Aston Martin Residences is the real-estate programme through which the British automotive marque extends its design language into privately owned homes. Its first and principal completed project is the 66-storey condominium tower at 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way in Miami, opened in April 2024 with 391 residences.
The programme belongs in the Library because Miami established a durable model for automotive branded living: a developer builds and sells the real estate, while the marque supplies design authorship, controlled use of its name and a high-value symbolic identity. What it does not supply is equally important. Aston Martin is not the hotel operator, statutory developer, vendor or long-term residential manager.
Why this is an A code
The Library’s A code records a residence programme in which a non-hospitality brand contributes name, design and marketing value without providing a hotel operating system. Aston Martin Residences is a defining example.
The Miami project offers extensive amenities and contracted lifestyle services, but those services do not convert Aston Martin into an operator. They are delivered through the condominium association, the developer’s arrangements and third-party vendors. The public brand remains Aston Martin; the operating responsibility does not.
The distinction the programme proves
A branded residence can resemble a hotel residence in its advertising while being legally and operationally different. Both may promise concierge support, wellness facilities, private dining and a carefully designed arrival. Only one may be backed by a hospitality company that manages the building as part of an established service network.
Aston Martin Residences demonstrates the other model. The marque designs an environment and licenses a name. The building then has to function through ordinary condominium governance, budgets, contracts, reserves and owner control.
One name, several products
The Aston Martin real-estate portfolio is not one standard product. It now includes the completed Miami tower, a completed bespoke townhouse in Tokyo, limited-edition interiors within another New York development, and announced multi-unit projects in Ras Al Khaimah, Daytona Beach Shores and Brazil.
Some are called Aston Martin Residences. Others are presented as “Designed by Aston Martin” or “Interiors by Aston Martin”. The distinctions matter because they describe different depths of brand participation and do not create a single operating platform.
The legal name
The public name is Aston Martin Residences Miami. The project’s own legal notice states that the condominium’s legal name is 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Condominium and requires legal instruments to use that name.
This is not a technical footnote. It identifies the property the buyer actually joins. The Aston Martin name sits over the condominium through trademark licences; it is not the name of the legal estate in the same permanent sense as the address and declaration.
The responsibility map
The project has four principal layers:
1. Riverwalk East Developments LLC — landowning entity, statutory developer and seller; 2. G&G Business Developments — development and marketing platform engaged by Riverwalk East; 3. Aston Martin and AM Brands — design authors and trademark licensors; and 4. 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Condominium Association — the post-turnover owners’ institution governing the condominium and its service contracts.
Marketing often compresses these roles into one glamorous partnership. The Library keeps them separate because liability, delivery and long-term operation follow the contracts, not the logo.
What Aston Martin did
Aston Martin’s design team worked on the shared interiors and amenity spaces and collaborated with the architectural team on the project’s expression. The marque developed lobby details, material choices, reception elements, door hardware and other cues intended to translate its automotive design language into a residential setting.
The official opening material credits the design collaboration to Aston Martin’s team and architect Rodolfo Miani of BMA. Public releases consistently identify Marek Reichman as the leader of Aston Martin’s contribution.
What Aston Martin did not do
The project’s legal notice says that Aston Martin Lagonda Limited and AM Brands had no ownership interest in the condominium and did not participate in the development or sale of its units. It also states that neither company acted as broker, finder, developer or seller.
The buyer-facing documents therefore draw a firmer boundary than the promotional language. Aston Martin created design and brand value, but purchasers were directed to the statutory developer for development, marketing, deposits, construction and sales matters.
The statutory developer
Riverwalk East Developments LLC is identified in the project’s legal notice as the property owner, seller and “developer” for the purposes of the Florida Condominium Act. This is the entity against which the real-estate delivery obligation principally sits.
Riverwalk East is also the principal developer defendant in the association’s 2026 disputes. The prominence of G&G and Aston Martin in the public identity does not replace Riverwalk East’s legal position.
G&G Business Developments
G&G Business Developments is the Coto family’s luxury real-estate platform and the project’s public-facing development partner. Official Aston Martin releases describe the building as delivered with G&G, and Germán Coto served as its principal spokesman.
