Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Watermark condos get revised floor plans « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Tetsua
Member
Username: Tetsua

Post Number: 1658
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 7:43 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Bing said he has scrapped plans for the row of homes facing Atwater because those failed to attract any buyers. But he has increased the number of penthouse units in his nine-story tower and reduced the number -- but increased the size -- of units in the low-rise marina townhouses.



http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080603/BUS INESS04/806030395
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1423
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 8:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Bing said he has scrapped plans for the row of homes facing Atwater because those failed to attract any buyers.


Thats why cities typically put retail and commercial in those locations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Viziondetroit
Member
Username: Viziondetroit

Post Number: 1742
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 8:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll get excited when I see shovel in the ground, concrete being poured and when I see an actual closing papers signed.

The one VITAL piece overlooked is how price factors into people wanting to move there, not the size of the units. I think during these times, that's more important when there is a slow economy(bingo), no real retail (bingo), and catalyst to spur other development (bingo)
Top of pageBottom of page

Crawford
Member
Username: Crawford

Post Number: 248
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The city is subsidizing this to the tune of 700K, but it isn't enough. They will have to wait a few years, or the Detroit taxpayers will have to dig deeper.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lo_to_d
Member
Username: Lo_to_d

Post Number: 80
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

great, this project just got more suburban.
They removed the only portion that wasn't a gated community. Way to go!
Top of pageBottom of page

Rax
Member
Username: Rax

Post Number: 336
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

They removed the only portion that wasn't a gated community. Way to go!



Dave Bing reads DY regularly. He probably read about everyone's lawn mower getting ganked and decided to scrap the non-gated community portion of the project. Between this and CAID, this has been quite a week!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4857
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hope this project doesn't happen now...it's just another suburban-type development on the river like Lo_to_d correctly points out.

The City needs to give him a timetable and then take their money off the table and find a new developer.

Maybe nobody wanted to live on the street-side because there's not much of a streetscape there...everything's demolished, no one is walking around. There is that grand vision of a lively streetscape on Atwater and Woodbridge, but it can never happen unless the City enforces a code on developers like Bing to build buildings facing the street, and it can never happen if no developers take the first steps toward creating it. Thus it appears that the riverfront will slowly get developed, and will have residents, but it will not be a lively place, and will not have attractive streetscapes. Bing probably found that most of his potential buyers were retirees from GP and Birmingham that wanted the water view and a secluded place to age gracefully and enjoy cultural events downtown. That's all fine and good, but it would still be in his best interest to have diverse offerings so his property can have many different types of buyers over time.

I really hope that development happens close to Jos. Campau or the Ren Cen first, and then additional development spreads inward toward the state park harbor, because that gives us the best chance to realize that grand vision of a pedestrian-friendly, lively-streetscape east riverfront district. One development will build on top of the other, and the trend of building up to the street can get started more easily if you are building things that connect to a neighborhood and not vacant lots. If the chips don't fall that way, expect a disjointed east riverfront full of stand-alones like this design.
Top of pageBottom of page

401don
Member
Username: 401don

Post Number: 517
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He's not even half way to the 66 units he needs so a shovel in the ground this yr. seems like a pipe dream.
Top of pageBottom of page

Higgs1634
Member
Username: Higgs1634

Post Number: 471
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Bing said he has scrapped plans for the row of homes facing Atwater because those failed to attract any buyers.



quote:

There is that grand vision of a lively streetscape on Atwater and Woodbridge, but it can never happen unless the City enforces a code on developers like Bing to build buildings facing the street, and it can never happen if no developers take the first steps toward creating it.



Setting aside the fact that the entire project will probably not get built anytime soon due to the economy, seems to me that Bing tried to take that first step and NO ONE BOUGHT ONE. What do you want the guy to do, build an empty building?

Further, why would a person buy a condo spitting distance from the river that faced AWAY from it? We are decades from a point where land for residential development is that valuable in that area. The entire riverfront would need to be developed before building those units would make economic sense. Forcing developers to build them will just scuttle projects. If anything that is where commercial storefronts can go once the developments get built. But telling Bing to get bent because he removed a portion of the development that no one wanted is just nuts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4859
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He could have tried dropping the price on the street-side townhouses. That's another way to respond to insufficient demand. Methinks he doesn't want certain types of people living in this neighborhood.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, or to meet a city ordinance (which should be in place for this district). When you have a blank slate like we have in the E. Riverfront, there's no reason a city should not do its best to get exactly want it has planned for, and will be best for the long term.

