My Brickell

What is actually inside the building

The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser holds 194 folios for MyBrickell at 31 SE 6th Street, of which 192 are homes. The other two are a single ground-floor commercial unit and an aggregate reference folio. The declaration’s common-element shares close at exactly 100.0000%, so this is the whole condominium.

One note if you go looking yourself: the county writes the name as a single word, MYBRICKELL, which is enough to make some searches come back empty.

The homes run 545 to 1,116 square feet, with a median of 719 — small throughout, with no exceptions at either end. The mix is 95 two-bedrooms, 49 studios and 48 one-bedrooms.

And then there is the thing that makes this building genuinely unusual to write about. Six floorplates cover 144 of the 192 homes — 1,116 square feet, 1,016, 719, 710, 551 and 545 — at exactly twenty-four homes apiece. I have not measured another building with that degree of regularity. It means almost every home here has twenty-three identical comparables, and it makes the analysis below far more reliable than a sample this size would normally allow.

The 2026 assessed values run $183,540 to $498,049, with a median of $341,736.

The studios beat the two-bedrooms

All 192 homes recorded their first qualified sale in 2014, at a median of $293,950 and $358 per square foot. Not most of them: all of them, in one year. Every completed round trip in this building starts from that common baseline, which is as clean an experiment as county data ever offers.

One hundred and twenty of the 192 have since sold. Eighty-nine gained and 31 lost, a median of +19.1% over a median holding period of 7.7 years. Of the 87 who sold in 2021 or later, 18.4% still sold at a loss, at a median of +24.7%. Seventy-two homes have never resold.

Because the plates are identical in blocks of twenty-four, they can be compared directly:

The two studio plates have the lowest loss rates and the highest median gains in the building. The largest plate, at 1,116 square feet, has the worst of both: 44.4% of its owners sold at a loss and the median one is essentially flat after seven years.

The same thing shows up if you sort by what each buyer paid per square foot rather than by size. The cheapest quarter of 2014 entries — $266 to $328 per square foot — returned a median of +20.4% with a 16.7% loss rate. The dearest quarter, above $390, returned +1.1% with a 43.3% loss rate. The developer charged more per foot for the larger homes, and that premium has not come back.

The extremes, both from the same 2014 baseline:

• A 551 square foot studio bought for $180,000 in February 2014 sold for $385,000 in March 2025 — up 113.9%.
• A 545 square foot studio bought for $180,000 in January 2014 sold for $370,000 in February 2024 — up 105.6%.
• A 1,116 square foot home bought for $459,900 in January 2014 sold for $315,000 in August 2020 — down 31.5%.

The county record shows transactions and not reasons, so it cannot say why the small homes have done better. What it does establish, with twenty-four identical homes on each plate and a single common purchase year, is that the difference is real and not an artefact of which homes happened to sell. All figures are gross, before commissions, closing costs, taxes and assessments.

The price record

Qualified, arm’s-length sales from the county record, retrieved 21 August 2026.

Twenty-seven qualified sales in four years across 192 homes is about one home in twenty-eight each year — low turnover, and low enough that a specific plate may not have traded in two years.

The median price column swings from $430,000 to $370,000 to $462,500 on seven to ten sales a year, which is mix, not movement: in a building of studios and two-bedrooms the median price simply reports which type sold. Per square foot the four years read $534, $571, $549 and $590 — a band of about $535 to $590, and no direction I would be willing to defend on 27 sales. 2026 is a single sale.

The highest price the building has ever recorded is $620,000, on 28 February 2024, for a 1,086 square foot home — $571 per square foot.

Set against a 2014 sell-out median of $358 per square foot, the current band represents roughly a 50% rise in the rate over twelve years. That is the plain arithmetic behind a +19.1% median outcome, and it is why the larger homes — which started well above that median rate — have struggled to clear it.

Who this building suits

It suits a buyer who wants an inexpensive, small home in Brickell and wants to know exactly what they are buying. A median assessed value of $341,736 in this location is the plain case, and twenty-three identical comparables for almost any home in the building is a rare luxury for a buyer.

It suits a studio buyer notably better than a two-bedroom buyer, and the evidence is unusually direct. Thirty-two completed round trips across the two studio plates show loss rates of 6.2% and 12.5% and median gains of +28.6% and +37.5%. Eighteen round trips on the largest plate show a 44.4% loss rate and no median gain at all.

It suits an investor who needs liquidity badly. One home in twenty-eight trades each year; if your plate has not sold recently you may be pricing into a vacuum, and 72 of the 192 homes have never changed hands at all.

It suits a buyer looking for a large home not at all — there isn’t one. The biggest apartment in the building is 1,116 square feet.

If you are selling here, you know exactly what your comparables are and so does the buyer: twenty-three homes identical to yours, all bought in 2014. Price against your own plate’s recent per-foot record, not the building median, which reports floorplate mix rather than value. And if you are on one of the studio plates, the record is materially better than the building headline — make sure it is on the table. Ask me for the per-foot record on your plate before you set a number.

Interested in selling in My Brickell?

Learn more about selling your condo in My Brickell with Josh Stein.

I'M READY