The legal notice is more exact: Riverwalk East engaged G&G to assist with development and marketing. It also tells purchasers to look solely to Riverwalk East, rather than G&G, on matters relating to development, marketing and unit sales.
The architects and construction team
The tower was designed by Bodas Miani Anger, commonly presented as BMA, together with Revuelta Architecture International. Official materials identify Rodolfo Miani as a principal architectural author; Revuelta served as architect of record. Coastal Construction managed the construction, while DeSimone Consulting Engineering was part of the structural team.
Cervera Real Estate handled sales and marketing. These roles should be retained because a branded building is never designed or delivered by the brand alone.
What the buyer owns
The buyer acquires a condominium unit and the rights attached to it under the declaration, prospectus and Florida law. The project’s legal materials explain that the unit definition is generally the interior airspace within the perimeter walls and excludes structural components and other common elements.
The buyer does not acquire an interest in Aston Martin, its trademarks or its automotive business. Nor does the purchase itself confer ownership of the marina, a car or every service shown in promotional material.
The common property
Pools, amenity floors, lobbies, circulation, structure and building systems sit within the condominium’s common-property and governance framework as defined by the project documents. Owners fund their operation through assessments, reserves and charges established by the association.
The practical quality of life therefore depends on collective finance and management. A beautiful brand environment can deteriorate if the association lacks adequate budgets, competent contractors or enforceable remedies against defective work.
The trademark licence
The developer and G&G received limited licences to use Aston Martin trademarks in connection with the project. The legal notice also states that the condominium association received, or would receive when required conditions occurred, a limited licence for use of those marks.
A licence is permission, not ownership. It has a term and conditions, and its continuation depends on the underlying agreements.
The possibility of de-branding
The project’s own legal text states that all use of Aston Martin trademarks in connection with the condominium must cease when the relevant licences expire or terminate early.
This is the category’s most important durability point. The real estate can survive the brand. An owner may continue to own a unit at 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way even if the building can no longer use the Aston Martin name. The permanent asset and the licensed identity are related but not identical.
The buyer cannot appropriate the name
The legal notice prohibits a purchaser from using “Aston Martin”, or a confusingly similar expression, in the name of an entity used to hold title to a unit. The buyer owns real estate, not a transferable right to trade on the marque.
This restriction confirms the asymmetry of branded ownership. The name enhances the property while controlled by the licensor; the individual owner does not become part of the brand business.
Not a hotel
Aston Martin Residences Miami is a condominium tower with limited commercial units. It is not a hotel, does not sell hotel rooms and is not integrated into a hotel reservation system.
There is no parent hospitality house in Part I or Part II because no hotel brand stands behind the project. That is why the programme sits in Automotive Residences rather than Hospitality Residences.
No hospitality operator
Aston Martin does not publish an operating standard comparable to Aman, Four Seasons, Ritz-Carlton or Mandarin Oriental residence management. It does not train a global residential service workforce, manage an attached hotel or place the building inside a hotel operating agreement.
The Miami proposition is therefore a designed condominium with amenities and contracted services. It may feel hospitality-led, but it is not operator-backed in the Library’s use of that term.
The condominium association
After turnover, the owners’ association becomes the institution through which residents control budgets, common property, service contracts and claims against the development team. Public reporting states that non-developer owners gained control in March 2025.
This transition changed the project from a developer-managed sales product into an owner-governed residential property. It also exposed the building to the normal post-turnover examination of contracts, reserves and construction condition.
Service is contractual, not intrinsic
Concierge, valet, security, cleaning, pool support, lifestyle assistance and similar services exist only through contracts and budgets. They are not delivered automatically by the Aston Martin name.
The service mix can change when contracts expire, are terminated or are replaced by an owner-controlled board. A purchaser should therefore ask who employs the staff, who controls the service specifications and what rights exist if the provider changes.
Marketing and the offering documents
The project’s legal page states repeatedly that the prospectus and purchase agreement, rather than brochures, renderings or broker statements, govern the offering. It says plans, features, views and amenities were preliminary and subject to change.
That language is common in condominium development, but it is especially important in branded real estate because the emotional strength of the name can make promotional imagery feel more authoritative than it legally is.
A stale legal page
As of the record date, the project’s legal page still described the condominium as “presently only proposed”, even though Aston Martin had announced completion in April 2024 and owners were in control by March 2025.
