Monday, January 30, 2006

Robodude, where’s my car?

Automatic garages may be an answer to city’s parking crunch

Robots already clean pools, vacuum floors, and help assemble cars. Next they will be parking cars in Boston.

With the cost of land soaring, and construction costs for a single parking space in an underground garage running between $50,000 and $70,000 in the Boston area, automated parking systems — common in congested areas of Europe and Asia — have begun to immigrate to the United States.

Two automated parking garages are operating in the United States now, a public facility in Hoboken, N.J., and a private one in Washington, D.C. More are in planning or manufacturing stages in Florida, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco.

The first automated garage in Boston is slated for Lovejoy Wharf, a condominium complex being designed for the site of two old warehouse buildings at the mouth of the Charles River, near the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. Construction could begin late this year.

”There are hundreds around the world,” said Robert W. Easton, principal of Ajax Management Partners LLC of Lexington, which is developing 260 residences — and 325 parking spaces — at Lovejoy Wharf. ”We are looking to be one of the first in the city.”

Automated parking garages are designed to save space, but they also take people, dents, and misplaced keys out of the parking equation.

Residents at Lovejoy Wharf would leave their vehicles on an 8-foot-long steel pallet on the floor of a one-car bay, turn off the ignition, step away, and let technology take it from there.

The pallet carries the car into the garage, moves the vehicle through the building on steel wheels and tracks, and deposits it into an available slot in a steel rack. Before parking the car, a mechanical device swivels it around 180 degrees, to speed up retrieval.

One system under consideration for Lovejoy Wharf is produced by Robotic Parking Systems Inc. of Clearwater, Fla., which offers a computerized system that relies on an off-the-shelf personal computer, Simplicity software made by General Electric Co., programmable logic controllers, wireless signals, and electronic eyes to transport vehicles in a facility.

The system memorizes residents’ use patterns and ‘’shuffles” vehicles during slow periods late at night, so early birds’ cars will be nearest the exit in the morning. Retrieval of a vehicle takes two to three minutes, and at busy times a garage, typically with two delivery bays, can deliver 80 or so an hour.

”You’re not going to be walking around a garage at night looking for your car,” said John E. Kavanagh III, president of Parking Solutions LLC, a Danvers company.

Ajax is negotiating with Parking Solutions, which has rights in New England to market and install the Robotic system. The developer is also talking to SpaceSaver Parking Co. of Chicago, whose German parent company operates 100 or so garages in other countries, and Westfalia USA Inc. of York, Pa., also an affiliate of a German company, with about a dozen systems worldwide.

Automated parking systems can accommodate a handful of cars in a small condo building — or hundreds of cars in a multifloor office tower. The steel parking systems can be built above or below ground, in concrete boxes or in buildings tailored to look like the neighborhood.

The Hoboken garage houses about 320 cars and looks from the outside like an apartment building. ”I’ve been standing in front and had people say, ‘Are there any apartments available in that building?’ ” said Parking Solutions’ Kavanagh.

Automation extends to billing and calling for a car in advance. Robotic’s system keeps track of how long a car is parked. Depending on the configuration, residents can call for their cars by swiping a card on a reader or using a personal identification number from a phone on their way out the door.

”You can leave the keys, because there’s no one in the garage,” said Kavanagh.

Automated parking isn’t designed to increase traffic — zoning and parking rules usually limit the number of spaces a building can have. Rather, it’s about using less space. Manufacturers say automated systems at least double the capacity of a normal concrete parking garage, which requires entrance and exit ramps. Cars can be packed in close together because the doors don’t open until a car is delivered to its driver at the exit bay.

The biggest factor driving acceptance of automated parking is the value of land, manufacturers say. ”Property is so dear, the only way to provide parking is to reduce the space,” said Ken Livingston, general manager of SpaceSaver.

Robotic executives say a system for a 400-car garage costs between $12,000 and $16,000 a space. Condensing the parking area to reduce the land needed for a development from 2 acres to 1, or excavating 40 feet instead of 90 feet deep, can save a developer millions of dollars.

Even though it has long had high land costs, Boston has been resistant to automated parking. ”It’s a new technology,” said Kavanagh, who is also president of William A. Berry & Son Inc., a construction management firm. ”Everybody wants to be first — but nobody wants to be the first.”

Developers want to see any new system running smoothly in other locations before they invest. ”They want a comfort level, to put away any fears about operations,” Kavanagh said.

City of Boston officials seem receptive.

