Rivage Bal Harbour

Rivage Bal Harbour sits at 10245 Collins Avenue, 25 floors, 56 units total. The architect is Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and the interiors are by Rottet Studio — both credentials worth noting on their own terms, since design pedigree and developer track record are separate questions and only one of them is answered here.

The project is under construction and 30% sold. Completion date is not published in this evidence. That is not unusual at this stage of a project's marketing cycle, but a client writing a $13M+ check is entitled to ask for a firm date and should get one in writing before contract.

The developer's name does not appear anywhere in the evidence supplied for this report. That is an unusual omission for a building at this price point, and everything said below about track record, financing and litigation has to be read with that gap in mind — we are not in a position to tell you who is building this, only what has been disclosed about the building itself.

Unit sizes range from 3,284 to 12,603 square feet. Prices run from $13,000,000 to $75,000,000, at roughly $4,000 per square foot. That price-per-square-foot figure is the only pricing benchmark in the evidence — there is no published comparison band for Bal Harbour more broadly, so it is not possible to say from this file whether $4,000/sqft is high, in line, or low for the immediate market.

The deposit schedule is: 20% at contract, 10% at 90 days after contract, 10% at top-off (targeted Q3 2026), and 60% at closing (targeted Q4 2027). That is a heavier back-loaded structure than the 20/20/20/20/20 pattern common on some Miami new-construction deals — 60% is due only at closing, which reduces cash committed during construction but concentrates risk at the finish line.

Amenities are not itemized in this evidence — no list was supplied, so nothing can be said about what the HOA fee actually buys beyond building operations. Rental policy is also unpublished. If short-term or seasonal rental matters to your plan for the unit, that needs to be confirmed with the sales office directly; it is not knowable from what's here.

The developer's identity is not disclosed in the evidence available for this report. That alone caps how much can honestly be said in this section. The track record score of 5 out of whatever scale ChoseMiami uses is not an assessment of a good or mediocre developer — it is a neutral placeholder because the underlying facts (projects delivered, average delay, defect suits, lender defaults, year founded) are all listed as missing.

No litigation is recorded against this project in the evidence (the legal field is empty). Per our standing rule, litigation concerning a developer at other properties is never treated as reflecting on this one — but in this case we cannot even test that rule, because we don't know which developer, and therefore which other properties, would be relevant.

The practical takeaway: verify the developer's name, delivery history, and any active litigation independently before signing. This is the single most important piece of due diligence outside this report.

HOA dues are $2.10 per square foot per month. On a 3,284 sqft unit that is roughly $6,900/month before any other assessments; on a 12,603 sqft unit, roughly $26,500/month. Insurance costs are not published (the carrying-cost score notes this as a missing input), and in a coastal Florida building that is not a minor gap — insurance has been a swing factor in condo carrying costs statewide in recent years.

Florida law requires developers to escrow at minimum 10% of a buyer's deposit. This project's deposit schedule asks for 20% at contract alone, rising to 40% before closing. The evidence does not state what percentage of deposits is actually held in escrow here (deposit_escrow_pct is unpublished) — if the developer escrows only the statutory 10%, the remaining 30% collected before closing would be at the developer's disposal for construction funding rather than held for the buyer. This is scored as a real weakness (deposit protection: 3) and it is worth asking the sales office, in writing, exactly what escrow arrangement applies to every deposit tranche.

No construction loan amount or lender is disclosed. That detail typically indicates how the project is being financed and by whom, and its absence here is one more item for a buyer's attorney to chase down before the second deposit is due.

The address is 10245 Collins Avenue, Bal Harbour. Beyond that, the evidence contains no data on nearby permitted or under-construction development, no FEMA flood zone designation, no transit walk-time, and no statement on whether the current view is protected by any easement or covenant. The location score of 6 was arrived at with none of the fields it would ordinarily use populated — meaning it should be read as a default rather than a considered judgment about the setting.

For a purchase at this price, and particularly on a barrier-island corridor where sightlines are part of the value proposition, a buyer should independently confirm what can legally be built on adjacent lots before treating any current view as durable.

The primary risk in this file is not a fact about the building — it's the volume of facts that are simply absent. Developer identity, escrow percentage, rental policy, construction loan and lender, completion date, insurance costs, and any comparison to neighborhood pricing are all unpublished. Of 25 total inputs referenced across the scoring categories, 18 are marked unverified.

On what is disclosed: the deposit schedule concentrates 60% of the price at closing more than two years out, which is a lighter early cash commitment but means a larger single payment is contingent on the developer actually delivering to spec and on schedule — and delivery-risk scoring notes the developer's average delay history is itself unknown.

No litigation is recorded against this specific project. That is a genuine positive, as far as it goes, but it is also the only clean data point in an otherwise thin file. Treat the overall score of 4.9 as reflecting disclosure risk at least as much as project risk.