The outdated sentence does not make the completed tower hypothetical. It does show that public project websites can preserve pre-construction language long after delivery. The Library therefore dates claims through official releases, association turnover and independent reporting rather than relying on one page alone.
The origin
G&G and Aston Martin announced their collaboration in 2016 and presented the project publicly in February 2017. It was Aston Martin’s first major real-estate development and part of the marque’s wider “Art of Living” strategy, which extended its name into products and experiences beyond cars.
The project was conceived as more than a licensing badge. Aston Martin’s own design studio was assigned visible work in the common spaces, allowing the brand to claim creative authorship rather than simple sponsorship.
The site
The tower stands at the meeting point of the Miami River and Biscayne Bay, on a prominent downtown waterfront parcel. Its position gives it views across the bay, river, port and city skyline and allows arrival by water to form part of the project narrative.
The site’s symbolic value was central to the partnership. The building was intended to become a skyline marker visible independently of the Aston Martin signage.
The sail-shaped tower
The exterior is organised as a curving glass tower whose profile was repeatedly described as sail-like. The form responds to its maritime setting rather than reproducing the shape of a car.
This was a useful design decision. A literal automotive building would have aged quickly. The sail provides a local architectural identity, while the automotive references are concentrated in proportion, material, detailing and interior experience.
Architectural authorship
Official opening material credits the building to a collaboration between Aston Martin’s design team and Rodolfo Miani of BMA. Earlier releases also name Revuelta Architecture and BMA as the tower’s architectural designers.
The Library therefore does not attribute the whole building to Aston Martin. The tower’s form, engineering, code compliance and construction documentation came from a multi-firm architectural and technical team. The marque’s strongest authorship lies in design direction and shared interiors.
Brand-design authorship
Aston Martin’s designers worked from Gaydon on the common interiors and amenity expression. Their task was to identify transferable principles from the marque—material honesty, craft, controlled curves, visual tension, precision and restraint—rather than to fill the building with automotive decoration.
The result established a method the brand could carry into later residential collaborations. Miami became the laboratory for a non-automotive application of the Aston Martin design system.
Marek Reichman
Marek Reichman led Aston Martin’s design contribution as Executive Vice President and Chief Creative Officer. Official releases identify him repeatedly from announcement through construction and opening, and later place him at the head of the Tokyo residential collaboration.
His role is stronger than that of a ceremonial executive. The public record connects him to a repeated creative method across Miami, 130 William in New York, N°001 Minami Aoyama and subsequent real-estate work. He is therefore a credible future Part IX candidate, subject to a separate authorship test.
Shared authorship, not sole authorship
Reichman’s importance does not erase the Aston Martin studio, BMA, Revuelta, the developer or the technical team. The project was produced through shared authorship.
The correct formulation is that Aston Martin, under Reichman’s creative direction, authored the brand-design layer; BMA and Revuelta authored the architectural and technical building; Riverwalk East and G&G assembled and delivered the development. No single party created the complete product alone.
Translating a car without copying one
The project translated automotive design through experience rather than imitation. The sequence begins at controlled lobbies, continues through tactile details and material transitions, and culminates in amenity floors designed as a social and wellness environment.
This method is more durable than decorative branding. It allows the residence to suggest Aston Martin without requiring a winged badge on every surface.
Materials and detail
Promotional releases identified carbon-fibre reception desks, bespoke artisan door handles, number plinths and leather door tabs among the marque-specific details. These are small elements, but they show where the automotive design team exercised direct control.
The strongest translation is material and proportional. Carbon fibre, leather, metal and precisely resolved junctions communicate craft when used selectively; used excessively, they would reduce the building to a showroom.
The two lobbies
The tower’s two private lobbies were principal Aston Martin design spaces. They were intended to provide the immediate emotional transition from city and waterfront into the branded environment.
In a non-operated residence, the lobby carries unusual weight. It is one of the few spaces through which every owner and guest encounters the brand, regardless of how an individual apartment is furnished.
The private residences
The completed building contains 391 condominiums. Public sales material described a range from smaller residences to large sky homes and penthouses, including seven penthouses and a multi-level crown residence.