”For downtown, where the footprints are small, this is a good technology,” said Vineet Gupta, director of planning at the Boston Transportation Department, who said the city has begun encouraging developers to consider automated parking. ”We’ve said, ‘Have you explored this?’ “

It probably won’t hurt Robotic that David Passafaro, a friend and former chief of staff of Mayor Thomas M. Menino, is vice president and director of business development for Kavanagh’s Berry company. Passafaro narrates a promotional video for Parking Solutions, extolling the virtues of the system that works ”almost like magic.”

”It is among the coolest things you’ll ever see,” said the enthusiastic Passafaro. ”It’s safe, it’s clean, it’s environmentally sound.”

For car owners who treat their rides like pets, the idea may bring some concerns: Will my Mercedes convertible be parked under some leaky clunker of a pickup truck?

Robotic executives say the pallets that carry cars are solid steel and have deep grooves for the wheels that are also designed to hold about 70 gallons of liquid — enough capacity for a serious oil or antifreeze leak, and for snow, ice, and mud from the highway.

The pallets are regularly — and automatically — vacuumed or washed down.

But manufacturers acknowledge that automated systems are not without their glitches.

The New York Times reported in October — ”When will the killer robot garage strike again?” — that the $12 million Hoboken facility had sent a Jeep Wrangler and a Cadillac DeVille crashing to destruction. In addition, the city, which owns the Robotic-operated garage, has paid claims to owners of 40 cars for minor damage, the newspaper said.

Larry Byrnes, a spokesman for Robotic and a member of its board of directors, said in a letter to the editor of the newspaper that ”people and local politics” had been factors in the problems. Last week he suggested the city was at fault, saying it was ”unrealistic to expect the Hoboken Parking Utility to provide operators with the skill level needed to properly supervise this cutting-edge technology.” But John Corea, director of the Hoboken agency, disagreed. ”The problem with the garage is a lack of proper maintenance from Robotics,” he said.

Those and less serious problems — like the infrequent case of someone whose car may not be available in time to get to the airport for a plane to London — are covered by the operators, the companies say.

”We just afford them taxi cab fare,” said SpaceSaver’s Livingston. ”You’re car’s available by the time you get back.”

Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.

Posted by M at 18:20:47 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Disappearing Las Vegas Condos

Photographs by Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
NOT STAYING IN VEGAS Developers have canceled at least five residential buildings in Las Vegas, including the luxury condominium Icon Las Vegas.
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN; Published: January 29, 2006

THREE weeks ago, Eli Verdnikov, an engineer in Los Gatos, Calif., received a letter saying that the apartment building he planned to retire to — Icon Las Vegas — would not be built. In the envelope was a check for $73, 672.81, the 10 percent deposit Mr. Verdnikov had paid, plus interest.

A model of the Icon Las Vegas.

The developer of the building, Related Las Vegas, a partnership between two large and well-known companies, expected Mr. Verdnikov to accept the refund as payment in full. (Its letter explained that, by depositing the check, Mr. Verdnikov would be waiving any further rights.)

But Mr. Verdnikov wants more than the $73,672.81. Since he agreed in May 2005 to buy the 1,400-square-foot, two-bedroom apartment near the Las Vegas Strip for $728,900, its value, he says, has increased. “To purchase something similar, we would need to pay $200,000 more,” said Mr. Verdnikov, who has been looking for a new apartment with his girlfriend, Gitty Stone. So Mr. Verdnikov is suing for the gain he would have realized if the apartment had been built.

“He deserves to get the benefit of the bargain,” said Will Kemp, a lawyer with Harrison, Kemp & Jones in Las Vegas, who is representing Mr. Verdnikov and a dozen other Icon buyers.

As the market for high-end condos levels off, more and more people may find themselves in Mr. Verdnikov’s position: with contracts to buy condos that will never be built. And some hope to recover the profits they believe they would have made.

In Las Vegas alone, developers have canceled at least four other buildings in the last year, including one called Aqua Blue that was to contain a Michael Jordan health club. Dozens of other buildings, in which units have been sold, may never break ground, said Brian Gordon, a principal at Applied Analysis, a Las Vegas consulting firm. Mr. Gordon said there are 97 condo projects in the works in greater Las Vegas, representing more than 52,000 units.

“I don’t think anyone would expect that all these projects will move forward,” Mr. Gordon said. He predicted that fewer than half of them would be built in the next five years. Of course, if the market cools enough, some buyers may be happy to get their deposits back.

The pitfalls for condo buyers may be particularly deep in and around Las Vegas, where construction prices have been skyrocketing. Mr. Gordon says some of his clients who are developers have reported a 30 percent increase in the cost of labor and materials in the last year alone. That means that developers who presell apartments may find construction costs wiping out profits even before they break ground.

