Ritz Carlton Residences Miami Beach

One Hundred Ten Condominiums, Fifteen Villas, and a Folio the County Has Retired

I pulled every folio the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser holds for this condominium — 125 of them, spanning three street addresses on North Meridian Avenue: 4701, 4700 and 4710. All three are one filed condominium, 4701 NORTH MERIDIAN CONDO. A reader who checks only 4701 will find part of the building and think this page is wrong, so I am saying it plainly first.

All 125 folios are residential dwellings. There is no commercial folio in this declaration, no hotel-coded folio, and — despite the marina — no separately assessed boat-slip, parking, cabana or storage folio. That is unusual at this price level and it means nothing had to be excluded to produce the figures below.

The 125 split cleanly into two groups the county numbers differently. 110 are condominium residences. 15 are the villas, carried as units N01 through N08 and S01 through S07 — eight in one series, seven in the other. The villas are the larger and more uniform group: 3,290 to 4,494 square feet, median 4,168. The condominiums run far wider, 1,301 to 9,924 square feet, median 3,039.

On the 2026 tax roll the whole building is assessed between $1,247,541 and $12,615,680, median $3,764,566. Split out, the condominiums carry a median of $3,499,971 and the villas $6,220,368.

One more folio exists and is not among the 125. Folio 02-3222-033-0870 is unit 521, coded vacant residential: condo and marked NAU 02-3222-033-0001 — “now assessed under” the declaration’s reference folio. It is on the county’s file but no longer separately assessed. That reconciles a discrepancy a buyer will otherwise run into: the trade press reported 111 units plus 15 villas at delivery, and the roll today carries 110 plus 15. The difference is this one folio. The county record does not say why it was retired, and I am not going to guess.

Two other things I will not state as fact. Bedroom counts are recorded for only 65 of the 125 homes; the other 60 carry a zero, which is a gap in the county’s file and not a building full of studios — so I have published no bed mix. And 15 of the 125 folios carry a malformed undivided-interest share in the roll itself, written without its decimal point (UNDIV 010438% where the sister folio reads UNDIV 0.10438%). Read as written they are nonsense; normalised, the declaration’s shares close to 100.01% — which is how I know the pull is complete. The error is the county’s, not the pull’s, and I publish no share-derived figure for those folios.

The Price Record, and Why 2024 Is the Least Useful Number on It

Read the median-price column on its own and this building looks violent — up 34.0% in 2024, down 39.2% in 2025. Almost none of that is price. It is floorplate. The median home that sold in 2024 was 3,694 square feet; in 2025 it was 2,642. A building whose homes range from 1,301 to 9,924 square feet will move its price median by a third simply by trading a different set of sizes, and 2024 is the clearest case of that on this page: ten sales, skewed large, including a $15,750,000 penthouse.

The per-foot line is steadier and it points one way. $1,814 in 2023, $1,828 in 2024, $1,652 in 2025, $1,617 so far in 2026 — down 10.9% across the four years, while the headline price line reads up 3.4%. Where those two disagree I trust the rate per foot, and here they disagree completely.

39 qualified sales closed across the four years against 125 homes — one home in 13 each year. That is brisk for a building at this price, and it is enough volume that I would treat the per-foot direction as real. The magnitude is another matter: with ten or eleven sales a year, a 10.9% four-year move is a direction I would state and a number I would not defend to the last point. The four-year band runs $1,153 to $2,746 per square foot, median $1,736. 2026 is an incomplete year — those seven sales run only to the pull date.

The building’s record sale is $18,000,000 on 16 March 2023, unit 406, 9,924 square feet, $1,814 per square foot. It is the same home that sold for $11,000,000 on 21 May 2021 — a 63.6% gain in twenty-two months, and the largest single home in the declaration by nearly 4,000 square feet.

Why Did Buyers Sue Before This Building Opened?

Because it was late, and the contracts had dates in them.

Sales here began in 2014 against marketing materials that put substantial completion in 2017. The City of Miami Beach issued the temporary certificate of occupancy — the document that lets closings start — in August 2019, two years past that. By then seven buyers had sued the development group to get their deposits back, and three of those suits were still pending in Miami-Dade Circuit Court when the TCO was reported, including one brought by a member of a well-known South Florida development family. The developer is 4701 North Meridian, LLC, a partnership of Lionheart Capital and Elliott Management Corporation, and Plaza Construction was the contractor. Lionheart bought the site — the former Miami Heart Institute — from Mount Sinai Medical Center for $20,000,000 in February 2012, and took a $105,000,000 construction loan from what was then Bank of the Ozarks in the summer of 2015.

I am reporting that history because it is on the record and because it is the single thing a buyer here is most likely to hear secondhand and least likely to hear accurately. What it is not is a current problem. Those suits concerned deposits on an unfinished building; the building finished. Nothing in the county record, and nothing I could find in the trade press through August 2026, shows litigation running against this condominium or its association today. The county sales file since 2019 is the more useful answer anyway: 38 qualified sales in 2019 as closings opened, 32 in 2020, 56 in 2021.

One thing worth separating, because the names collide in search results. Two other South Florida buildings carrying the Ritz-Carlton residential brand have been in the news recently — a condo association bankruptcy in Fort Lauderdale in November 2025, and owners in Coconut Grove suing their building’s operators in August 2026. Neither is this building. Different addresses, different declarations, different parties.

The building is also young enough that Miami-Dade’s structural milestone programme is not a live question here. It received its certificate of occupancy in 2019; the county’s inspection clock does not reach a building of that age for decades yet.

Who This Building Suits, and Who It Suits Badly

It suits a buyer who wants scale without a tower. The median condominium here is 3,039 square feet and the villas run past 4,000 with their own ground and their own entrances — a format almost nothing else on Miami Beach offers at this price. It suits a buyer who values liquidity at the top of the market: one home in 13 trades each year, and 64 of the 125 homes already have a completed round trip on the record, 7 of which resold for less than the owner paid.

It suits badly a buyer who wants a rising per-foot market to lean on. The rate has fallen in each of the last two years, and the 2026 figures are the weakest in the four-year table. It also suits badly anyone who wants a simple comparable set: with sizes running from 1,301 to 9,924 square feet, two homes in this building can be genuinely incomparable, and any median quoted at you — including mine — is doing more averaging than it looks.

If you are selling here, price off the per-foot band and your own format, not off the building median. A villa and a mid-floor condominium are not the same asset and the record shows the market pricing them differently: $1,780 per square foot against $1,725, on a $7,450,000 median against $4,637,500. And be ready for the delay history to come up in a buyer’s due diligence — it is seven years old, it is fully documented, and the straight version of it is far better for you than the version a buyer assembles from headlines.

Interested in selling at Ritz Carlton Residences Miami Beach?

Learn more about selling your condo at Ritz Carlton Residences Miami Beach with Josh Stein.

I'M READY