Almost the exact scenario is playing out right now in Harrison, NJ. Very interesting: http://www.riverbenddistrict.c om/

Much new building is going to start in a now mostly-abandoned riverfront district. They have similar grand plans, but Harrison's version of the DEGC adopted a plan developed by a planning and design firm, and they will stick to it. Obviously everything will happen much more rapidly there than on our riverfront because it is metro NYC, but the idea of giving the developers a template within which to work is hardly out of bounds in any urban environment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rax
Member
Username: Rax

Post Number: 337
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 1:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

He could have tried dropping the price on the street-side townhouses. That's another way to respond to insufficient demand. Methinks he doesn't want certain types of people living in this neighborhood.




What the hell are you talking about?
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1340
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Harrison is in metro NYC which is a growing region. Atwater Street in Detroit is in a city which is losing population and in the middle of a region which is at best flat and probably not even that.

The comparison is ridiculous.

If you have rapid growth, then of course you can enforce your plans because people will want to build since they know they can make money. If you have no growth at all, then you have to decide whether to strictly enforce your ideas (which means most developers will simply walk away) or allow people to try and do what they can make a little money at.

Atwater Street has no urban scene, no view from where he had planned to put those homes, and no public transportation, yet people are surprised when a suburban-style development is planned. When you provide a suburban level of services and amenities, what you get is a suburb.
Top of pageBottom of page

Higgs1634
Member
Username: Higgs1634

Post Number: 472
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mack, he's not a philanthropy nor a one man savior of the warehouse district...what's left of it. He is doing two things, investing in Detroit, and looking to make a buck or two doing it.

quote:

Methinks he doesn't want certain types of people living in this neighborhood.



Methinks he is trying to attract people with money to buy his places. Wealthy people generally have no interest in living next to 30,000 condos (which is what he'd need to lower the price to). Sorry, just a fact of life.

Also, IIRC Harrison NJ is about the size of Highland Park and as you note, part of the NYC metro area. I think the river front between Jefferson and the river and from the MacArthur Bridge to the RenCen is bigger than Harrison and virtually devoid of life. Does that mean that Detroit can't institute some logical planning? Of course not, but let's not make them so economically unworkable or base them on a region that is explosively growing. Nothing will be built if we do that. Forcing developers to build street facing residential there is never going to work until the area is developed fully and people will settle for being near the water and not looking at it.

(Message edited by higgs1634 on June 03, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1341
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, you will never get urban-style development until you provide an urban quality of life. If everyone is going to have to have a car and to drive it absolutely everywhere, then everything we build in Detroit is going to look like a suburb because that's the infrastructure we're providing.

If you want part of the Detroit area to have the ambiance of parts of the NYC metro or Chicagoland, then you have to provide the same infrastructure they do. One of the workable definitions of insanity, from Einstein, is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rax
Member
Username: Rax

Post Number: 338
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Exactly, Higgs. Hey let's put some Section 8 on the waterfront! That would be kick ass.
Top of pageBottom of page

Higgs1634
Member
Username: Higgs1634

Post Number: 473
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well, it would be kick ass for those that benefit from section 8 assistance, but not so much for a developer trying to sell high end developments.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4860
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Obviously Bing can do what he wants in his attempt to get his development going, and he damn well should (since the City will not get in the way of any economic development short of a Guns Galore warehouse), but I'm simply throwing out questions in light of the removal the of the street-side structures (especially in case Bing is perusing the site). Aesthetics aside, let's keep this on economics. Rax, in response to your 'what the hell are you talking about?' exclamation, let me explain the situation, in case you missed it. Bing wasn't getting buyers for those units. I said, "how about dropping the price on them?" You said: WTH? What I'm talking about is the effect of prices on a person's willingness to purchase any product. Pretty basic, right. Higgs notes correctly that people wouldn't be too big on buying a place there without a water view, and I agree, especially since their being situation on a mostly-blank streetscape. The thing is, nobody wanted it at the price he was offering. How 'bout he knocks of 25-35 grand (while retaining a resonable profit margin by, perhaps, swapping out the high-end appliances, or choosing some different building materials), and then see what happens, rather than changing what was an awfully nice design for his complex (which put out a nice face to the street, and created a courtyard which secluded the waterfront units). Trying to get buyers on board by testing for their willingness to pay would have been hardly a stupid thing to do, and offering a 10 percent price reduction isn't exactly turning a development into section 8 housing.

Professor, the economies in which these areas are located are clearly different, but let's not exaggerate so as to completely ignore the merits of the other development (which isn't exactly happening in a glorious, beautiful area, but rather in a former arm-pit type of corner near the tracks across the river from Newark). The actual situation, physically/spatially speaking, is remarkably similar. It was food for thought, mostly to point out the merits of a planned community.