In the letter to Mr. Verdnikov and the other buyers, Related Las Vegas said that the rise in labor and material costs had affected the viability of the project.

Still, the Icon cancellation came as a surprise, in part because its developer is a partnership of two giants: the Related Group of Florida, which calls itself the nation’s leading condo developer, headed by Jorge Perez, and the Related Companies, headed by Stephen M. Ross, the developer of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan . Icon’s two 48-story towers were expected to be completed in 2007 and 2008.

Mr. Perez was out of the country and could not be reached for comment, a company spokesman said. Reached on his cellphone, Martin Burger, the president of Related Las Vegas, hung up.

In contrast to its current silence, “the company relied heavily on its own reputation in marketing the building,” said David Ezra, owner of Ezra International Realty, which sold some 60 units in the building. He added that he thought the excuse of higher construction costs “might work for a first-time developer, but it doesn’t work for Related.”

Mr. Verdnikov, who is 62 and plans to retire just around the time Icon would have been finished, said he walked away from another project to buy from Related. “We switched it because of their very heavy advertising,” he said. “They convinced us they were better.”

But whether Mr. Verdnikov — or any buyer — can receive more than a refund of his deposit depends on a number of factors. Some contracts for unbuilt condos allow the seller to back out if it cannot obtain proper financing (a phrase sometimes so vague as to constitute a get-out-of-deal-free card, lawyers say). The contracts for Icon Las Vegas contained no such financing contingency. Related did claim the right to back out if it failed to sell at least half of the units in the project. But observers say the company far exceeded the 50 percent goal, and statements made last year by Mr. Burger support that view.

Other contracts specifically limit damages for cancellation to the amount of the deposit, or to that amount plus interest. Such provisions are generally enforceable, said Eric Glazer, a Hallandale, Fla., lawyer who often represents condo buyers. Someone planning to buy a condo that hasn’t been built yet might try to delete that clause from the contract of sale. But in most cases, condo developers will not negotiate provisions. “They have a standard contract; it’s take it or leave it,” Mr. Glazer said.

The contract at Icon included no limitation on damages, Mr. Kemp said, which is why he believes his clients could win “benefit of the bargain” if the case goes to court. “It’s a standard measure of damages in contract law,” he said, though he said he had not seen it applied in a case involving an unbuilt condo building.

Mr. Kemp is also representing more than 100 buyers of units in a Las Vegas development called Krystal Sands. In that case, the developer chose to sell the land the building was going to be built on, and buyers received their deposits back. Again, Mr. Kemp is seeking the “benefit of the bargain” for his clients. (A lawyer for the developer, Cam Ferenbach, said that he thought the company had a good defense, but said, “I don’t want to try the case in the press.”)

In Nevada, condo developers generally take “reservations” for unbuilt units. Then they trade the reservations, which are nonbinding, for signed contracts. At Icon, it was Related that made the decision to convert reservations to contracts last summer, Mr. Kemp said. In the suits he has filed against Related, he charges not only breach of contract, but “fraudulent misrepresentation,” because, he said, “they continued to reassure these people that they were going to build, and then they didn’t build.”

Real estate brokers who sold units in canceled projects may also have grounds for a lawsuit, and Mr. Ezra, for one, says he is considering legal action. Mr. Ezra said the 60 units his firm sold at Icon were worth about $50 million. Ezra International Realty stood to receive about $1.5 million in commissions from Related Las Vegas, which pays brokers 3 percent commissions on each sale. Mr. Ezra said he has not received any offer of compensation from Related, which he said he earned because he produced “ready, willing, and able” buyers.

Related could suffer damage to its reputation. David J. Wine, the vice chairman of the Related Companies, was clearly concerned about the fallout as news of the Las Vegas cancellation spread. Reached by telephone in New York, Mr. Wine said: “The Related name is a powerful one. We have an incredible reputation for delivering to our customers. I think we can say that, over all, this is a very unusual situation, and that our followers will appreciate, in the long run, our being candid and straightforward, because that is the kind of company we are.”

Mr. Wine said that, in Nevada, “projects are marketed and sold at the earliest stages of anywhere in the country.”

In many other states, including New York, to sell apartments, “you have to have a building permit,” Mr. Wine said. That means the project is bound to be well under way by the time buyers put down deposits. As a result, he said of the Icon cancellation, “this would never happen in New York.”

Posted by M at 17:46:45 | Permalink | No Comments »