Closings @ The Grand Sierra

46 comments

1. 

   November 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM

   DataGuy

   Since the above table did not seem to format correctly, let me give folks some clues about what it ctually says and how it is organized.

   The first 137 sales listed are for CA (state names followed the city name but were cut off). Following CA, each other state’s buyers were also listed alphabetically by city. The final three sales listed were from BC (British Columbia).

   Near the bottom are several NV sales, but only two are from Reno – with the majority being Las Vegas addresses.

   At the bottom, the first summary line says 179 total sales, $49,341,768 total valuation, 81,210 total square feet, average selling price of $608/sf.

   The second summary line should read $275,652 average selling price, 454 sq feet average square footage and repeats the average $608/per sf.

   Like the initial sales at Belvedere, the vast majority of buyers (137 out of 179) have CA mailing addresses and all but 2 are outside the Reno area.

2. 

   November 12, 2007 at 11:17 AM

   SkrapGuy

   Thanks again for the data. Now we know the answer to the question many have been asking: Who would possibly buy a 400 sq.ft. refurbished motel room at the GSR to live in?

   The answer: Nobody.

   It is apparent that these are all investments owned by out of towners. This is less surprising for the GSR, which never really marketed these units locally because a motel-condo unit is necessarily for out of towners. I remain more interested in the trend at the Belvedere, and hope you supply more info as more closings occur.

   Thanks to DataGuy.

3. 

   November 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM

   Mike Van

   I think it’s a given that the majority of them be out of town investors….after all you can only stay in them 28 days or so out of the year…so it doesnt make much sense for a local to own one…it makes more sense for a visitor who frequents Reno a few times a year. Is it so bad of an investment to have a vacation condo that generates money for you when you arent using it? I don’t see any difference between that and having a home that doubles as a vacation rental when you aren’t using it. I guess it depends on the pulse of the tourism industry, and how often your room is ‘booked’ when you aren’t using it. If you visit travel web sites, GSR on average gets very good ratings from people who stay there. Overall positive comments, except I would guess 30% or so do not like all the dark chocolate decor inside GSR.

4. 

   November 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM

   SkrapGuy

   Agreed Mike Van. The GSR is an entirely different animal than the downtown condos. Selling to different folks for different purposes. Nobody has ever suggested that the hotel-condo project at the GSR was going to be part of the “let’s get people living in downtown Reno” revival. That’s why I remain much more interested in the Belvedere than the GSR. Because if it turns out that the Belvedere ends up being mostly owned by out of towners who will come here for a weekend a month, that’s not going to help the downtown revitaliztion movement very much. For downtown Reno to ever really turn around, these units are going to have to be owned by full time residents, not people just coming here once a month to stay in their privately owned motel room.

5. 

   November 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM

   smarten

   With all due respect, I don’t know that we’re really comparing apples-to-apples.

   I’m not personally familiar with the Belvedere project. But I am somewhat familiar with the Grand Sierra Resort [BTW, have any of you ever figured out exactly what qualifies as a “resort?” Stated differently, what exactly about the GSR makes it a “resort” compared to a glorified hotel?] project.

   The GSR was extensively marketed in the San Francisco Bay Area as an investment opportunity that allowed you the investor to indirectly own your own little upscale hotel room in what was once a major casino on your periodic jaunts to Reno while benefitting from supposedly high end [gambler] rental income. It was NEVER, NEVER represented to be a second or vacation home for anybody.

   So the idea of GSR being anything other than a “house” [to coin the phrase by our newest contributor, Michelle], would be pure fantasy. And because it is NOT a “home” to anyone, is it any surprise so many Californians [as opposed to Renoians in search of a “home”] bought into the hype?

   Now is the Belvedere a hotel? Is it a casino? Does it offer the prospect of high-end roller rental income to you the investor? Is it being sold as a condo-hotel where you really only have a piece of a partnership that itself owns several hundred hotel rooms? Assuming the answers are no, no, no and no, what hype explains why so many Northern California investors would purchase [on paper] these particular condos; especially at these prices?

   It’s for this reason there’s something else going on at the Belvedere which is the subject of so many contributors’ speculation.

6. 

