Aston Martin Residences

The specification conflict, published rather than smoothed over

Two credible primary sources give different numbers for this building, and the coverage I found picks one without saying so.

Other dated figures. The Miami-Dade Property Appraiser’s roll (checked 24 September 2026) carries 394 residential condominium unit folios, three retail units and the marina unit, and shows 2024 as the year built on all of them. The developer’s own website (read 24 September 2026) says 391 residences and 66 floors. The Real Deal reported a 66-story, 391-unit, 817-foot building on 30 April 2024, and on 21 March 2016 it reported plans for a 70-story, 384-unit, 817-foot tower. Bisnow gave 391 units on 3 February 2026 and 341 units on 21 April 2026.

Who designed it. Aston Martin’s 30 April 2024 release credits Rodolfo Miani of Bodas Miani Anger; Coastal Construction’s project record credits Revuelta Architects International; and The Real Deal, reporting the original plans on 21 March 2016, credited both Revuelta Architecture and Bodas Miani Anger. I have not found a source that says which firm is the architect of record.

I have not found a source that says why the figures differ, so I do not assert a reason. If the exact count matters to your purchase — and for a resale valuation built on price per unit or per floor, it does — confirm it in the recorded declaration of condominium (Official Records Book 34141, Page 634, per the county’s legal description) rather than relying on any published figure, including this one.

Why “design-branded” is the whole story here

Branded residences are usually sold on a name and priced on an assumption. The assumption is that the name is permanent. Frequently it is not.

A service-brand is a live operating relationship. A hotel or hospitality operator runs the building under a management contract with a term. It can be renegotiated. It can end. The staffing, the service standard and the name over the door are all contingent on a third party continuing to show up — and the premium you paid assumed they would.

A design-brand was applied once, at delivery. The architecture, the interiors and the specification are fixed and cannot be withdrawn. Aston Martin Residences is design-branded in that sense: this was the marque’s first real estate project (Aston Martin, 30 April 2024), the design language is built into the structure, and I have found no ongoing operating agreement whose expiry could change what you own. The name is the exception. The developer’s legal notice (read 24 September 2026) says the developer and G&G hold limited licences to use the Aston Martin trademarks, that the condominium association holds or will hold one, and that all use of them ends when the licences expire or are terminated. I have not found the licence terms, so I cannot tell you when, or whether, that could happen.

Both models can justify a premium. They carry completely different long-run dependency, and they should not be priced as though they were identical. That is worth understanding before paying a brand premium.

What completion in 2024 means in the 2026 market

This building is finished and was 99% sold before it opened. That makes it a resale market now, not a launch, and it changes which questions matter.

The milestone advantage, and it is a real one

Florida Statute 553.899 requires a milestone structural inspection of any condominium building three habitable stories or more by 31 December of the year it reaches 30 years of age, then every ten years — with a local enforcement agency able to require the first at 25 years where conditions such as proximity to salt water warrant it.

Aston Martin Residences opened in 2024. Its first milestone inspection therefore falls around 2054, or roughly 2049 if the 25-year discretion is applied. That is decades of no milestone exposure, in a market where a great many desirable buildings are at or past their first inspection and carrying the assessment risk that follows. For a buyer weighing this against an older waterfront address, that gap is worth real money. ⚠️ But statutory milestone timing is not the same thing as an absence of structural questions, and on this building it is important not to confuse the two. The condominium association’s construction-defect action, filed in spring 2026, is described below.

The financing questions that still apply

Being new does not exempt a building from the 2026 lending regime. Since 3 August 2026, Fannie Mae has retired the Limited Review process for established projects under Lender Letter LL-2026-03; a Full Review now applies at every down-payment level unless a project has ten or fewer units. Since 1 July 2026, a master policy deductible above $50,000 per unit breaks eligibility. From 4 January 2027, minimum reserves rise to 15% of annual budgeted assessment income.

A tower that opened in April 2024 should clear all of this comfortably — but “should” is not “does”. Ask for the master policy deductible and the current reserve allocation before you assume it. With 48.5% of existing Miami-Dade condominium sales closing in cash in June 2026 (MIAMI Realtors, 17 July 2026), the other half of your future buyer pool depends on the answer.

🔴 The two 2026 actions between the owners and the developer

This is the part of the building’s record a buyer most needs and is least likely to be shown. The condominium association — the owners, collectively, after turnover from the developer — has brought two separate actions in 2026 against the developer entities, including Riverwalk East Developments LLC (the entity the developer’s own legal notice names as the seller of the units), and related parties. Control passed to the owners in March 2025 (Bisnow, 21 April 2026; Realtor.com, 29 April 2026).

Late January 2026 — the amenities and self-dealing action. Filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court (The Real Deal, 3 February 2026; Bisnow, also on 3 February, reported it as filed the week before), it alleges self-dealing, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Condominium Act, and seeks more than $5 million (The Real Deal, 3 February 2026). The Miami Herald reported on 5 February 2026 that the complaint lists ten LLCs, among them G&G Business Developments LLC and Riverwalk East Developments LLC, and seven individuals as defendants. Reporting says the association alleges that promised amenities were not delivered, but the lists differ: a private marina, a helipad and concierge services (CBS Miami, 1 May 2026), a helipad and beach club access (Bisnow, 3 February 2026), a marina, a helipad and beach club access (The Real Deal, 3 February 2026).

