ᐅ Sell the entire property or opt for a partial sale with reinvestment?
Created on: 10 Jun 2018 13:41
K
kaho674
There is a large property in the family located in the center of Dresden. It is a residential area—surrounded by 6-story or even taller new apartment buildings. The land is currently occupied by a very old factory building. The owners do not have the funds to demolish this building and replace it with modern new construction. On the other hand, the ongoing costs and rental income are just about breaking even. If income continues to decline, the property could financially ruin the family.
So the question is what should happen with this "factory land." It is quite certain that it could be completely redeveloped since there are multi-family buildings all around. Adjacent to this land is the family’s own business property (including land), which is not intended to be sold as it is their livelihood.
The immediate idea was, of course, to sell the entire factory land. Its value is estimated at around 1-2 million (minus demolition costs), without going into details here. The money could be taken, divided among the family, and essentially spent without long-term benefit.
However, there are also grandchildren who are struggling to establish themselves in Dresden. The family would like to support them over the long term and believes that a rental property would be ideal. Coincidentally, the grandchildren are trained in property management and could help oversee the project.
So the idea came up to sell only part of the land to gain liquidity, demolish the old building, and construct a multi-family house—ideally in collaboration with an investor who would buy and develop the other half. Of course, everything would need to be carefully calculated to see if this is feasible and if the land will generate enough value.
Is something like this possible, or is it just a scam? What would you do?
So the question is what should happen with this "factory land." It is quite certain that it could be completely redeveloped since there are multi-family buildings all around. Adjacent to this land is the family’s own business property (including land), which is not intended to be sold as it is their livelihood.
The immediate idea was, of course, to sell the entire factory land. Its value is estimated at around 1-2 million (minus demolition costs), without going into details here. The money could be taken, divided among the family, and essentially spent without long-term benefit.
However, there are also grandchildren who are struggling to establish themselves in Dresden. The family would like to support them over the long term and believes that a rental property would be ideal. Coincidentally, the grandchildren are trained in property management and could help oversee the project.
So the idea came up to sell only part of the land to gain liquidity, demolish the old building, and construct a multi-family house—ideally in collaboration with an investor who would buy and develop the other half. Of course, everything would need to be carefully calculated to see if this is feasible and if the land will generate enough value.
Is something like this possible, or is it just a scam? What would you do?
There is a little surprise story about the building.
My dad recently decided to have part of the first floor converted. He wants to create offices or something similar there (two are already rented out again, without us even offering them). The problem with the building is the structural stability. The original old plan shows four rows of columns at regular intervals. However, in reality, there are only two central rows. For this reason, the structural engineer has limited the load capacity to only 200kg/m² (41 lb/ft²) or so (I would need to check). In other words, it’s basically only suitable for walking around in.
Because of the poor ground conditions (it was the shaky rubble heap), we can’t just add new foundations and columns to support the structure.
Still, my dad decided to install supports, simply to prevent the beams from sagging further. He understands that the columns will press into the ground, but there is no other option.
When removing plaster from the beams, there was a surprise. Clearly, columns used to be there! From the very bottom all the way to the top! This means the foundations for them are probably still there as well. That’s a great surprise and makes the whole building look much better. The structural stability could be re-examined and recalculated, allowing for many more uses.
An old building like this is always exciting.
My dad recently decided to have part of the first floor converted. He wants to create offices or something similar there (two are already rented out again, without us even offering them). The problem with the building is the structural stability. The original old plan shows four rows of columns at regular intervals. However, in reality, there are only two central rows. For this reason, the structural engineer has limited the load capacity to only 200kg/m² (41 lb/ft²) or so (I would need to check). In other words, it’s basically only suitable for walking around in.
Because of the poor ground conditions (it was the shaky rubble heap), we can’t just add new foundations and columns to support the structure.
Still, my dad decided to install supports, simply to prevent the beams from sagging further. He understands that the columns will press into the ground, but there is no other option.
When removing plaster from the beams, there was a surprise. Clearly, columns used to be there! From the very bottom all the way to the top! This means the foundations for them are probably still there as well. That’s a great surprise and makes the whole building look much better. The structural stability could be re-examined and recalculated, allowing for many more uses.
An old building like this is always exciting.
kaho674 schrieb:
When chipping away the plaster around the beams, a surprise came up. There were clearly once columns! From the very bottom all the way to the top! That would mean that the foundations for them are probably there as well. Of course, that’s a great surprise.Wasn’t the building constructed by an ancestor?https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Wasn't the building constructed by an ancestor?No.When you consider that someone—probably due to space constraints—simply went ahead and removed two rows of columns without giving much thought to the structural integrity... unbelievable! We thought these had been omitted during wartime because of shortages. But no. The tenant after the war apparently needed large open spaces...
Similar topics