   November 12, 2007 at 2:39 PM

   Mike Van H

   I have to disagree with you a bit Smarten. It says in giant letters on http://www.grandsierracondos.com ‘Reno Tahoe’s Complete VACATION Ownership Destination.’ I worked for them, direct with marketing, and you are a little off on how they were marketed. Notice nowhere on their web site OR their brochure they say that it is an investment property. This was the big marketing challenge for GSR…they couldn’t advertise the property as an investment, nor mention anything about the income gained from people renting it. Note in their brochure listing owner benefits it mentions nothing about the return income from room bookings. Only when they were about to sign the contract and were behind closed doors did they learn the details about the income portion. On a side note, I think the ‘Make a Condo Deposit’ button on their website is hilarious.

7. 

   November 12, 2007 at 2:47 PM

   SkrapGuy

   I’ not so sure about that Smarten. Perhaps you are absolutely right. I think we need to see more closing data. But let me say this:
   I live in Reno and very much like it here. I also very much like San Francisco. If I could buy even a 400 sq. ft. condo in SF for $275K I would be on my way this afternoon. I would love to own a small (and 400 sq. ft. is damn small) place in SF.

   Now of course the respective housing market economics make my dream quite literally, a pipe dream. Ain’t gonna happen. But I can conceive of a lot of Bay Area folks who like it in Reno, not to live, but to come for weekends and vacations, who would be willing to pay $275K for a shoebox at the Belvedere. After all, these folks are conditioned to nutzo housing prices.

   My point to Mike Van is that if these are the kind of people who end up owning all the units at the Belvedere, that will do nothing for the “let’s make downtown Reno a good place to live” movement.

8. 

   November 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM

   DataGuy

   I think there is a misperception about “how high” the $/SF are at Belvedere vs other “comparable” products.

   Here are some actual comparisons for all 2007 sales recorded in the County Files for various properties.

   BELVEDERE

   Sales – 29
   Ave Price – $230,546
   Ave SF – 532
   $/SF – $433

   PALLADIO

   Sales – 49
   Ave Price – $512,240
   Ave SF – 1276
   $/SF – $402

   OTHER – Arlington Twr 7, Park Twr 5, Riverwalk 3

   Sales – 15
   Ave Price – $317,693
   Ave SF – 880
   $/SF – $361

   ALL FIVE DEVELOPMENTS

   Sales – 93
   Ave Price – $393,021
   Ave SF – 980
   $/SF – $401

   Though Belvedere units are selling at a premium per SF to the other 4 developments, the premium is not outrageous. And, because they are smaller, the total cost to buy is significantly less than in the other projects. For out of town part time users, the lower total investment is probably a good offset for the moderately higher $/SF.

   Here, for comparison, are the 2007 Grand Sierra sales (excludes the sales in late Dec 2006 which were in the 2006 file).

   Sales – 153
   Ave Price – $281,191
   Ave SF – 460
   $/SF – $611

   Grand Sierra’s $/SF are far higher than either Belvedere or the other downtown condo sales.

   Belvedere, like GSR, is obviously appealing to out of town part time users. If I were such a buyer, it looks cheaper than GSR($230K vs $281K), slightly larger on average (532 SF vs 450 SF) and a whole lot lower $/SF ($433 vs $611).

   I see no conspiracy, just different real estate options that appeal differently to different types of buyers.

9. 

   November 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM

   SkrapGuy

   Data Guy,

   Is it possible for you to post the locations of the buyers at the Palladio as you have done for the Belvedere and the GSR?

   This is exceptionally insightful info.

   Thanks again.

10. 

    November 12, 2007 at 3:41 PM

    SkrapGuy

    And yes, Data Guy, I see that I really overstated the cost to own at the Belvedere. Thanks for setting me straight. If one can buy a 530 sq. ft. shoebox for only $230K, that seems to make it even more likely that Bay Area folks may find the Belvedere prices comparable to the bizarro real estate market they already live in.

11. 

    November 12, 2007 at 4:17 PM

    smarten

    Mike Van H wrote “I have to disagree with you a bit Smarten. It says in giant letters on http://www.grandsierracondos.com ‘Reno Tahoe’s Complete VACATION Ownership Destination.’ I worked for them, direct with marketing, and you are a little off on how they were marketed…Nowhere on their web site OR their brochure they say that it is an investment property.”

    You may be correct Mike, but please answer this for me. When you buy-in at GSR, are you buying into any particular unit for which fee title is conveyed, or do you have nothing more than an interest in any one of the several hundred or more rooms in the hotel?