Detroit once had a plan (remember Judge Woodward?)

(Message edited by mackinaw on June 03, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1342
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Armpit locations become valuable when a region is growing and land is scarce. Land isn't scarce in Detroit.

You can plan all you want, but people aren't going to build something if it doesn't make sense to them. All planning says is "if you build, you must do X", it doesn't guarantee anyone will ever build a thing.

Detroit has had plans continuously since Judge Woodward, and up until the exodus began shortly after WWII, the plans were followed to large extent. In fact the plans of the early to mid 20th Century, when we decided to become the world expressway capital, probably did us more catastrophic damage than anything else we've ever done.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rax
Member
Username: Rax

Post Number: 339
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So build cheap, or don't build at all. I think he made the right choice based on the market response.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4863
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Couldn't agree more with all of that, Professor.

I would just add/adjust your second paragraph. Codes and ordinances and land-use planning aren't put in place to incentivize building, but just to make sure that what gets built in a place, whenever that actually happens, is appropriate based on some standards that could be very basic, or very elaborate. I.e. a basic standard i.e. maximum setback of 5 feet, and no fences or parking lots in front of buildings, could be all that's neccesary to create the east riverfront of everyone's dreams (the one in all the colorful pamphlets). I know i'm preaching to the choir on that, and it's not just being too idealistic or lashing out against the 'any development is good development' motto in Detroit (because all investment is good), but I am just feeling that this an incident which provide the occasion to think about these things.

The City can then go about taking seperate measures to entice developers if it wants to economic development sooner than later.

Rax-- build cheap-er. Or don't. I'm sure he could have offered a lower price and not gone broke, just to see if there was ANY demand.

If not, another possibility for a new design could be a C- or E- shaped building (for the "tower" portion) with the bottom of the C along the street, the top of the C along the water, opening up to the skyline.

(Message edited by mackinaw on June 03, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Spartacus
Member
Username: Spartacus

Post Number: 313
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A nine story tower doesn't sound very "suburban" to me. Would you rather he got rid of the tower and just built a row of homes instead?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4868
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 4:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is still a very substantial development, yes. I propose we stop using 'tower', though, especially as the building appears to be wider than it is tall.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4423
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

A nine story tower doesn't sound very "suburban" to me. Would you rather he got rid of the tower and just built a row of homes instead?



If you gate it off and separate it wholly from interacting with the street grid, then yeah, it's pretty suburban--no matter how tall the damned thing is.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4870
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

True. Even in the American conception of suburbia being tall doesn't rule a building out. See Troy, Southfield, et al.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2639
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 2:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Atlanta has a planned community on a former steel mill site called "Atlantic Station." It has retail, commercial, and residential development, with underground parking. It appears to be a well thought out community.

Now, look at Detroit. We have a golden opportunity to re-invent the riverfront, but where's the comprehensive planning? I remember Bing talking about having ground level retail in his development. Where is that now?

Retail, office, and residential development(multi-use) might work out better in this area if there was a comprehensive plan. Maybe there is one and those of us not in certain circles simply don't know about it. However, a view of the master plan of this area and public feedback might be the catalyst needed to get this area moving.

I know public meetings for the RiverWalk and the Dequindre Cut have helped the Riverfront Conservancy plan those two developments. Having independent developers develop the riverfront without any input from the public appears to be short-sighted.

Also, a big issue that I have with developing the east riverfront is the distance that Atwater Street is from the river. It's over a football field in length, maybe two, and creates two complex dilemmas in my view. First of all, if you want that lively streetscape, then do you bring Atwater( a new street in reality) closer to the river? I've often envisioned what it would look like if Atwater was the distance you find on the west end of Belle Isle. Being able to get out of you car and set up a chair or picnic blanket is a lot more convenient along that stretch of Belle Isle than it is to try and do the same thing along Atwater.

In addition, I think it's safer to have a road closer to the RiverWalk( 20-30 yards) than to have the road over 100 yards away. Very few people along Atwater can come to your rescue if you are attacked along the RiverWalk. A constant flow of traffic, although much of it vehicular, can serve as a deterrent to criminals who are up to no good. You're not isolated in this scenario.

The second dilemma I see with development along the riverfront relates again to the position of Atwater Street. Now, since Tricentennial Park and Chene Park eliminate the possibility of building a road closer to the river, how about continuing the north/south streets south of Atwater?

I have also envisioned having townhomes/brownstones line streets like Riopelle, Orleans, St. Aubin, and Dubois, but south of Atwater. The streets would end at the RiverWalk like in a cul-dul-sac. People could walk from Atwater down these streets to the RiverWalk or cars could use these streets to drop off or pick up runners, walkers, or bikers using the RiverWalk.