The programme was not limited to car collectors. Aston Martin reported at completion that more than fifty purchasers already owned an Aston Martin, which also means that most purchasers did not. The brand was selling an aesthetic and status system, not a compulsory automotive membership.
Optional interior participation
Owners could work with Aston Martin’s design team on private interior schemes. This allowed the brand layer to extend beyond common property into selected homes while preserving choice for buyers who preferred another designer.
The optional model is important. It avoids making every apartment identical and separates the condominium product from a hotel room, where the operator normally controls the complete furnishing standard.
The residence is not the brochure area
The legal notice explains that marketed square footage was measured to exterior boundaries and demising-wall centrelines, while the declaration’s legal unit definition generally covers a smaller interior airspace.
This is common in Miami condominium marketing, but it reinforces the need to distinguish sale-area conventions from legal ownership. The branded name does not alter measurement practice.
The Sky Amenities
The project markets 42,275 square feet of amenities over four levels from floors 52 to 55. The vertical concentration creates a residents’ club in the upper part of the tower rather than distributing every facility at podium level.
The amenity block is the closest the building comes to an internal hospitality house. It gathers wellness, work, entertainment, dining and social functions into a managed sequence, but it remains condominium common property rather than a hotel operation.
Level 52 — work, culture and family
The published programme for level 52 includes an art gallery, business centre, conference room, children’s playroom, teen centre and games room.
This floor broadens the proposition beyond spectacle. It recognises that full-time and seasonal residents need work rooms, family infrastructure and indoor social space, not only a pool and spa.
Level 53 — wellness and grooming
Level 53 is presented as the lower wellness floor, with spa and fitness lounge, treatment rooms, spinning and boxing spaces, sauna, meditation room, beauty salon and barber shop.
The presence of treatment rooms does not establish a medical or hotel spa operator. It establishes physical capacity. The association must still contract qualified providers and determine which functions are included in assessments and which are charged per use.
Level 54 — fitness and entertainment
The upper fitness level, virtual golf facility and two movie theatres occupy level 54 according to the project’s published programme.
Virtual golf is an obvious bridge between residential club culture and luxury leisure. The cinemas and fitness floors give the building an all-weather social programme, reducing dependence on outside clubs.
Level 55 — pool and private dining
The upper amenity level is presented with infinity pool, deck, cabanas, sky bar and lounge, pool concierge, grand salon, chef’s kitchen and private dining room.
The chef’s kitchen and dining room create the infrastructure for hosted meals without operating a public restaurant. In an association-run building, the quality of that experience depends on booking rules, catering partners, staffing and the budget residents approve.
The marina in marketing
The project website describes a 900-linear-foot marina with a depth intended for large yachts and presents it as an exclusive means of arriving home. Early Aston Martin releases also promoted direct water access and an exclusive yacht marina.
The marina was therefore central to the sales imagination: the Aston Martin car would occupy one side of the lifestyle story, the yacht the other.
The marina in the legal record
The legal page states that the marina is not part of the condominium. It says the adjacent dockage and marina were intended to be privately owned or operated and that any owner use rights would be at that private party’s discretion.
This is one of the clearest examples of why the A-code master must read beyond the amenities page. A visible and heavily marketed facility can remain outside the property owners collectively own.
Butler and lifestyle services
The project website markets a butler service covering home management, travel support, boat rental, event access and beach experiences. These functions resemble luxury hospitality, but the website does not convert Aston Martin into their provider.
The service must be understood through the actual vendor contract, scope, charges and termination provisions. The 2026 association dispute included allegations concerning concierge and other service arrangements, making this distinction operational rather than theoretical.
The limited-edition car offer
Some high-value sales were promoted with a limited-edition Aston Martin DB11. The legal notice states that a car was included only where the unit purchase agreement contained an express amendment or rider providing for it.
Buying in the building did not automatically include an automobile. The car was a negotiated sales component for specified transactions, not an appurtenance to every condominium title.
Amenities are rights, costs and contracts
A brochure names facilities; the condominium documents determine rights. Buyers need to identify whether an amenity is common property, limited common property, adjacent third-party property or a revocable service arrangement.
They also need the operating budget, reserve assumptions, insurance treatment and replacement obligations. In a highly serviced tower, the annual cost of preserving the promise can be as important as the original purchase price.