Spring 2026 — the construction-defect action. Outlets report its date and form differently. Bisnow (21 April 2026) reports a suit filed on 15 April in Miami-Dade Circuit Court naming Riverwalk East Developments LLC and 16 other firms. The Real Deal (27 April 2026) says it was filed earlier that month under Florida Statute 558. Realtor.com (29 April 2026) describes a claim filed under Chapter 558, the pre-suit notice process. CBS Miami (1 May 2026) says the association’s lawyers filed it in March. I have not read the docket, and I have not found a source that reconciles these accounts. As reported by CBS Miami, the claims include crumbling concrete balconies with exposed reinforcement steel, unsealed concrete and shattered glass on balconies, corrosion and rust from water intrusion, a drooping balcony, loose fire-sprinkler joints causing leaks, and corrosion and cracking in the seawall. Bisnow and The Real Deal describe a turnover inspection by Epic Forensics & Engineering, an outside forensic engineering firm, that identified cracks in concrete, exposed post-tension tendons, waterproofing failures, seawall cracks and corrosion, elevator defects, and fire-system leaks and corrosion. The association is reported to be seeking at least $750,000 and an order compelling repairs (Bisnow), or damages in the millions (The Real Deal).

The developer disputes the construction-defect claims. A spokesperson told CBS Miami on 1 May 2026: “The association has made allegations that we believe are unfounded and appear to divert attention from unresolved obligations on their part.” The same statement expressed the developer’s commitment to quality construction and confidence that the legal process would reach a fair outcome. Bisnow (21 April 2026) reported that the developer had formally responded through the legal process. For the January action, the coverage I found records no response: The Real Deal (3 February 2026) reported that the developer’s principal and the attorney for his development entity declined comment and that the entity had not been served, and the Miami Herald (5 February 2026) reported that the development companies did not respond. I have not found a published response since.

Everything above is an allegation, and as of 24 September 2026 I have found no published report of a court decision in either action. I have not read the court dockets, so I cannot tell you their current status. I am not telling you the defects exist, that the claims will succeed, or that anyone acted unlawfully. I am telling you the actions were brought by the owners themselves and that, as far as the published coverage shows, neither has been resolved — which is a material fact about a building, and one a page recommending this tower should not omit.

What to do about it. Pull both complaints from the Miami-Dade docket and read them. Then request from the association: the current reserve study, the litigation disclosure on the estoppel certificate, any special-assessment history or proposal, the turnover inspection report, and the master insurance policy with its deductible. A pending construction-defect action can affect financing availability, insurance pricing and future assessments — all three of which you carry as an owner regardless of how the case ends.

What the county record shows about the marina

The public record does not resolve the marina dispute, but it documents something specific and checkable. The county roll lists the marina as its own commercial condominium unit of the building: folio 01-4206-071-3980, UNIT CU-M, classified by the county as DOCK — COMMERCIAL CONDO, 982 square feet, carrying a 0.1140% share of the common elements. It sold on 23 September 2024 for $1,080,000 on a qualified deed, and the owner of record is a private limited-liability company. The building’s three retail units conveyed the same day to a different private company.

So the marina was created as a separate saleable commercial unit inside the condominium and conveyed to a private owner, rather than held as a common element belonging to all the residences. Whether that is what buyers were promised is exactly what the litigation is about, and this page does not take a position on it. I could not establish from the public record whether the purchasing company is connected to the developer, and I am not implying that it is. If you are buying here partly for marina access, this is a fact to check against the recorded documents.

The developer’s own website says two different things about the marina. Its Sky Amenities page (read 24 September 2026) markets a yacht marina of 900 linear feet and 15 feet of draft where owners can berth superyachts “right outside their luxury homes”. Its legal notice (read 24 September 2026) says the marina “is not included as part of the Condominium,” that the adjacent dockage and marina are “intended to be owned and/or operated by a private party,” and that any rights of use are in that party’s sole discretion. I have not found a source that reconciles these statements with the county’s listing of unit CU-M within the condominium’s legal description.

What is actually at Aston Martin Residences?

The amenity programme, per Aston Martin’s 30 April 2024 release, is 42,275 square feet of “Sky Amenities” across four levels, floors 52 to 55 — a two-floor fitness centre, art gallery, two cinemas, a virtual golf simulator, business centre and conference room, children’s playroom, spa, beauty salon, barber shop, infinity pool, sky bar and lounge, chef’s kitchen, ballroom and private dining rooms.

The developer’s website (Sky Amenities page, read 24 September 2026) markets a superyacht marina with direct access to the Atlantic as one of the building’s signature features. If a slip is part of why you are buying, confirm the specific slip, its dimensions, its ownership structure and its transferability in writing, because marina rights vary enormously and are not always what a listing implies. ⚠️ On this building that is not a generic caution. The county records the marina as a separately owned commercial condominium unit that sold for $1,080,000 in September 2024, and CBS Miami (1 May 2026) reports that the association’s January 2026 action alleges a promised private marina was not delivered. Both are set out above.

⚠️ A note on this page’s URL. It sits under /new-construction/ for historical reasons. The building was completed in April 2024 and is not new construction. The path is retained deliberately — it holds inbound links and search history — but the building’s status is complete.