Escala is once again the talk of the town. Jim Stroupe broke a story this week that has been developing for quite some time. I commend he and his team for getting the details out in the public. In fact, earlier this week, behind closed doors the details of the change were still “off” the record. Regardless of when the change was announced, I think it is fair to say that everyone was expecting news like this. It shouldn’t have been a surprise.
A few years ago, I was working in Belltown and was surrounded by the Seattle condo buzz. I must say that I was caught up in the grandiose plan and much anticipated pre-sale process of Escala. Many of our partners and colleagues were in large part a contributor to the project. They added their time and opinions towards pricing, marketing, staffing and selling. There was a vision that was easy to believe in. Escala was meant to be bigger than life. In my opinion the Architects Paul Thoryk, MulvannyG2, and the developer John Midby of Lexus Companies were creating something that had never been done before. There was truth to that, but now it seems dead wrong. In fact, from the beginning, although the developer didn’t notice it, many of Seattle’s condo buyers were scratching their heads.
Dating back to the grand opening of the design center, there were questions about the design and how it would fit in the traditional Seattle market. There has always been enthusiasm for the project, but over time Escala seemed like a big onion, with layers unfolding and adding to the uncertainty, lack of transparency and un-acceptable communication. No one will forget the infamous price increases and multiple attempts to “set the direction” of project artificially.
To sum it all up, the reason the model is broken is because of the price, communication, commitment to the current buyers and a lack of transparency to the buying community. Unfortunately, the original vision of the project was created at a very different time then when it was delivered today. With that, comes strict lending guidelines and a counter culture to excessive spending on real estate. So, the change in project is from “Lender” pressure. The lending institution that is funding its lack of success must force the change that the project needs. No one will really know how well this will be received. My hope is that they will find a way to keep Club Cielo and lower prices and hoa dues by 30%.
One final point I need to make is that I commend Escala on their efforts. I don’t agree with the way they have handled the process but I can’t fault someone for taking a chance to build something great. I firmly believe that without risk, one can’t find reward. Let’s be honest, if a project fails it gives us something to talk about, but it doesn’t do us any good as participants and owners in our great city.
Feel free to share feedback at info@urbanimg.com
[mappress]
Related posts:
RECENT COMMENTS ON UCS