- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Residents of Charleston's 2nd tallest building forced to evacuate over structural concerns
Posted on 6/11/25 at 3:43 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Posted on 6/11/25 at 3:43 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:plus a $1MM HOA fee
A number of places in there on the market for $145k to $550k
0
Posted on 6/11/25 at 3:45 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
But all owners would have to agree to the sale.
I wonder how many votes it would take to repair the building. Likely to be a stalemate and will result in a vacant building for some time.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 4:04 pm to Black n Gold
quote:
I wonder how many votes it would take to repair the building. Likely to be a stalemate and will result in a vacant building for some time.
All owners are currently paying their primary mortgages as well as paying for their secondary/current housing so I would think there's some motivation to get it figured out more quickly. Will be curious to see what a developer would buy it for considering they'd then have to put in the money to fix it or pay a ton to have it demolished.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 4:19 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
One of the units in this building just went under contract for $350k. Sold for $850k in May 2023.
He didn't lose half million, he saved himself $1.5 million
Posted on 6/11/25 at 4:25 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Each owner's share of the bill is based on their ownership percentage of the building, which varies condo to condo. A larger apartment might bear more than 1 percent share, meaning that owner would pay more than $1.5 million for the repairs.
Those previously-posted $350k offers seem great now
Posted on 6/11/25 at 4:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
How in the hell are the homeowners responsible for the repairs and not the original developer/owner of the building? Seems like they were sold a condo that is no longer structurally safe, which should fall on the owner of the building, no?
Posted on 6/11/25 at 4:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you realize how expensive it is for them?
Read the movers are charging an arm and leg to go into the building, 15-20K just to get their belongings out.
Still paying a grand monthly to the HOA plus $160 per parking spot, plus two mortgages.
Did HOA not have an insurance policy that would cover some of this?
Read the movers are charging an arm and leg to go into the building, 15-20K just to get their belongings out.
Still paying a grand monthly to the HOA plus $160 per parking spot, plus two mortgages.
Did HOA not have an insurance policy that would cover some of this?
Posted on 6/11/25 at 10:31 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
There are some contractors and architects insurance carriers that are puckering up right about now.
Seriously doubt it. It was built in 1974. There isn’t a soul around who had anything to do with the original construction. Even if there were, you can’t go back 50 years and start pointing fingers anyway. And let’s pretend you can…any large company that built that building would have had sufficient insurance for any boo boos. And that’s even assuming their insurance carrier they had at the time still exists. Which it probably doesn’t. So nobody is puckering. It’s a non starter but even if they tried, it would be like chasing ghosts.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 10:52 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
This building is a damned eyesore and I'm not sure how it ever got approved to be built
Don’t you live in a large eyesore of a building that’s built on what used to be a marsh and now Hagood floods every high tide?
Posted on 6/12/25 at 2:50 am to Chucktown_Badger
My parents had a condo years ago that had some building/ structural issues that forced a lawsuit of the construction group.
Was a PITA requiring the condo owners to pony up fees for attorneys, etc just to get the place up to code.
Definitely gonna be way worse for this Charleston place
Was a PITA requiring the condo owners to pony up fees for attorneys, etc just to get the place up to code.
Definitely gonna be way worse for this Charleston place
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:44 am to jbgleason
quote:
I am guessing their homeowners will cover if they lose the building.
If the cause of loss is poor construction, homeowners will not cover the loss unless construction defects are covered.
The construction company who build the building is on the hook or at least their insurance company is.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 6:48 am to jscrims
quote:highly unlikely
The construction company who build the building is on the hook or at least their insurance company is.
how old is this building?
Posted on 6/12/25 at 4:19 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
quote:
It looks like the design came from a architectural design bureau in 1960s Soviet Union.
That’s brutal….
I see what you did there
Posted on 6/12/25 at 4:55 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Seems like they were sold a condo that is no longer structurally safe, which should fall on the owner of the building, no?
I'm would assume the condo association is the owner of the building and the individual unit owners have their little piece within it (studs in).
Posted on 6/12/25 at 4:58 pm to AlextheBodacious
quote:
Don’t you live in a large eyesore of a building that’s built on what used to be a marsh
It's not an ugly building and I don't believe it used to be marsh, though I do have a great view of the marsh and park and river from my balcony
quote:
and now Hagood floods every high tide?
Not every high tide but every king tide it does. The new pumping station just up the road on Lockwood should help big time with that once it comes online.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:02 pm to cgrand
quote:
how old is this building?
47 years.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:05 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
47 years
the idea that there is any liability (not saying it’s your idea) on the part of the original designers or builder is ludicrous. The building is nearing the end of its useful life as far as the industry is concerned
this is the risk you run by buying a condo
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:12 pm to cgrand
Sucks for the townhome owners around the base of the building. Their townhomes (which are also ugly) do not have the structural issues but are considered part of the development and they were also forced out. I think in part because they would be in danger should the tower come down.
You can see them in the lower part of this picture.
You can see them in the lower part of this picture.
This post was edited on 6/12/25 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:23 pm to Chucktown_Badger
as you noted in an earlier post, each of the HOA members would be entitled to a share of the land sale price should everyone agree to sell. If you have a mortgage you’re SOL but if you don’t you could possibly do pretty well on that considering the prime real estate.
fricked up situation unless the HOA insurer pays for the repairs with just a reasonable backcharge to the owners
fricked up situation unless the HOA insurer pays for the repairs with just a reasonable backcharge to the owners
Posted on 6/12/25 at 5:41 pm to cgrand
Curious what kind of lowball offer would come in though, considering whoever buys it has to deal with that 20 story monstrosity sitting on the land.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News