A Twin-Tower Trauma in Queens; Project Was Left to Bats and Owls until Realistic Study Was Done

By Thea, Stanley | American Banker, May 7, 1984 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

A Twin-Tower Trauma in Queens; Project Was Left to Bats and Owls until Realistic Study Was Done

Thea, Stanley, American Banker

Guards were hired to patrol the premises after dark. For seven years, they marched around the perimeter of the project, guarding the booty: two empty concrete shells, 21 floors high. Unfinished and vacant, the shells were testimony to the foibles of the developer -- and the guards, paid by the lending institutions, were testimony to the risks inherent for lenders who, unwittingly, back a project that fails.

More and more frequently, lenders are being saddled with similar failures. Throughout the country, residential structures are going up--and are not selling. But it the fault of the economy, the developers, or even the changed wishes of the buyers, it is the lenders whose money is at stake. Is there a way for lenders to avoid becoming reluctant partners?

The failed development described above showed every sign of succeeding--as a concept. A twin-tower complex in the New York City borough of Queens, it was equipped with elegant amenities and boasted unique views of the Manhattan skyline and Douglaston Bay. What's more, it was a singularly unusual addition to a desirable neighborhood. The quiet, subdued community of Bayside consisted primarily of single-family residences and semi-detached homes, and included no other high-rise residences.

A traditional market study was, no doubt, the spur to the original financing -- and such a study had probably shown that the project was likely to succeed. These investigations involve the standard, straightforward gauges: "comparables" and their market history, the borrower's record, the immediate equity, the competition, census information and demographics.

But a subsequent, more specific investigation was commissioned by the second developer, who stepped in to pick up the pieces. He didn't want to run the same risks again--and neither did the banks, who had already been saddled with the project for more than seven years. This second, comprehensive study revealed some surprises, and many of the risks for all involved were sidestepped or eliminated as a result. Potential Residents

The second investigation accurately identified potential residents, and showed that the marketing targets -- which seemed so obvious -- were quite mistaken. And it showed that subtle architectural changes were necessary to insure a reasonable sales pace. It also showed that amenities which Manhattan spaces wouldn't allow--a health club and running track --should be added, and prices could be raised accordingly.

But more importantly, the second study gleaned specific financial information from the qualified buyers, which permitted the establishment of an innovative selling plan. This study was the first ever to determine that qualified buyers -- from 50% to 60% of them -- would drop out of the market altogether if interest rates surpassed a certain level.

The study results further indicated that if interest rates below 13-7/8% could be guaranteed, the majority of these buyers would still make purchases. These buyers, in fact, indicated that they would spend up to $15,000 more for a property with such a mortgage rate over its 30-year life.

The developer, at a cost of over $5 million, offered such a financing plan. The project sold steadily -- even through the depths of the recession--and is now sold out. And the developer reaped over $6 million in profits through the higher selling prices alone.

What exactly is the difference between the two types of investigation? Briefly, one deals in qualifiable data, while the other is quantifiable; one deals with concepts, and the other with specifics. There was a time that these concepts--the history of similar projects, the ages and incomes of the population and their traditional buying patterns -- were sufficient. But the myriad factors involved in today's market have made thee tools ineffective. Developers, builders, and lenders share the resultant risks. Not That Easy

What protection is available to the lender, and what tools can crack the mysteries of the newly complicated market?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

A Twin-Tower Trauma in Queens; Project Was Left to Bats and Owls until Realistic Study Was Done


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?