    If the latter, then this represents your classic “condo-hotel” project; one where the project is run as if it were a hotel – the difference being the homeowner in essence pays for the running of the hotel operations and management splits the revenues. And that’s the key – revenues. Unless the project is run as a hotel, there are no revenues, are there?

    In any event, I found it interesting that in today’s RGJ there’s a full page ad for the “grand opening” of the GSR with rooms available for only $49/night [upgrade to the Summit for only $60]! Now if run as if it were a condo-hotel, there isn’t going to be much revenue left over for the owner selling his/her/its “condo” at $49/night!

    And whose rooms Mike? Developer hold backs for a casino operations? Or all those absentee “owners?” At $49/night the developer isn’t going to make that much on its hotel operations. But at $281K/room…

12. 

    November 12, 2007 at 4:21 PM

    Diane Cohn

    Data Guy, this came originally from you again? Thank you very much!

13. 

    November 12, 2007 at 4:48 PM

    SkrapGuy

    I don’t really want to hijack this thread into a discussion on the merits of condo-hotels, but Smarten reaises some of the more interesting issues. Consider this:

    You “own” a hotel room, but somebody else tells you how often and when you can actually stay in it.

    You “own” a hotel room, but somebody else decides how much rent will be paid for it.

    You “own” a hotel room, but somebody else manages it for you, and that somebody else decides how much money they will charge you for their management fee, and then they just deduct it off the top from your receipts.

    You “own” a hotel room , but somebody else decides what repairs will be done, and when, and how much you will be charged for those repairs.

    The theory is that the value of the hotel room you “own” will apperciate over time, just like any other real estate investment always appreciates over time. Right?

    It’s an interesting concept.

14. 

    November 12, 2007 at 5:07 PM

    smarten

    Well SkrapGuy, I don’t really want to hijack this thread but consider classic condominium/townhome ownership:

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else decides what you can do inside it.

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else tells you who can actually occupy it.

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else decides if your pet can occupy it with you.

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else decides if you can rent it.

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else manages it for you, and that somebody decides how much money they will charge for their management fee.

    You “own” a condo, but somebody else decides what repairs will be done to the common elements, and when, and how much more you will be assessed.

    And have you ever noticed how the neighbor you thought was the nicest person turns into the homeowners’ association board member from hell?

    Ah, the joys of home ownership!

15. 

    November 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM

    smarten

    P.S. SkrapGuy –

    Consider your same observations for your standard “time share;” the one you’ve placed $25K or more down for the privilege of paying more per year in “ownership” assessments than the cost on eBay without having to put up the $25K or more.

    Or more pointedly to this thread, why pay $281K-$885K for a GSR hotel room when you can pay $49/night retail [or $60/night to upgrade to a Summit room]?

    Yes, there must be more to this story than at first blush meets the eye.

16. 

    November 12, 2007 at 5:44 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    One thing that I find interesting about Data Guy’s info is that for the Palladio, the Belvedere, Arlington Towers, the Riverwalk, and Park Towers, we are talking about 93 deals. There is no point in talking about GSR sales because those are not going to be anybody’s residence and are not even intended to be.

    So 93 deals. Whats that, about 3% of the closed deals in Reno this year? Well, at least it’s more than the 0.8% of the market that Montreux accounts for that we spent so much time talking about here.

17. 

    November 12, 2007 at 9:18 PM

    Lindie

    Yes, Smarten, $49 a night defines real luxury, doesn’t it? I think that’s competitive with the Motel Six adjacent to Denny’s near the intersection of Sixth and Wells.

    Let’s see. If one moved into the GSR on a permanent basis and paid $49 a night, that would cost $17,885 based on a 365 day year.

    At that rate, after 15 years, one would have spent the $275,000 average amount paid for these hotel-condos.

    You are right Smarten, there has to be more to the story.

18. 

    November 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM

    Myrna the Minx

    The Belverdere also provides a rental service so although they were never as explicit about it, its easy to see why it appeals to out of towners.

19. 

    November 12, 2007 at 10:23 PM

    Richie

    Early last month, I stayed in a condo-hotel at the Ritz Carleton in Key Biscayne, Florida. It is a top notch place. I paid $225 a night, which was half price because the place was mostly empty, it was midweek and still in the off season.

    I can grasp the condo-hotel concept at $450 a night, even $225 a night. I cannot see how it possibly works at $49 a night.

20. 

