A Visit to Mosler Lofts PH#2

You forgot to mention 1) overpriced which is why it’s been languishing on the market for years 2) empty lot next door just waiting for a new building to obscure that million dollar view.

I can’t speak to whether the price is a fair valuation, but I will point out that it has come down considerably from its $3M price tag of May 2010.

In general terms (and for discussion’s sake) I wonder if a lengthy stay on the listings is really proof positive of overpricing? Don’t luxury listings tend to be listed longer because it is a smaller pool of buyers and takes longer for one to come along?

Love the expanded ceiling height, particularly in the common areas (that would be a bit too high if it were the kitchen, etc). I think with a window/wall situation like that, it’s pulled off perfectly. Nice view too, from what I can tell.

Katrina, Noodles and Sarah,
Any real estate agent would be ill-advised to get into the business of promising view preservation. I tend to be a conservative one, so certainly won’t get into that. But, I will guide my clients to resources.
 
I suggest that condo buyers who are interested in views look at: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd –>Online Tools –>Mapping Tools–>DPD GIS. They can select the proper map overlay and look at current zoning in their areas of interest.
 
While The City can change zoning without asking me first, when I last checked the web site, I understood that those parcels (Car Toys, Wells Fargo, and the parking lot) were zoned to an 85 foot max. That’s around 8.5 stories at an average of 10′ (with additional allowable height for HVAC and elevator equipment, I believe). I could be wrong, but anyone looking to play the view preservation game would be wise to investigate and determine whether they see risk or opportunity.
 
Anyone comparing PH2 to PH1 should know a few things (I represented the current owner of PH1, have been in each home, and have spoken with Mark at length about his home):
 
Finishes
-Not all finishes are created equal, and those in PH2 are…I don’t want to say “beyond compare” because that reeks of hyperbole, but the quality, style, and care in selection represented there are not commonly found in Seattle condominiums.
-Some of the finishes in PH1 were, when it was built, a notch in quality above the standard builder issue for the rest of the building, but…they weren’t “showcase” - as I believe PH2 is – by any stretch.
-The first owner of PH1 got to choose finishes…have you ever seen a mustard colored tile backsplash above yellow counters against dark cabinets? To each their own, but…I don’t recommend that combination.
-The finishes in PH2 were largely ruined in 2008 (likely by a vandal) just before the previous owner purchased it. They were not significantly repaired during that ownership.
-So, when my client closed on PH1, flooring needed replacing, the back-splash needed to be put to rest, the white walls needed color, etc.
 
Situation
-It would be a gross understatement to say that PH1 was a distressed property.
-It is not my place to speak of the then-Seller’s situation, but I can point to public records before the time of sale, and tell you that there were several liens on the property (not all deeds of trust) that combined for several hundred thousand dollars in excess of the list price. 
-Those were not removed easily and remained unresolved until the day before closing.
-So, the Buyer had to invest significant time and energy, from time of offer to close, largely on faith that things would somehow work out.
 
PH2 seems nothing like this. You’ve got a ready, willing, and able Seller who is hoping to find one ready, willing, and able Buyer.
 
Oh, and on the subject of flipping, I’ll point out that Mark Schuster seems to be a smart business person. My opinion is that he has been in real estate long enough to know better than to spend time and money acquiring unique, top-of-the-line finishes, while intending to flip the property. Those ends would be more easily achieved with more commonly known, less-expensive, easier to acquire finishes.

The city will change that zoning in the blink of a single meeting once a developer opens their checkbook.

Ask the folks at The Cosmopolitan about the setbacks and height limits.

The orientation and design of the two penthouse at Mosler was somewhat shortsighted given future development to the North. The building gained a striking profile but the penthouse owners end up with massive windows looking directly onto another building.

It’s not the only building with that problem though. Check out the unsold penthouse at Enso which backs directly onto an adjoining lot across a narrow alley. Once the Clise properties are developed, the penthouses there will have a similar challenge – massive glass right up against your neighbor.

Hello Howie,
To be clear, I am not arguing that zoning cannot or does not change. It can and does. I suggest that those who want a guarantee should purchase homes for which “no view” is already built into the price. In the downtown environment, these are typically homes that have no significant views, like alley homes, lower floor homes, and courtyard homes.
 
My suggestions for analysis are for people who have decided that they want to live downtown, want a view of something significant (typically water, mountains, Needle, city, or some combination), and can live with the knowledge that the view premium they are paying is not a 100% safe bet.
 
My assumption from Sarah’s post was that she was discussing views as they pertain to this group and my comments may only be relevant to them (if anyone) to consider.
 
Those who do find themselves in this group tend, however, to look for ways to mitigate the risk of view loss; to protect their investment in view.
 
It seems as though they first look to: purchased air-rights (ex: some views from Cristalla), downzoning between the property and the view (ex: some views from One Pacific Tower over Pike Place Market), or both (ex: some views from 1521 2nd Avenue).
 
Next, they tend to consider the current zoning map and look to the edges of higher zoned sections that look across lower zoned sections. They are looking for more-likely view preservation then they would have if they bought in the middle of a group of parcels with similar height restrictions.
 
Finally, in my experience, they seem to look to homes overlooking structures that appear less economically viable for development than others in the neighborhood.

For example, when my clients purchased at Cosmopolitan, they thought there was lower risk that the new police station across the street (off the building’s more or less North corner) would be redeveloped during their ownership than whatever was across the ally (off the building’s more or less West corner; I don’t remember what was there).
 
They knew there were no guarantees, but decided to purchase downtown and wanted a view of Lake Union. Time spent performing due diligence has so far benefitted them.
 
To come back to where we started, in a discussion about the position in the marketplace occupied by Mosler Lofts PH2, I’d assume anyone considering spending in the $2M range for a Seattle condo would be well-advised to perform an appropriate level of diligence. I have this discussion with all my clients, at every price point. Certainly, assuming “no view” is the most conservative and safest way to go.