Brickell Place Phase II

What the county actually records at Brickell Place Phase II

The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser records 438 folios in the declaration BRICKELL PLACE CONDO PHASE II. Twelve are commercial — eleven offices and a store — and one is a reference folio for the underlying tract. 417 pass the residential filter. On my reading, 395 of those are homes.

Here is why I do not publish the 417, and how you can check it. Twenty-two of those folios belong to a numbered podium series — units C-101 to C-117 and D-101 to D-110, 305 to 565 square feet. They record common-element shares of the order of 0.0000035%, which works out at 0.00000001 of a share per square foot against a real home’s 0.000168. That is sixteen thousand times too small to be an apartment. They also trade like what they are: $28,000 to $100,000, in a building where homes change hands between $530,000 and $700,000. And the decisive detail — ten of the twelve folios the county itself codes as office or store carry that identical share signature. It marks the podium block, not a small apartment.

Two footnotes on that, because they matter more than the number does. The same series continues below 300 square feet, where eight further folios sit that the standard filter already excludes on size alone — so a size threshold was cutting one uniform class of unit in half. And the Phase Two association’s own website gives its management office as “1925 Brickell Avenue (D Building), Suite 201”, which is inside the very series this analysis calls podium.

One group I have counted as homes, while telling you exactly what they are. Twelve folios labelled CC-1 to CC-12 run 313 to 412 square feet. Unlike the podium units they carry a fully proportional ownership share — slightly more per square foot than an ordinary apartment — they are assessed between $116,363 and $305,415, and they have appreciated like homes, one of them running from $25,000 in 1980 to $415,000 in 2023. So they pass every test the record allows. But a 313 square foot unit with a “CC” label is also what a cabana looks like, and no association, developer or county document I can find states a unit count for this building to settle it. The figure is 395 including them, and 383 without. I would rather hand you both than pick one and sound certain.

The homes run 313 to 5,430 square feet, median 1,567 — larger than the older half of the complex, and very much larger than the floorplates current Brickell construction is built around. Six floorplates carry most of the building: 57 homes at 1,316 square feet, 48 at 1,005, and 29 each at 1,567, 1,583, 1,615 and 1,995.

Assessed values for 2026 run $116,363 to $1,400,875, median $418,730.

I cannot give you a bedroom mix, and nobody honestly can. The county records a bedroom and bathroom count for two of these folios. For the other 415 it records zero bedrooms and zero bathrooms — on homes up to 5,430 square feet. Those are empty fields, not studios. Any bedroom breakdown you are shown for this building came from somewhere other than the public record.

And the roll itself is unreliable here. The common-element shares do not close to 100%; thirty-eight folios carry suspect decimals; and one penthouse, D-PH-8, has its share recorded as “UNIDV .37031%” — a misspelling of UNDIV that hides the figure from any automated check. I am reporting all of that rather than quietly patching it, because you will hit the same thing if you look.

Two crashes of the same depth, twenty-five years apart

The recent record first, on the same basis as every building page on this site:

🔴 That table cannot establish a direction and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Twenty-four sales across four years in a building of 395 homes is too thin to read, and 2026 is an incomplete year with two sales in it. What the four years support is a band of roughly $460 to $510 per square foot, and nothing more.

The long record is where this building earns its page. Median price per square foot, by year:

• 1980 — $99, on 54 sales: the developer’s original closings
• 1981 — $131, up a third in twelve months
• 1986 — $84 — a 36.4% fall from 1981
• 1990 — $114
• 1996 — $123
• 2006 — $315, the pre-crash peak
• 2011 — $197 — a 37.5% fall from 2006
• 2016 — $344, back above the old peak
• 2024 — $509

Read those two bold lines together. The fall from 1981 to 1986 was 36.4%, and the fall from 2006 to 2011 was 37.5% — within about a point of each other. The Miami price conversation almost always begins in 2008, because that is where most buildings’ records begin. This one is older, and on its evidence 2008 was not an exceptional event in the life of a Brickell Avenue condominium — it was a repeat.

That is not a claim I would make from one building. But Brickell Bay Club, a separate declaration further down the same avenue, measured its own 1981-to-1986 fall at 38%. Two independent records, two blocks apart, both landing in the mid-to-high thirties. That makes it a market event, not a quirk of one building.

Recovery, for what it is worth, took about a decade each time: 1981’s peak was not clearly passed until the mid-1990s, and 2006’s not until 2016.

When did people lose money here?

The county record holds 817 resale pairs across 302 of the homes — the same home bought and later sold. 132 of them, 16.2%, sold for less than they cost. The median holding period was 5.4 years and the median change +28.0%.

The pattern inside that is the opposite of the one you would expect, and it is worth setting out in full:

Losses peak in the middle. That is not what the older half of this complex showed, and I would rather flag the disagreement than smooth it over: our Brickell Place page reports losses clustering in short holds. Phase II’s record says the five-to-ten-year hold was the dangerous one.

The mechanism is visible in the dates. A five-to-ten-year hold entered in 1980 or 1981 ends in 1986–91; entered in 2005 or 2006 it ends in 2011–16. Both windows land inside a crash. A sub-three-year hold, by contrast, often began and ended inside the same rising stretch. Only holding past ten years was reliably safe — and past ten years the median change is +85.6%.

The same thing shows up by entry decade. Buyers who came in during the 1980s lost money on 24.9% of their round trips; the 1990s ran 11.7%, the 2000s 12.6%, the 2010s 7.5%. Brickell Bay Club measured 26% for its own 1980s buyers. Again, two records agreeing.

The extremes, both checked against the full sale history of the folio rather than the flagged row alone:

• Best: $116,000 in March 1989 → $544,000 in March 2022 — unit 510-C, 1,316 square feet, +369.0% over 33.1 years.
• Worst: $113,500 in October 1987 → $48,000 in November 1993 — unit 1411-C, the same floorplate, −57.7% in 6.1 years. Bought at the top of the 1980s and sold at the bottom.
• Highest recorded sale: $1,760,000, penthouse D-PH-7, 2,260 square feet, June 2022 — $779 per square foot.

One number I removed, and why. That same penthouse records a sale of $159,794 in May 2007, three years after selling for $530,000 — a 69.9% fall, which would have been the worst resale in the building and a far better headline than the one above. The county flags it as a qualified sale and describes it as one. But the same home sold for $625,000 in 2010 and $1,760,000 in 2022, and $159,794 on a 2,260 square foot penthouse is $71 per square foot in a year this building traded at $315. It is not an arm’s-length price, whatever the flag says, so it is not in any figure on this page.

Who this building suits, and who it does not

This suits a buyer who wants size on Brickell Avenue and is prepared to hold. The median home is 1,567 square feet at around $480 per square foot — a different product from new construction nearby, which trades far higher per foot on much smaller floorplates. And it suits someone who wants evidence: forty-six years of it, 1,178 qualified sales, including two full crashes and two full recoveries.

It suits badly anyone who may need to sell inside a decade. The loss table above is the whole argument: one home in four sold at a loss in the five-to-ten-year band. It also suits badly a buyer who needs liquidity — one home in 66 changes hands each year — or one who wants a new building’s finishes. This is a 1980-vintage complex and the page does not pretend otherwise.

To an owner thinking of selling: your scarcity is real and your urgency should be low. With five or six qualified sales a year across 395 homes, a buyer who wants this building specifically has almost nothing to choose from — but very few such buyers appear in any given month, so pricing to the last comparable and waiting behaves differently here than in a tower that turns over eighty homes a year. Look at the four-year table before you set a number, and note how few sales sit behind each row.