    November 13, 2007 at 7:48 AM

    Mike Van H

    Are you all smoking crack or something? Or perhaps you just don’t read, but I said above that the $49 a night rooms are NOT THE SUMMIT HOTEL CONDO ROOMS. The $49 night rooms are just the plain jane rooms.
    Before you all spit out worthless dribble, I suggest you go pretend to book a room at http://www.grandsierraresort.com and see what their SUMMIT SUITE prices are. Here I will for you. Let’s see, for one room, for one night, in their Summit Hotel Suites, a Grand 2 Suite is $80.00, a Grand Suite is $110, an Imperial Suite is $450 a night, a Loft Suite is $350.00 a night, and a Golf Grand Suite is $110 a night. So to all in this thread that keep saying a Summit Suite is $49, go do some research.

21. 

    November 13, 2007 at 8:08 AM

    Mike Van H

    Those prices were for one night mid week…on the weekend they go up $20, and when you look at the cheaper ‘Grand 2 Suite and Golf Grand Suite’, they are just fancy hotel rooms, still 450 s.f., so I wouldn’t even classify them as suites. I’m sure these were the cheaper less expensive units we saw in the data posted above.
    I still think it’s crazy to pay $250,000 for a really nice hotel room…but I wanted to clear up Grand Sierra’s room rates.

22. 

    November 13, 2007 at 9:09 AM

    Reno Ignoramus

    I don’t think we are all quite as dumb as that. Well know that the GSR has almost 2,000 hotel rooms. We all understand that not all of them are the condo-ized units that are being sold to investors. We all understand that the lowest advertised rate gets the basic room, probably something left over from the MGM/Ballys/Reno Hilton days.

    The point, I think, is that despite all the expensive advertising hype from the GSR, the property is still a mixed bag as a “resort”. I agree that any place offering $49 rooms is going to have something of an image problem if it desires to market itself as a “high end” resort destination. But then, that’s a bigger issue for Reno than just the GSR, isn’t it?

    I have also been to a couple of Ritz Carleton condo-hotel properties. They were both truly first rate. And I assure you, there were no rooms, anywhere on the property, for $49 a night.

23. 

    November 13, 2007 at 9:42 AM

    smarten

    Mike Van H, with all due respect I don’t think you’re grasping the import of some of our posts.

    When someone purchases an interest in the GSR, does he/she/they in essence purchase a time share for 365 days/year usage evidenced by a deed in fee, or a specific condominium unit with the exclusive right to occupancy of THAT unit?

    Is his/her/their unit part of the hotel-casino’s rental program, or does it compete for rental income independently?

    No one ever stated a $49 hotel room was the equivalent of a “suite.” But exactly what category of room is one of the lower end $200K units equivalent to?

    If any privately owned GSR unit is rented, is the management company the same one that manages the $49 rooms? If so, what does it rent for? And why would the developer consciously set up a system where privately owned hotel rooms competed for occupancy in its casino-hotel unless nightly rates were identical and it retained management?

    And whether the nightly room rate is really $49, $69, $110 or $350, IMO is irrelevant. You more than most should know that management fees are probably 55% or so of gross; the individual owner must still pay his/her/their unit’s utilities and maintenance; he/she/they are individually responsible for damage and depreciation to their furniture, furnishings and personal effects; and management contributes zero towards its principles’ capital advances. Thus when one gets finished being nickle and dimed, that $450 nightly [are you reading Richie?] hypothetical rental income [I’m assuming for the 880 square foot model] is really equivalent to about $149!

    Now apply a healthy vacancy factor [because who’s going to pay $450/night mid-week]; run the numbers based upon a $550K purchase price [or if we’re talking about the Ritz-Carlton, apply a $2.5M or so purchase price]; and the net result is equivalent to lunacy for anyone other than the developer.

    Of course if all GSR purchasers are Howard Hughes recluse types who want to permanently reside in their casino-hotel rooms, none of this matters.

24. 

    November 13, 2007 at 10:19 AM

    Steve Watts

    Mike is sounding like he has an interest in GSR. I am amazed at the listing of buyers who would throw money at this. If the property offers $49 rooms, how many are going to want $110 suites (which by the way, are no different from hotel rooms besides size and design…they don’t even have kitchens!)? That will lessen the bookings for your room, and who’s to say what GSR decides will be their cut down the road? GSR, badly run as it is, books few rooms in the first place. Don’t these buyers also have to pay property taxes on top of everything? And quite honestly, from what I’m hearing about this operation, I have real doubts they’ll last here.

25. 