Groundbreaking
Construction formally began in October 2017, one year after the original partnership announcement. Aston Martin and G&G presented the groundbreaking as confirmation that the brand’s first real-estate venture had moved from concept into delivery.
At that stage, official material projected completion in 2021. The date later moved.
The first completion promise
The 2017 groundbreaking release stated that the 66-storey tower was on track for completion in 2021. It also described 391 condominiums, the two architectural firms, Coastal Construction and the Aston Martin-designed amenity interiors.
This release is useful because it records the original delivery promise before later revisions. The Library preserves it rather than replacing it with the final opening date.
The 2022 revision
By August 2019, after major foundation works, Aston Martin’s public material described the project as completing in 2022. Construction reports at the 2021 topping-out stage repeated that schedule.
The movement from 2021 to 2022 shows that the delay began before final delivery. Public reporting later attributed part of the longer delay to pandemic conditions, but the Library does not assign every lost month to a single cause without project records.
Topping out
The tower topped out in late 2021 at approximately 816–817 feet. Contemporary construction reporting recorded 66 storeys, 391 units, more than 42,000 square feet of amenities and the division of roles among BMA, Revuelta, Coastal, Cervera and Aston Martin.
Topping out proved the architectural object. It did not prove completed interiors, functioning building systems or residential handover.
Completion in 2024
Aston Martin announced official completion and opening on 30 April 2024. It called the building its first completed ultra-luxury real-estate project and welcomed the first residents.
This is the date on which the Miami entry satisfies the Library’s delivery rule. Earlier announcements belong to the history; the completed tower belongs to the register.
The sales claim
At opening, Aston Martin said 99 per cent of the 391 condominiums had been sold. The figure was published by the brand and developer side and is not independently audited in the sources used for this master.
Even with that qualification, the commercial result was significant. The project demonstrated that the Aston Martin name could support a nearly sold-out major condominium tower rather than only a handful of bespoke interiors.
Delivery is not the end of the record
Completion answers whether the building exists. It does not answer whether every promised facility, service, system and contractual relationship was delivered as buyers expected.
For branded residences, the post-opening years are often more revealing than the launch. The design can be photographed immediately; governance, maintenance and service durability only become visible after owners take control.
Turnover in March 2025
Independent reporting states that the developer transferred control of the condominium association to non-developer unit owners in March 2025. The owner-led association then commissioned a property-condition assessment, a standard but consequential post-turnover step.
Turnover created the institutional separation that the legal structure anticipated. The owners could review contracts made during developer control and pursue claims in the association’s own name.
The first 2026 dispute
In early 2026, the association brought an action against the developer side alleging fraud, self-dealing and failure to deliver parts of the pre-construction proposition. Public reports described a claim for millions of dollars and said the association sought an accounting.
These are allegations by the association, not judicial findings. The Library records them because they concern precisely the gap between branded promise, condominium documents and post-turnover operation.
Alleged missing amenities
Reports of the first action say the association alleged that promised elements including a helipad, marina or marina rights, beach-club access and concierge services were not delivered as represented.
The legal record complicates the marina issue because the project’s own disclaimer expressly says the marina was outside the condominium and any use rights were discretionary. The dispute will therefore turn on the complete offering documents and representations, not on the amenities webpage alone.
Alleged related-party contracts
The association also alleged that, before turnover, the developer side entered contracts for building management, concierge, security, valet and cleaning with connected or favoured businesses at prices above fair market value.
The allegation goes to the heart of non-operated branded living. When no hospitality operator supplies a controlled service platform, the developer’s vendor choices can shape both the experience and the owners’ long-term costs.
The remedies sought
Public reporting says the association sought substantial damages, a financial accounting and relief connected to the contested contracts and amenities.
The claim should not be read as proof that funds were diverted or contracts were improper. It establishes that the owner-controlled association formally challenged the developer-era operating structure.
The developer’s response
Riverwalk East rejected the allegations. Its spokesperson described them as unfounded or outlandish, said the association was diverting attention from unresolved obligations of its own and expressed confidence that the legal process would produce a fair outcome.
The Library retains the denial beside the allegations. It does not infer liability from the filing of a complaint.
