THE WELL Coconut Grove

THE WELL Coconut Grove sits at 2640 S Bayshore Drive, an 8-floor building with 194 units, designed by Arquitectonica with interiors by Meyer Davis Studios. It is under construction, targeting completion in 2028.

Construction financing is in place: a $410 million loan from TYKO Capital. That figure is recorded and verifiable — it is one of the few hard numbers in this file that does not require a caveat.

The project record supplied to us does not name a developer. Legal filings in the evidence do reference Terra Group and related entities in connection with matters described below, which is the only route by which we can identify who is behind this. That the developer field itself is blank in the primary project data is worth noting on its own; it is not how a $410 million project usually gets discussed.

Unit sizes range from 960 to 4,200 square feet, a spread wide enough to cover a one-bedroom and a full-floor residence in the same building. Beyond the starting price, there is not much else on the record — no ceiling price, no average price per square foot, no percentage sold.

Pricing starts at $1.5 million. There is no published upper bound, no average price per square foot, and no stated percentage of units sold to date. For a building this size, that last figure — sales pace — is normally one of the first things a buyer wants to see, and it is absent here.

The deposit schedule is fully specified: 10% at contract signing, 10% at groundbreaking, 10% at vertical-pour completion, 10% ninety days after that, 10% at top-off, and the remaining 50% at closing. That is five pre-closing milestone payments totaling half the purchase price, with the other half due only at closing.

What is not published: HOA or association dues per square foot, the rental policy (whether short-term rental is permitted, restricted, or under a minimum-lease rule), and the percentage of the escrow-eligible deposit actually held in escrow beyond the statutory floor. All three are listed as unknown fields in the record. A buyer signing today would be doing so without knowing the monthly carrying cost or whether the unit can be rented out short-term.

No developer track record is published for this file — no count of prior projects delivered, no average delay history, no defect-suit history, no lender-default history, no founding date. The track-record score reflects that absence directly; it sits at the midpoint because there is nothing to score it against, not because performance has been evaluated and found adequate.

Two legal matters appear in the evidence, and they belong to two different categories. The first concerns this project directly: a nonprofit, Grove Opposing Out-of-Control Development Inc., sued the City of Miami in August 2025 alleging that a 2023 zoning change creating a bonus-height pathway was unlawfully adopted — specifically, that height-limit protections were omitted from the publicly noticed version of the ordinance. The suit named the City, not Terra, as defendant, and sought to block permits for this project and others relying on that ordinance. It was amended in January 2026, and as of a February 2026 report, an emergency motion for a temporary injunction was pending with no ruling stated. This is a live, unresolved matter that touches this building's permitting basis directly.

The second matter concerns a different property entirely. Survivors and families from the Champlain Towers South collapse sued a group of defendants including Terra Group, Terra World Investments, and an entity tied to Terra's Eighty Seven Park development, alleging that excavation and pile-driving for Eighty Seven Park weakened the neighboring Champlain Towers South building. That litigation settled in mid-2022 for close to $1 billion total, with Terra-affiliated entities reportedly contributing approximately $400 million, and no admission of liability. This case has nothing to do with THE WELL Coconut Grove as a physical project — it concerns a different building, a different neighborhood (Surfside), and a collapse that predates this project. It is included here only because it names the same corporate family, and rule of thumb applies: it should inform how you read Terra's litigation history in general, not how you read the structural soundness of this building.

HOA dues are not published. The carrying-cost score of 6 reflects a midpoint assumption in the absence of that number, plus a genuine credit: as new construction, the building has no SB-4D milestone structural inspection due within the next ten years. Florida's SB-4D law requires recertification inspections for older buildings at set age thresholds; a brand-new tower simply isn't there yet, which is a real and verifiable point in its favor on that one axis. It says nothing about dues, insurance cost, or anything else in the carrying-cost picture.

On deposit protection, Florida statute requires escrow of only the first 10% of a purchase price in condominium presale contracts. This project's own schedule collects 50% of the price in five installments before closing — meaning up to 40% of a buyer's money could be sitting outside statutory escrow protection, exposed to construction and completion risk, unless the developer has voluntarily agreed to escrow more. That voluntary figure is not published here. The deposit-protection score of 3 is the lowest score in this file, and it is driven by exactly that gap: not that the money is unprotected, but that we cannot tell you how much of it is.

The address is 2640 S Bayshore Drive, Coconut Grove. Beyond that, the evidence supplied contains no data on flood zone designation, walk time to transit, whether the building's water or bay view is protected from future construction, or any specific nearby development already permitted or under construction. The location-durability score of 6 is assigned without any of those inputs — it is a category score, not a verdict on the view.

The one location-relevant fact that is documented is the zoning lawsuit described above: a nonprofit alleges the 2023 bonus-height ordinance that this project's height apparently relies on was improperly adopted. If that suit succeeds, it would concern how this specific building was approved to be built at its current height and density — a materially different kind of risk than an unrelated tower going up next door. No outcome is recorded yet.

The single largest risk category in this file is disclosure itself. Of 25 data points scored, 20 are unverified or missing — no sales pace, no HOA, no rental policy, no escrow percentage above the statutory floor, no developer delivery history, no ppsf comparison to the neighborhood. An overall score of 5.1 sits at the middle of the range largely because so much of the underlying picture is blank, not because what is known is mediocre.

The live zoning lawsuit is a concrete, named risk, not a hypothetical one: an emergency injunction motion was pending as of the most recent report cited, aimed at blocking permits for this project among others. A buyer signing a contract today is doing so while that motion sits unresolved.

The deposit structure compounds the escrow gap. Half the purchase price is due before closing, in a market where Florida law only guarantees escrow protection on the first 10%. Whether the remaining 40% collected pre-closing is protected by a stronger, developer-elected arrangement is not stated anywhere in the record.

Separately, and for completeness: the developer-level Champlain Towers South litigation is fully settled, with no admission of liability, and concerns a different building. It is not a live risk to this project, but it is a fact about the corporate family that a buyer is entitled to know exists.