It's definitely the intention for the developer to make money - they have too.

I'd say where TIF financing was involved then you would see some of these developments not even happen ... then we'd all be complaining about no developments taking place and why can't they develop these urban areas. Also, if there were no help, if you think the prices are too pricey, they'd be higher because the developer would have to pass on those costs. And, I bet if you could see the books, their margins are probably not that high right now and I bet they all either have really deep pockets to keep investing OR they are borrowing a lot of $s out there to keep this up = risk!

On the other hand, I don't really like having the government(=us/taxes) paying for these things either. There has to be a balance though and there's competition so if the government(ie - City) wants to see growth, nba, etc, they have to compete too - which then allows developers to try and make some of these old, ratty, non-producing/worthless properties into something that can produce (or that is the goal) property taxes, sales tax revenue(retail) etc. It's a long-term vision ... deals have to look long-term.

I agree, it seems like all of them are fairly pricey. I'm pretty familiar with the Brownstones and from a end-product, they are very very nice. ICF walls, etc - (ie, concrete walls, insulated, reinforced with rebar) - that is a higher cost to build and I would want those versus any of the steel/wood stick framing as I think it will last longer, hold up.

Personally, I go back to letting the "markets" work this out ... if no one buys, prices should go down. If they sell out and inventory is moving, prices will stay same. Eventually, it sounds like the goal is to have a good mix of people in various economic stages and I bet over the long-term, it should pan out.

Interesting discussion.