Faena Residences Miami

Faena Residences Miami is planned for 90 SW 3rd Street in Edgewater: 68 floors, 440 units, completion targeted for 2029. It is in preconstruction, meaning no vertical work has begun and the delivery date is a plan rather than a fact on the ground.

Rafael Viñoly Architects is the architect of record; Bryan O'Sullivan Studio is doing interiors. Both are named in the evidence. The developer is not. That is not an oversight in this report — the developer field in the underlying data is simply null. For a project asking $1.3M to $6.8M per unit, that is a gap worth sitting with before anything else.

Unit sizes span 711 to 8,200 square feet, a wide enough range that this is really several different products under one address — compact one-beds at the low end, full-floor or penthouse-scale units at the high end. No price-per-square-foot figure is published, so it is not possible from this evidence to say where any given unit sits relative to what else is trading in Edgewater.

No percentage-sold figure is available. In preconstruction, sales pace is one of the better early signals of whether a project is financing itself through presales or leaning on debt — and it is one of the fields this evidence does not supply.

Pricing runs $1,300,000 to $6,800,000 across unit sizes of 711 to 8,200 square feet. There is no published price-per-square-foot average, so cross-unit comparison and comparison against neighboring buildings cannot be done from what's here.

The deposit schedule on file: 5% at reservation, 5% at 45 days from contract signing, 10% at 120 days from contract signing, and 10% at twelve months after groundbreaking. That totals 30% of purchase price collected before a further construction milestone would presumably be reached — but the schedule beyond that fourth installment, and the closing balance, are not in the evidence.

What is not published: HOA or association dues, any figure for price per square foot, the rental policy (whether and how owners may lease units), and the percentage of the building currently sold. A buyer weighing carrying costs or exit flexibility should treat all four as open questions to put directly to the sales office, not as settled facts.

The developer is not named anywhere in the evidence supplied for this report. That alone should be a question you ask before signing anything. Everything that would normally establish a track record — projects delivered, average delay against promised completion dates, defect litigation, lender defaults, year founded — is listed as missing.

On litigation specifically: the evidence contains no legal entries at all for this project or for any other property tied to whoever the developer turns out to be. That means there is nothing here alleging a problem, but it also means there is no clean record to point to either. An absence of data is not the same as a clean history, and this report will not treat it as one.

The developer track record score sits at the middle of its range, 5 out of 10, which the formula assigns by default when the underlying inputs are simply unavailable — not as a judgment that the developer is average, but because there is nothing to judge from.

Carrying cost scores 6 out of 10. HOA dues per square foot are not published, so that half of the score is set at the category midpoint rather than measured. The one concrete point in the developer's favor here is structural, not developer-specific: this is new construction, so there is no SB-4D milestone structural inspection due within the next ten years, a cost and disruption that older buildings in Florida are now working through.

Deposit protection scores 3 out of 10, the lowest of the seven categories. Florida law escrows only the first 10% of a buyer's deposit by statute. The deposit schedule here reaches 30% by twelve months after groundbreaking. What is not published is the escrow percentage this project has actually committed to — meaning it is not possible from this evidence to say whether the amount above the statutory 10% is held in escrow, released to the developer for construction costs, or something else entirely. That is the single fact I would ask the sales office to put in writing before wiring a reservation deposit.

The address given is 90 SW 3rd Street, Edgewater. The evidence does not include a walk-to-transit time, FEMA flood zone designation, or any note on whether the building's views are protected by easement or covenant.

No nearby-development data is supplied — nothing on permits filed, towers under construction, or land assembled by others in the immediate area. For a market where a neighboring parcel breaking ground can change a sightline overnight, that is a meaningful blank, not a minor one.

Location and view durability scores 6 out of 10, the highest of the seven categories, but the formula reaches that number without any of the four inputs that would normally support it. Treat it as a placeholder score, not a verdict on the setting.

The dominant risk here is not a specific defect in the plan. It is that the plan is barely described. Twenty-one of twenty-five scored inputs across this evidence are unverified; only four are confirmed. A developer name is absent. An escrow percentage is absent. A sales pace is absent. An HOA figure is absent.

Delivery risk scores 4 out of 10, reflecting preconstruction status combined with missing data on sales-to-date, construction financing, and the developer's historical delay pattern — three of the clearest early-warning signals for whether a tower gets built on schedule.

If the primary concern were construction quality, financing structure, or a specific legal dispute, this report would say so directly. It is not. The primary concern, as the evidence stands, is that too little has been made public to evaluate those things at all.