The north side of Atwater would have retail shops like coffee shops, and restaurants. The folks living in the area would support the retail, along with the walkers, runners and bikers leaving the RiverWalk after completing their activities.

A Bing development that had a north/south street come through it or next to it would be a much more walkable development, eliminating the isolation of the current development plan. In fact the west end of this development will face Tricentennial Park, specifically the marina. Why not build a road there( with the cul-dul-sac) so that people can have access to the river at that point?[Note:In this area the RiverWalk is forced to divert to Atwater. If Chene Park is ever moved, then this road would be a better access point to the river and continue the RiverWalk behind the Bing development].

The Bing development is a welcomed sight along the river, but some tweaking could make it an ideal development. Described above is simply my vision of how this development, along with other areas of the east riverfront can be developed. I accept all criticisms or praises.

(Message edited by royce on June 04, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4877
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 8:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Great post. Regarding safety, I think it will be enough to simply have residents (hopefully in the hundreds on each plot) living near the riverwalk, but I can see the merit in building another street closer to the water. I don't see it happening but you can make a strong case...these were mostly industrial lots and they need to be broken up some more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo

Post Number: 1424
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 8:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Setting aside the fact that the entire project will probably not get built anytime soon due to the economy, seems to me that Bing tried to take that first step and NO ONE BOUGHT ONE. What do you want the guy to do, build an empty building?



Of course nobody wants to buy a building on Atwater when they can have riverfront views. This location should be used for retail/commercial. Even if they can't secure a retailer, surely a building of this size has a leasing office, some sort of property management/maintenance offices, a workout facility, guest houses, etc. All perfectly suited to occupy a space on Atwater.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4880
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 8:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very, very true. I wonder if the people who work with Bing asked these questions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lo_to_d
Member
Username: Lo_to_d

Post Number: 82
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 1:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As a married person soon looking to move from condo to townhome and have a family, those "City homes" were the best option. I liked the idea of having the river behind the home and still have an urban front entrance (once the area is more developed). This doesn't exist anywhere in the city now. You would have still had views up and down the river, especially from the corner units. Plus there was only 6 of them. Should we be shocked that none sold yet?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lo_to_d
Member
Username: Lo_to_d

Post Number: 83
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Also, I believe people aren't buying because the days of buying pre-construction are past. If he really wants to get started on this thing this year, he should do it in phases. Build the townhomes in a first phase with the foundation for the tour also. Sure, it would be expensive, but the $750,000 he got from the city ought to cover it. Then build the tower in a year, if more units aren't sold, cut 5 stories out of the building. We cannot continue to force a tower density when our city cannot support it. He will have a much better chance of selling units once the shovel is in the ground. I am sure as hell not going to put money down on a project that may never happen. I respect Bing greatly and only wish I was as successful as him, so I could make these decisions for myself. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit

Post Number: 725
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 4:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lo_to_d,

You can be!

Are you really all that much different than anyone?
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedame
Member
Username: Eastsidedame

Post Number: 323
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 5:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nobody is going to be buying anywhere unless they have job security, and that would mean at least until a new President is elected. No one knows what's going to happen.

Plus, I agree with those who have said that they must build in phases, or at least have a "model homes" type setup.

You have to spend money to earn the buyer's faith that you are committed to the project. Actual living spaces that are viewable and livable are essential.

First, it's a sign of good faith on the part of the builder.

Plus, it's a valuable sales tool. The river has a certain allure to those it attracts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 4969
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 8:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Nobody is going to be buying...until a new President is elected."

Ahhh right of course. Because clearly you are employed by whoever is president, and their decisions factor into everyone's line of work so much. This is what makes studying economics so fascinating. In reality the swearing-in of a new president does not change the facts about a market whatsoever, yet perception matters, and a great deal of the American market is uninformed and delusional, and would actually wait until someone else is elected before purchasing something or making an investment.

If there is any higher probability of Bing starting his project in January as opposed to now, let's first take a look at interest rate, credit availability, etc. to see how that would have influenced him and his buyers, as opposed to naively chalking it up to Obama's election.

One more note (something which I don't think has been mentioned here): these are priced to be the most expensive new condos ever built in the City. I'd say model homes would be a nice idea for something starting at 500k.
Top of pageBottom of page

Quinn
Member
Username: Quinn

Post Number: 1595
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Small but significant, I feel, criticism for Bing. Open your place up on Sunday's for open house.

Sunday is the day when people look at open houses! Hello! We ride by there most Sundays and it's closed. Go figure. If you're having a hard time selling, then open up during prime-open-house time.
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 465
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 12:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

how many of the units have sold?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.