$14k a door of interior work or $6k, on the same 288 units

Split, and I'd argue the split isn't a compromise, it's the only version where you learn anything. Sixty units heavy, lease them for two full quarters, and you'll have actual signed leases at the premium instead of a comp study. If the premium shows up you roll the heavy scope. If it doesn't you've spent about $840k finding out, on a deal where the wrong full-property answer costs eight figures.

The thing I'd want from you, @harrow, is whether the mob and demob cost of stopping and restarting a heavy scope is real money. On smaller jobs I've been told it's brutal.

It's brutal on my side of the table for a different reason. If I'm an LP in this and the sponsor tells me at close that the plan is $14k a door, then comes back in month eight and says it's actually $6k because the test didn't work, how I see that sponsor changes even if the decision was correct. Institutional capital hates a changed plan more than it hates a mediocre plan. So whichever way you go, the pilot needs to be in the original business plan as a stated gate, with the criteria written down. Then the change isn't a change.

Still learning here so treat this as a question. If the submarket pipeline really is contracting 40 to 50 percent, doesn't the heavy scope get better the longer you take? You'd be delivering finished units into 2027 and 2028 when the new supply is gone, instead of racing to finish in 14 months while the last few lease-ups nearby are still handing out two months free.

@sable that's a fair thought and the lender will complicate it for you. Capital expenditure on a bridge loan usually comes with a holdback that funds against completed work, and the draw schedule has milestones. A 28 month spend on a 36 month loan means your last renovated units stabilize about eight weeks before maturity, which is not where you want to be asking for an extension. Terms vary a lot by lender and by year, so anyone actually doing this should get the draw schedule and the extension conditions in writing before picking a scope.

I voted light for that reason. The heavy scope is a better real estate decision and a worse financing decision, and the financing usually wins the argument.

Voted split. Every renovation story I've heard in the last year had the phrase "and then appliance lead times" in it somewhere.

I don't know enough to vote on the construction, so I read it as a paper question instead. $14k a door on 288 units is roughly $4M of capital that you can't get back if you're wrong, versus $1.7M. @tender's point about the holdback is the one that landed for me, because if the money is coming through draws then the lender is effectively a partner in the scope decision and gets a vote nobody listed in the poll. Is that how it usually works, or can you fund the heavier scope out of equity and keep the lender out of it?