The Residences at Six Fisher Island

The Residences at Six Fisher Island is a ten-floor, fifty-unit building at 6 Fisher Island Drive, currently under construction. Kobi Karp Architects designed the building; Tara Bernerd & Partners did the interiors. Sixty-five percent of units are reported sold.

Construction financing is in place: a $400 million loan from Madison Realty Capital. That a lender of record exists, and at that scale, is itself a data point worth having — it means the project has passed underwriting by a firm whose business is assessing exactly this kind of risk.

What is not in the record is the identity of the developer. For a project selling units at eight and nine figures, that is not a small omission. Everything downstream of it — track record, prior delivery timelines, litigation history, financial stability — is unknowable to us until that name is published.

No completion date is published either. "Under construction" is the only temporal anchor we have.

Unit sizes range from 3,872 to 15,570 square feet. Listed pricing runs from $15,000,000 to $90,000,000. No price-per-square-foot figure is published, so you cannot yet check where a specific unit sits within that range without doing the arithmetic yourself once a unit is identified.

The deposit schedule is: 20% at contract signing, 10% at 90 days, 10% at top-off, and the remaining 25% balance at closing — 65% committed before you take title. That is a front-loaded structure relative to buildings that spread deposits more evenly.

Not published: the HOA or common-charge figure, the rental policy (whether short-term rental is permitted, restricted, or barred), and the percentage of your deposit actually held in escrow versus available for the developer's use during construction. All three are exactly the numbers a buyer at this price point should have before signing.

We cannot name the developer of this project from the evidence supplied. That is stated plainly because it is unusual, and because it matters: track record, average construction delay, defect litigation history, and any history of lender default are all listed as missing inputs, and all of them trace back to a name we don't have.

No litigation is recorded against this project specifically — the legal record supplied is empty. But because the developer's identity is unknown to us, we also cannot tell you whether that same entity has litigation history at other properties. If you are shown a developer name in a sales office, verify it independently and ask directly for delivery history at other buildings; do not take the absence of information here as evidence of a clean record. It is evidence of no record.

Carrying cost scores 6 out of 10, but the note attached explains why plainly: HOA is not published, so the category is scored at its midpoint rather than on real data. The one favorable fact is structural, not financial — as new construction, the building has no SB-4D milestone inspection due within the next ten years, which is a real cost the older Florida condo stock is now absorbing and this one is not.

Deposit protection scores 3 out of 10, the weakest figure in the file, and the reasoning is specific. Florida law requires escrow of only the first 10% of a purchase price by statute. Here, the initial deposit alone is 20% of the price, and a further 20% follows before closing (10% at 90 days, 10% at top-off). Nothing in the record tells us what happens to the portion above the statutory 10% — whether it sits in escrow by contract or is released to the developer for construction draws. That is the deposit_escrow_pct field, and it is unpublished. On a $15–90 million purchase, that is not a rounding error.

The address is 6 Fisher Island Drive, in the Fisher Island neighborhood. That is the extent of what the evidence gives us directly.

Fields that would normally inform a location score — whether the view is protected from future obstruction, what towers are permitted or under construction nearby, the FEMA flood zone, walk time to transit — are all listed as missing. The location score of 6 out of 10 is recorded without any of these inputs used, meaning it should be read as a placeholder pending disclosure rather than a verified assessment of the setting.

We have no nearby-development data on file at all. If a buyer's view or privacy is central to the purchase decision, that needs to be verified directly and in writing, not inferred from a score.

The headline risk here is not a bad fact — it's an absence of facts. The developer is unnamed, the completion date is unset, the HOA is unpublished, the rental policy is unpublished, and the actual escrow treatment of a deposit that reaches 40% before closing is unknown. Individually each is a gap; together they are most of what a buyer needs to know before wiring money.

What is verified and reasonably solid: construction is underway, a $400 million loan from a named lender is recorded, and 65% of units are sold, which suggests market absorption at the prices listed. Delivery risk scores 6.5, the strongest category in the file, on those grounds.

But delivery risk without a developer's delay history attached is a partial picture. A construction loan tells you the project can be built; it tells you nothing about whether it will be built on the schedule you're planning your life or your capital around.