    November 13, 2007 at 10:21 AM

    Steve Watts

    Mike is sounding like he has an interest in GSR. I am amazed at the listing of buyers who would throw money at this. If the property offers $49 rooms, how many are going to want $110 suites (which by the way, are no different from hotel rooms besides size and design…they don’t even have kitchens!)? That will lessen the bookings for your room, and who’s to say what GSR decides will be their cut down the road? GSR, badly run as it is, books few rooms in the first place. Don’t these buyers also have to pay property taxes on top of everything? And quite honestly, from what I’m hearing about this operation, I have real doubts they’ll last here.

26. 

    November 13, 2007 at 10:54 AM

    Reno Ignoramus

    When I stayed at the Ritz Carlton in a condo-hotel suite, I asked a bit about the concept since I was curious. I was told that the way it worked was that the unit was a condo, not a timeshare. In other words, the purchaser bought a condominium that just happened to be located in a resort hotel. The purchaser got a deed to the unit. I was told the purchaser had the ability to decide when he wanted to use the unit, that it was quite flexible. The only restriction on personal use was that the owner had to agree not to live in the unit full time. When the owner was not using the unit, he had the option of placing the unit in the rental program. The property manager would then essentially treat the unit like a hotel suite and would take reservations, provide maid service, do repairs, etc. The room rate charged for the condo unit was, allegedly, the same as for a comparable suite that was not individually owned. As compensation for this service, the operator/manager took a percentage of the room rate that the guest paid. I can’t recall exactly the percentage, but I seem to remember that it was quite high, something like 75%. But don’t quote me on that.
    Keep in mind also that the Ritz guy I was talking to was talking only about that property, and so the arrangements may be different with other operators and different properties.

    Obviously, the questions and issues that can arise here are many. Beyond the scope of this thread I think. There is a ton of material on condo-hotels. Just google condo-hotel ownership and set aside about 3 days to read it all.

27. 

    November 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM

    Tom

    If one reads the Harrah’s Reno/Tahoe properties websites, it is shown that the “nicer” rooms at Harvey’s, at the Lake, south shore, are in the lake tower, and are in their two highest tier categories. Those are 525 square feet, and are well-appointed, comfortable, and in a great recreational location. For repeat visits, those work fine for me.
    But going down to about 400 square feet or thereabouts, is a lot of down-sizing. I for one could not get too excited about owning a month’s useage each year of an inner city hotel room that size. If it works for some, though, great; I am glad they are selling. Any periodic visits by such persons will involve spending money on food, entertainment, travel, some gaming, and that will always help. Besides, having once owned a weekend home, I know that by owning it you feel obligated to use it, so you visit more often than you otherwise might go to the same area. Result is more money being spent in the area. That is a good thing.
    Even thought it may be as some have posted here, that Reno’s economic orientation is possibly shifting away from gaming, there is still a large base of hotel casino properties that are deserving of support. For them to do other than prosper would not be a positive note for the area. I hope this project sells out and does well.

28. 

    November 13, 2007 at 12:03 PM

    Data_Guy

    In response to SkrapGuy’s request, here is a breakdown of RECENT sales for various projects by buyers mailing address. For simplicity – rather than listing the hundreds of sales individually – I have created location groups.

    The groups are:

    RENO – buyer address is RENO only.

    RENO METRO – buyer address is roughly within 1 hour of Reno – includes RENO PLUS… Sparks down to Gardnerville along 395, out to Fernly and Fallon and areas around Lake Tahoe including Truckee.

    TIME FRAME – I looked at all transactions from 2004 TO DATE. When multiple transactions for the same parcel occurred, I eliminated all but the most recent.

    NOTE: For all properties, “roughly” 90% of the sales that were made outside of what I termed the RENO METRO area went to west coast mailing addresses. For Grand Sierra it was slightly lower (80-85%). For simplicity, I have not broken down where NON-METRO buyers tend to reside, but it is heavily biased toward areas within a reasonable driving distance of Reno (mostly Northern CA).

    In the table below, the first percentage is RENO mailing addresses. The 2nd percentage is RENO METRO mailing addresses and following the name of the development (in parentheses) is the total number of transactions examined.

    68% 88% ARLINGTON TOWERS (56)
    73% 82% PALLADIO (51)
    61% 70% PARK TOWERS (56)
    66% 69% BELLA VISTA (29)
    50% 60% RIVERWALK (109)
    03% 10% BELVEDERE (29)
    01% 02% GRAND SIERRA (179)

    I listed the projects from the largest to the smallest proportions of RENO METRO AREA sales.

