Brickell Townhouse

What the county records at Brickell Townhouse

The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser records 357 folios in the BRICKELL TOWNHOUSE CONDO declaration. 354 are classed residential, two are stores and one is a reference folio for the underlying tract.

Unusually for a building of this age, the county holds a bedroom count for almost all of them — 350 of the 354. That is worth saying because it is not normal: at Brickell Place Phase II, a mile up the same avenue and the same vintage, the roll records a bedroom count for two homes out of 417. Here the mix is real and checkable:

• 154 one-bedroom homes
• 153 two-bedroom
• 41 three-bedroom
• 2 four-bedroom
• 4 with nothing recorded

The homes run 800 to 2,891 square feet, median 1,188, and six floorplates carry most of the building: 91 homes at 1,188 square feet, 60 at 886, 37 each at 1,703 and 832, 20 at 1,305 and 19 at 1,357. Assessed values for 2026 run $87,591 to $1,062,762, median $364,349.

Those two ranges exclude one folio, and you should know which. Unit C2 is recorded at 5,370 square feet — nearly twice the next largest home in the building — and assessed at $1,210, the identical figure in 2024, 2025 and 2026, with no sale of any kind ever recorded against it. A 5,370 square foot Brickell apartment is not worth $1,210. Rather than quietly average it in or quietly drop it, we have taken it out of the ranges and told you it exists.

Seven folios here are two apartments combined into one home — 5E and 5F, 12E and 12F, 19E and F, 19G and 19H, PH-J and PH-H, 21S and 21T, PHT and PHU. Each carries two undivided ownership shares on a single folio. It matters more than it sounds, because the building’s largest sale is one of them.

Forty-seven years of prices

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

🔴 Thirty-two sales across four years in a building of 354 homes will not support a trend, and I am not going to draw one. The band is roughly $470 to $565 per square foot and 2026 is incomplete.

One sale is missing from that table on purpose. The county records unit 12C sold on 8 May 2026 for $44,000, and flags it as a qualified, arm’s-length transaction. It is not one. That home is assessed at $367,373, it last sold for $275,000 in 2015, and $44,000 across 886 square feet is $50 per square foot in a building trading around $536. Included, it would have shown 2026 at a median of $577,500 rather than $700,000, and it would have appeared on this page as the worst resale in the building’s history. The county’s flag is evidence, not a verdict.

The long record is the reason this building deserves a page. Median price per square foot:

• 1979 — $83, on 60 sales, and 1980 — $92 on 159: the developer’s original closings
• 1981 — $104
• 1986 — $82 — a 21.1% fall from 1981
• 1990 — $100  ·  1996 — $101  ·  2000 — $131
• 2006 — $295, the pre-crash peak
• 2011 — $210 — a 28.6% fall from 2006
• 2016 — $310  ·  2020 — $306  ·  2024 — $564

Two falls, not one. Miami’s price conversation almost always starts in 2008, because that is where most buildings’ records start. This one starts in 1979 and shows a real decline from 1981 to 1986 as well. The two are not the same size — 21.1% then, 28.6% later — and I would rather give you both numbers than round them into a tidy claim.

Note also the fifteen years from 1986 to 2000: $82 to $131 per square foot. Whatever else this building has done, it has spent long stretches going nowhere.

The largest sale on record is $1,400,000 on 3 October 2025, at $640 per square foot — but it is units 5E and 5F combined, 2,189 square feet, not a standard floorplate, so it is not a comparable for anything else in the building.

Why did five-to-ten-year owners do worst?

The county record holds 1,054 resale pairs across 307 of the homes. 221 of them — 21.0% — sold for less than they cost. Median holding period 6.1 years; median change +23.5%.

The distribution is where the useful information is, and it is not shaped the way people assume:

One owner in three lost money selling between five and ten years in. Quick sales did better. The mechanism is arithmetic rather than mystery: a five-to-ten-year hold begun in 1980–81 ends in 1986–91, and one begun in 2005–06 ends in 2011–16. Both windows finish inside a fall. A two-year hold, more often than not, began and ended inside the same rising stretch.

And this is the second building on this avenue to show it. Brickell Place Phase II — a different declaration, pulled separately — records 12.8%, 21.0%, 25.0% and 6.7% across the same four bands. Different levels, same shape. I will not extend that to every Brickell tower on two buildings, but two independent records agreeing is worth more than one.

The extremes, each checked against the folio’s whole sale history rather than the flagged row alone, and with the seven combined-unit folios set aside because they are not like-for-like:

• Best: $70,000 in November 1989 → $480,000 in May 2024 — unit 17R, 886 square feet, +585.7% over 34.5 years.
• Worst: $107,000 in February 1980 → $40,000 in March 1988 — unit 10H, 1,188 square feet, −62.6% over 8.1 years. Bought at the top of the 1980s, sold at the bottom.
• And the modern equivalent: $385,000 in October 2005 → $150,000 in June 2012 — unit 18F, −61.0% over 6.7 years.

Those last two are worth sitting with. Two owners, twenty-five years apart, in the same building, both down about 60% — and both had held for six to eight years.

Who this building suits, and who it does not

This suits a buyer who wants a genuine one- or two-bedroom on Brickell Avenue at a per-foot price well under new construction, and who intends to stay. The median home is 1,188 square feet, the bedroom mix is evenly split between one- and two-bedroom homes, and owners past ten years lost money less than one time in ten.

It suits badly anyone whose horizon is five to ten years. That is the plain reading of the table above and it is the single most useful thing this building’s record can tell you. It also suits badly a buyer who needs liquidity: one home in 44 changes hands each year.

To an owner thinking of selling: check how long you have held before you check the comparables. If you are past ten years the record is strongly on your side; if you are at seven, it is not, and the last four years’ figures rest on just thirty-two sales — five of them in 2023 — so a single unusual trade moves the apparent market a long way. The table above shows what that looks like: one $44,000 recording, which we excluded, would have moved this year’s median by more than $120,000.