More Luxury Condos by Notre Dame?

by Nick Molnar on March 3, 2008

The South Bend Tribune reported on several newly proposed Notre Dame condos in yesterday’s paper (link). Two are in the $200,00 – $420,000 price range and one would offer 6 and 8 bedroom apartments for rent. The high-end condos near Notre Dame are nothing new in a market with at least a handful of such projects already underway, but the apartments would offer a legitimate way for students who want to live with a group of friends off-campus to do so without violating South Bend’s single family zoning restrictions.

The story, reminisicent of the Tribune’s batch of March ’07 articles about the Notre Dame condo boom, is informative but lets the developers get away with some things they wouldn’t here: calling unbuilt condos “sold” and speaking as if they can effectively control who will live in the housing they build. 

I’ll post more about these, and the ongoing condo projects in the coming months – about their progress or lack thereof, their sales, and which complexes manage to distinguish themselves from the rest.

If you have an opinion on these projects or the changing neighborhoods near the University, please share it in the comments.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Det. Property Records March 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm

“Roy also had planned a condo-hotel project along Vaness Street. He said he’s still considering that idea and may build just condos rather than a condo-hotel.”

That guy never even owned most of that land, nor did he even have contracts to buy it. Very weird. The little land he did own on Vaness (60′ of frontage?) he doesn’t even own anymore. Very weird. I can’t figure out a guy who doesn’t even own the land going around telling people he may just build condos instead… He has no association with the people that do own it. Hence, I seriously doubt the “sold seven units” too. Watch out dealing with this guy. I could say more, but I’ll leave that for another post.


Michael J. March 3, 2008 at 8:18 pm

If a developer has a unit under contract with a sizable deposit (such as 10%-20% down) and they are playing catch-up with construction, I could see where they would count that as sold in most cases. As long as they are not double counting when it closes, I don’t think that is unreasonable. If the earnest money is refundable and the deposit is $2500 or less, then you just have a “hold” or a “reservation”, not a sale just yet. A developer’s sold is different from a realtor’s sold at closing.


Nick Molnar March 3, 2008 at 9:39 pm

I can see the argument on both sides. I am cautious though, after GameDay “sold” a number of units, and Colfax Place “sold” a few condos, and neither was ever built.


Michael J. March 3, 2008 at 10:43 pm

I guess it depends if it is an all or nothing type of building. For single homes, villas, townhomes, and some smaller condo buildings (small as in # of units per building), once you have the site developed, then it is just a matter of constructing each building one at a time as demand warrants. The larger the number of units in a building, the more difficult that is. For example, a 16 unit building is a much bigger bite than say a 4 unit building to build if any of the units are speculations before purchase agreements (the ones with real deposits and commitments). Good to be cautious after GameDay, Colfax Place, and Stadium Village condo-hotel.

Also, for instance, when North Douglas had three sold in the second building I believe those are really “sold” as long as the developer builds that building. Same with Irish Crossings which apparently is still trying to catch up to with its construction to get sold units completed before fall.

It did not surprise me that GameDay didn’t get built. ND is a different kettle of fish than other schools, not always for the better. Locating GameDay downtown made no sense if you know the market in SB area.


Cancel reply

Leave a Comment