    Almost 9 of 10 Arlingon Towers transactions are associated with RENO METRO mailing addresses. Palladio is also VERY HIGH.

    Belvedere and Grand Sierra are on the opposite extreme.

29. 

    November 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM

    Mike Van H

    Hey guys. I definitely don’t have an interest in GSR, I just thought you were referring to the $49 rooms as being the ones that are purchasable. All of us have been fussing about the prices so much we all overlooked one tiny detail; they have only closed on 149 units and they need to sell ‘half’ of the 825 for their bank to give them more money for the indoor water park, and 149 is definitely not half of 825, so it may be a loooong while before their bank approves the money for the waterpark or other add-ons. 🙁 Bummer, I was looking forward to that water park.

30. 

    November 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM

    Grand Wazoo

    I seem to recall reading a few months ago that the company retained to sell the “condos” in the GSR resigned due to poor sales. Anyone remember that?

31. 

    November 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM

    SkrapGuy

    Thanks very much Data Guy. This is very insightful info. It really helps explain what is happening. It looks like we can write off the Belvedere as a new concept urban village populated by owners living and working in downtown Reno, revitalizing downtown in the process. It’s hard to see how it is going to be much different, from a downtown impact, than when it was the old Sundowner Hotel and Casino.

32. 

    November 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    I am struck by the smallness of the number of deals. If I understand Data Guy correctly, since the beginning of 2004 to date, a period of now almost four years, there have a total of 301 deals at Arlington Towers, Park Towers, Riverwalk, and Belvedere combined. That can’t be more than 2% of all residential real estate closings in that time period. This blog has spent a lot of words over the past year talking about a statistically insignificant segment of the real estate market. I suppose that’s understandable given all the hype and press these downtown condo projects have bought and paid for. But is it really a bit of a tempest in a teapot?

33. 

    November 13, 2007 at 2:11 PM

    Reno Ignoramus

    Oops….that 301 total deals figure also includes the closings at the Palladio….sorry

34. 

    November 13, 2007 at 2:36 PM

    smarten

    A little bit off base [sorry], but I just received an e-mail which gives a little different view from a little different perspective that some on this blog might appreciate.

    The Village at Squaw Valley – you know, the European Village of mixed upscale shopping/condos developed several years ago at the base of Squaw Valley U.S.A.

    Like the rest of the Lake Tahoe Basin/Reno Metropolitan Area, pricing at the Village rapidly escalated in the 2004-2006 period.

    Well this afternoon I received an e-mail from a local realtor specializing in this development letting me know that a pending sale of one of her 1 BD/1BA condos in Station 22 had “fallen through” and the owner had decided to reduce his asking price to $369K to make a fast sale [it won’t last long (don’t you just hate these words?)].

    To put this price in perspective, it supposedly represents the lowest resale price [by $20K] in the Village’s relatively brief history. Also during the last two years, I have watched prices for similar units steadily climb up to the $475K range. So for there to be a 22% drop in price in roughly a year on the eve of the most popular season for Squaw Valley, is IMO remarkable.

    It’s also an indication that in the “so called” hot Lake Tahoe resort real estate market which appeals to rich Northern California second home buyers/investors, even pricey Lake Tahoe is not immune to what’s going on in Reno/Sparks and other similar surrounding areas [like California’s central valley, Rocklin, Roseville, etc.].

    Let’s see if Mark and Lexi include this type of non-biased real estate information in next month’s Lake Tahoe/North Shore real estate newsletter!

35. 

    November 13, 2007 at 4:35 PM

    BanteringBear

    In response to smarten’s post, I am not surprised to see the reduction at Squaw Valley. No area will be immune from the correction. Remember, an ebbing tide lowers all boats.

    I grew up skiing and snowboarding at Squaw. I used to love it more than words can describe, but it has lost it’s luster as of late, as has much of Tahoe.

    Gone is the charm of an area which was, at one time, largely comprised of smallish cabins, inhabited by locals and visitors alike who were stewards of the land, brimming with an absolute love and respect for the natural beauty which surrounded them. Replaced, by what can only be described as repugnant monstrosities, sticking out like a sore thumb on a once beautiful landscape, and inhabited by a group of reclusive elitists who would build a wall around them if laws would permit. Rarely do I go to the Tahoe area anymore. It’s just too painful to see.

