Baccarat Residences Miami

Baccarat Residences Miami sits at 99 SE 5th Street in Brickell, a 75-floor tower with 360 units, designed by Arquitectonica with interiors by Meyer Davis Studio. The building carries the Baccarat Hotels & Residences brand, with day-to-day management assigned to SH Hotels & Resorts — a branding and operations layer, not a construction guarantee.

The project is under construction. A $328 million construction loan from Bank OZK is recorded in the evidence, and a broker quote from Berkadia (March 2024) describes the loan closing and references groundbreaking having occurred the previous October. The deposit schedule points to a 2028 closing.

No developer name is populated in the core project record. The only identification of the sponsor comes from broker commentary attributing the project to 'Related and GTIS' — understood elsewhere as Related Group and GTIS Partners — in quotes tied to the loan closing. That is secondhand attribution, not a verified developer field, and readers should treat it accordingly.

Unit sizes run from 1,386 to 9,074 square feet, a spread wide enough to cover a one-bedroom and a full-floor residence within the same building. No price has been published for either end of that range.

Residence sizes span 1,386 to 9,074 square feet. No price-from, price-to, or price-per-square-foot figure appears anywhere in the evidence supplied. Anyone quoting you a number today is quoting from a source outside what this audit can verify.

The deposit structure is the standard Miami pre-construction cadence: 10% at contract, 10% at two months, 10% at six months, 10% at top-off, and the remaining 60% at closing — with closing itself stated as 2028. That is 40% of the purchase price committed before you have a certificate of occupancy.

HOA dues per square foot are not published. The carrying-cost score for this project was set at the category midpoint specifically because that figure is missing — not because a number was calculated and found acceptable.

The rental policy on file states a 30-day minimum lease term with rentals permitted up to three times per year. The evidence is explicit that this comes from a project summary, not the condominium declaration or the state-filed prospectus — the documents that actually bind you. Treat the rental terms as directional until you see the declaration.

The project record does not name a developer. Broker-sourced quotes around the March 2024 loan closing attribute the project to Related Group and GTIS Partners, praising 'strong pre-sale commitments' and 'proven track record... in the immediate submarket.' Those are sales-side statements from a lender's broker, not independent verification, and no sales percentage is disclosed anywhere in the evidence to test the claim.

No developer track record data was available for scoring: no count of delivered projects, no average delivery delay, no defect-suit history, no lender-default history. The track record score of 5 reflects that absence, not a clean or dirty record — there simply isn't one on file here.

One litigation matter appears in the evidence, and it does not concern this building. Stephen and Louise Kornfeld and Jody Weissman sued TRG North Flagler Venture and RD IMV Owner — both identified as Related Group affiliates — alleging a fraudulent transfer of assets to avoid repaying a roughly $13 million promissory note tied to the Icon Marina Village development, after that project was converted from condominium units to rentals. The docket (2022-006451-CA-01) shows a last filing dated June 2, 2023, with no disposition identified in the cited materials.

This dispute is about Icon Marina Village, a different project, a different note, a different set of facts. It has no documented connection to Baccarat Residences Miami and should not be read as reflecting on this building's construction or financing.

Carrying cost scored 6 out of a possible range, driven by one clean fact: this is new construction, so no SB-4D milestone structural inspection falls due within the next ten years — a cost and disruption risk that older buildings carry and this one currently does not. HOA dues per square foot were not published, so that half of the carrying-cost picture is a placeholder, not a verified figure.

Deposit protection scored 3, the weakest number in this file, and the reason is specific: Florida law only escrows the first 10% of a purchase price by statute. Everything beyond that — and this contract structure asks for 40% before closing — is escrowed only if the purchase contract says so. That escrow percentage is not published in the evidence supplied.

In practical terms: on a $2 million purchase, the law guarantees escrow protection on $200,000. What happens to the other $600,000 collected before closing depends entirely on contract language this audit has not seen. Get that clause and read it before you wire anything past the first deposit.

The address is 99 SE 5th Street, Brickell, on the Miami River. Amenity descriptions reference a waterfront promenade, a private marina, and views described as covering Biscayne Bay, the Miami River, and the city skyline — developer language, not independently verified sightline data.

One nearby project is on record: Viceroy Brickell – The Residences, 45 floors, to the west, described as having partial view impact, completed and opened May 6, 2026. That is the one concrete data point available on what could obstruct or share the view corridor.

Beyond that, the location score of 6 was set without several things that normally inform it: no confirmation of a protected view, no data on additional towers planned or permitted nearby, no FEMA flood zone designation, and no walk-time-to-transit figure. A river-adjacent Brickell address is a real asset. How durable the view stays, and how the site sits relative to flood zoning, are not answered in what's published.

The single largest risk here is not a bad fact — it's an absence of facts. No price, no HOA figure, no sales percentage, no escrow percentage beyond the statutory floor, and no developer track record data. Seventeen of twenty-five input fields in this audit are unverified. That is not unusual for a project at this stage, but it means the overall score of 5.2 is provisional by construction, not by judgment.

The deposit-protection gap deserves the most attention of any single item: a 40%-before-closing structure with an unpublished escrow clause is the kind of detail that changes the actual risk of a $2 million commitment, and it is currently unknown.

The Icon Marina Village litigation, while unrelated to this building, is worth watching only insofar as it establishes that the named sponsor entities have been party to a fraudulent-transfer allegation on another project, with no resolution shown as of the last filing. That is a fact about the broader corporate family, filed here for transparency, not a fact about Baccarat Residences Miami's construction or delivery.

Finally, the broker's claim of 'strong pre-sale commitments' cannot be checked against any pct_sold figure in the evidence. Until that number is published, take the sales-momentum language as marketing, not data.