, to the beach, to the airport and more is unparalleled.  Walk across the street to the ArtsPark to enjoy a concert or relax under a tree and read a book.  You’re one block away from a number of restaurants and other local establishments.  Travel is made easy with 10 minute jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport.  Radius is a mixed-use building so the 1st floor is occupied by a number of well-known establishments including FedEx/Kinkos, Starbucks, Smoothie King, Elite Coastal Properties and RBC.

For more information about Radius or any other place in Hollywood, contact Tchaka Owen at 954.552.6112.

For over a year now we've discussed the subprime meltdown and it's possible causes.  Was it the fault of lenders and their irresponsible (and lenient) guidelines?  Was it dishonest loan officers who lied on applications in order to qualify clients?  Perhaps it's appraisers who overinflated values of homes.  Or were their arms twisted by real estate agents who threatened not to send them future business if they didn't make the values fit?  Personally I think it's a combination of all the above and probably other factors as well.

Fast-forward to the financial crisis we are experiencing now and somehow all the blame rests on Fannie/Freddie and lending to minorities.  Wow!

I'd like to contribute the following piece from Daniel Gross of Slate titled 'Subprime Suspects'

I received an email today from a development in Orlando (one of the standard emails we receive marketing various projects) but this one read "23% Commission" in the subject and nothing else.  Of course I was intrigued   Upon opening it I see that it indeed offers "23% for a limited time".  There's no mention of how long this promotion lasts, no info whatsoever on the details of the commission, illegible writing at the bottom (it appears to be the disclosure statement), but there's a picture of a really pretty woman in the middle of the flier.  Maybe that's the hook.  A lot of money and a beautiful gal.

I don't know, but if someone's offering such a large commission it's probably because the units aren't moving.  If they aren't moving, wouldn't it make sense to drop the price by 10 or 15% instead of increasing the agent commission by such a large number?  Don't get me wrong, I'm all about making money but isn't the marketing department's priorities skewed?  Agents making more money doesn't make the units any more attractive to the buyers.  

Price the units properly and compensate agents well, that's a recipe to success. 

Rainers, I have incredible news for everyone!!  How many times have we talked about and tried to combat the continuous negative press about most real estate markets?  Imagine my surprise when I ran into the following article just printed on CNN/Money: 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/real_estate/markets_less_overvalued/index.htm?postversion=2008030412

Les Christie's article states that this is the best time to buy in 4 years.  And the horn-blower isn't NAR but National City and Global Insight.  I mention this because the common critique of NAR is that they're inherently biased towards positive real estate news. 

Obviously real estate is local so each market will be different.  But I'm thrilled to read an article that doesn't continue to pound the industry. 

Isn't it the worst when you're browsing the MLS for homes and the agent didn't bother to insert any pictures?  There have been several posts in the past about the importance of including pictures with listings.  I want to share my experience from early last week that will hopefully re-iterate the benefit of pictures.  I received a call from a nice woman on one of our team listings.  It turns out she was looking for a home to rent, not buy.  I don't specialize in rentals but I was willing to help her.  Sometimes renters eventually become buyers.

This potential client told me exactly what she was looking for and the particular area.  She also told me she'd made an appointment to see a house (and emailed me the link) but that if I could find something similar that she would gladly look at it.  I told her I'd do a search and get back to her.  Given that she's in another part of town she would review the details and pictures of the results and select a few homes to schedule a visit. 

So I logged into the MLS to see what I could find.  My search came up with 6 homes that fit her criteria.  Guess how many had pictures?  One.  That's right, one.  One out of six.  That's less than 17%.  I went through each listing and the second to last is the one with pictures......and it looked familiar.  That's because it's the same house from the link she sent me!!!  So here's a potential client who WANTS to sign a lease but I can't even show her pics.  The next day I grabbed my camera and went to two of the listings and took pics which I emailed to her.  In my opinion, one house was inferior, however the other was not bad.  The lady went ahead with the one she'd already visited so I didn't get the business.  I'm ok with that.  What I don't understand is why an agent with a decent home doesn't have pictures.  How are people supposed to know how nice a home it is?  And it's not as if these 5 homes just got listed.  At least one had been on the market for over 2 months - there's really no excuse for that. 

I don't expect any agent to have professional pictures taken for a rental or to necessarily use the full allotment of pictures, but is it too much to snap one of the front and several interior shots?  4-6 pictures is better than zero.  If you're going to take a listing, please do the right thing for your client and market it with pictures.  After all, that's part of our MLS subscription!

I did a search earlier for a perspective client  when I came across the following pictue (yes, this was in my local MLS). 

What do I call this?  The arcade?  Bring your Pac-Man console and you're good to go.  Wocka wocka wocka.

Or shall we call it the darkroom?  Who needs Ofoto when you have your own in-house lab!  We'll call it the Pulitzer room.

Seriously, if you do not have a picture that highlights an area of a house, then don't insert it.  If there isn't enough light to capture a good picture, then skip over to other parts of the home that will show it off in a good way.  Obviously we would all like to have a professional photographer snap great pictures for our listings, however there is an economic reality that prevents us all from being able to do so.  Therefore we must compromise.  But compromise does not mean throw anything up there.  Our job is to sell homes, thus our listings must have clear pictures that are inviting to buyers.

FYI, this picture was even smaller on my MLS and less clear.  At least it's larger here.

Now the big question:  should I bring my Atari 2600 if my client decides he wants to see this listing?  I'm thinking a round of Combat or maybe Asteroids...... 

Here's an article that just popped up on CNN's Money site.  I'm sharing it to get insight from everyone. 

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/08/real_estate/home_selling/index.htm?postversion=2007060814

I'm not surprised that this has happened given that each market is different.  I'm just concerned that a lot of people are going to read it and think that they can now do it on their own.  As we all know, those who put in the time and have the right resources are able to sell on their own.  But the vast majority do not have the time and/or don't understand the ins and outs enough to sell quickly.  I don't know that specific market but perhaps a 7-year study could benefit FSBO stats if a sellers' market were in effect for part of that time. 

Is this article going to promote false hope?

I decided to read the news before heading off to bed when I came across the following in the Miami Herald online: 

*A new addition near the Hollywood ArtsPark has created a few more giggles from children on the playground, but some city officials and parents aren't laughing.

The gigantic blue billboard is designed like a name tag -- with a particularly interesting name.

''Hello, my name is Hugh Jass,'' the sign announces. Children read it and laugh.

Parents complained to City Hall.*

Yes, the sign is sophomoric and surely isn't the best sign one can think up, but am I the only adult laughing? 

  It's supposed to appeal to the immature 11-year inside us who thought such a gag was the funniest thing.  Plus it's an ad by some local DJs, that should tip readers off as to the jovial intent.  Reminds me of when people got into an uproar over Beavis & Butthead, then South Park.  I'm off to the ArtsPark in the morning and snapping a pic before some stiffs get it taken down.