36. 

    November 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM

    DataGuy

    Regarding the “low numbers” of downtown condo sales from 2004-date… Of the sold- out condo projects, none contain a whole lot of units.

    Of the ones that are not sold out, Riverwalk is almost sold out and it contains in the low 100’s, as I recall.

    Palladio contains something like 90 units and has closed on 53 I think (only 51 are in the closed file). I think it has about 8 still in escrow and 30+ including a few resales currently on the market.

    Of the two projects with larger numbers of units, Belvedere has barely started closing (29 closings out of its projected total of 380 or so as I recall) and Montage is not yet closing but will look to close on most of its 384 or so units over the next couple of years.

    Less heralded, but fairly significant are the growing numbers of smaller low-rise condo projects that are beginning to surface. Grants Landing will have more than 100 residences. Ryder is apparently about to break ground on the first 28 of 50-60 units it plans to sell (a bit south of Grants Landing). Another 15-20 unit infill project is set to start a block south of Mill on Holcomb. Thoma Street Lofts may break ground soon and plans 30-35 units – as I recall – to name a few.

    These types of projects haven’t received nearly the hype of the highrise casino rehabs and the several stalled new high rise proposals, but they will also contribute a lot to the future health and vitality of the downtown area.

37. 

    November 13, 2007 at 6:51 PM

    DERRICK

    A rumor that I heard folks. Grand sierra will be filing for chapter 11. Heard it here first!

    Cheers

38. 

    November 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM

    Grand Wazoo

    I have actually heard this about the GSR as well from a vendor leasing space in the basement shopping area.

    Does it mean anything? Dunno, but it would be one way to get rid of some labor contracts that GSR management has been complaining about recently.

39. 

    November 13, 2007 at 10:05 PM

    SkrapGuy

    Have you all seen Diane’s new business at http://www.realtyblogcoach.com? She’s down at the NAR convention in LV today telling realtors how to survive by blogging.

40. 

    November 14, 2007 at 1:07 AM

    Grand Wazoo

    Be sure and check out Diane’s rates for blog coaching – $200/hr or a $5000 prepaid package.

    All we need is some voodoo financing packages for these services (Jeff?) and it is truly back to the Good Old Days.

    $200 an hour is about what a jumbo jet airline pilot makes. Certainly Diane has both the comparable skill set and responsibility – right?

    Diane – you just broke my heart.

41. 

    November 14, 2007 at 7:00 AM

    Smart Money

    Wow! She is getting pretty desperate. I guess she is not getting many real-estate sales lately. Perhaps it has something to do with her being so bullish on real estate in 2005, right before the collapse?

42. 

    November 14, 2007 at 7:25 AM

    Mike Van H

    $200 an hour yikes! That seems a bit steep when most marketing firms and web firms in town charge half that rate and have plenty of experience with blogs and marketing one’s self. Especially when the average residential realtor is near broke. BUT, I wish her the best of luck, I can say confidently more realtors need to follow her lead in marketing. In fact I have acouple of real estate clients I may push her way to get educated in blogging. Luckily though they are both commercial brokers and not residential, and the commercial/industrial market is actually booming right now so they can afford that rate…LOL oops did I say that? Poor poor residential realtors.

43. 

    November 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM

    Lindie

    Yes, that’s just what is needed. 2,500 realtors in Reno with 2,500 blogs doing 250 deals a month.

    As somebody said here recently, this is better than watching television.

44. 

    November 14, 2007 at 5:44 PM

    Ann O.

    Diane doesn’t have to convince the readers of this blog, 2,500 Reno area realtors (or agents), or the average residential realtor (or agent) that her services are worth what she charges. She just has to convince a FEW agents who can afford to pay her. She only has so many hours in a week to sell, for crying out loud!

    Furthermore, people’s perception of what her services are worth are influenced by how much she values herself. Even if it’s just subconsciously, her value goes up in their eyes just because she has placed a high value on herself. The reverse would be true if she placed a low price on her services. I wish her well with this new endeavor.

45. 

    February 6, 2008 at 7:22 PM

    lootorbcosy

    Nice site keep it up!

    ————————————–
    http://www.dasofte.com

46. 

    December 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM

    harmony rose

    I’m still a bit confused on some things after reading all of this…

    you can buy a condo but you can’t live in it 365 days a year? what is the max number of days you can live in your condo?