The construction-defect action
On 15 April 2026, according to Bisnow, the association filed a separate construction-defect action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The filing named Riverwalk East and sixteen firms involved in design, construction or building systems.
The association sought at least $750,000 and repairs, while its lawyers estimated that the wider remediation could cost millions. The amount pleaded is not a final repair bill or judgment.
The alleged concrete conditions
The association alleged spalling or deteriorating concrete, exposed reinforcing steel and post-tension components, cracking, water intrusion and defective balcony conditions. Reports said some loose material had been removed and areas required further repair.
These descriptions came from the association’s inspections and legal claims. They should not be rewritten as an established conclusion that the tower is structurally unsafe or “crumbling”.
The alleged systems defects
The construction claim also identified alleged problems involving waterproofing, pools and water features, masonry and stucco, elevators, fire systems, plumbing, mechanical and electrical components, doors, exterior paving and the seawall.
The breadth of the list matters because it moves the dispute beyond one cosmetic defect. The developer disputes the association’s characterisation and responsibility remains unresolved.
The alleged life-safety concerns
The association’s consultants described some conditions as requiring urgent attention, including loose concrete or stucco and exposed reinforcement. The complaint and subsequent reporting also alleged incidents in which building material detached and damaged property, without reported injury in the account reviewed for this master.
The Library records these conditions only as allegations in pending claims. It does not extrapolate from them to a general declaration about the building’s safety.
The defendants and divided responsibility
Reported defendants included the statutory developer, architect of record, general contractor, structural engineer and multiple specialist firms. The case therefore mirrors the project’s shared authorship and shared delivery structure.
A branded-residence dispute is rarely one simple contest between owners and a logo. Design, construction, sale, common-property management and trademark use are distributed among different entities, each with different duties and defences.
Unresolved as of the record date
The sources reviewed for this master did not establish a final judgment, settlement or comprehensive repair resolution by 28 August 2026. Both principal disputes remain recorded as pending and contested.
Future editions must update the entry if the court dismisses claims, assigns liability, approves a settlement or if the parties document completed remediation. The present record is a status report, not a verdict.
Why the litigation matters to the category
The disputes do not erase the project’s architectural and commercial significance. They reveal the structural limit of an A-code residence: brand value can raise expectations without transferring development or operating liability to the brand.
Aston Martin’s legal separation is unusually explicit. Buyers who assumed that the marque stood behind construction or service delivery in the same way a hotel operator might were buying into a different legal product than the name suggested emotionally.
What Miami proved
Miami proved that an automotive marque could help sell, design and complete a full-scale residential landmark rather than a showroom, furniture collection or small set of branded apartments. It also proved that the brand could use the project as a platform for later real-estate partnerships.
The project’s influence lies in scale, visibility and repeatability. It turned Aston Martin residential design from a one-off experiment into a continuing diversification line.
What Miami did not invent
Aston Martin Residences was not the first automotive-associated residential tower. Porsche Design Tower in Sunny Isles Beach was completed before the Miami Aston Martin project opened and had already demonstrated the commercial power of a car-linked design brand.
Aston Martin’s more precise distinction is that a performance-car marque’s own design studio became a recurring author across several residential formats. The Library therefore records a major proof point, not an uncontested chronological first.
The replication strategy
After Miami, Aston Martin expanded through three related formats:
1. complete or near-complete branded residential design; 2. bespoke private houses designed with local partners; and 3. “Interiors by Aston Martin” commissions within projects developed and architecturally led by others.
This flexible structure allows the brand to scale without becoming a developer or operator. It also means each scheme needs its own responsibility map.
N°001 Minami Aoyama
Aston Martin announced completion of N°001 Minami Aoyama in Tokyo on 26 June 2025. The four-storey private residence was developed with VIBROA in the Omotesandō area and includes an automotive gallery for two cars.
The Tokyo house is important because it repeats the method at an entirely different scale. Miami is a 391-unit tower; Minami Aoyama is one bespoke home. The continuity lies in design direction, material discipline and collaboration under Reichman’s leadership.
The Astera, Interiors by Aston Martin
Dar Global announced The Astera on Al Marjan Island, Ras Al Khaimah, in June 2024. Aston Martin’s role is stated in the title: it is an interiors collaboration, while Dar Global is responsible for delivery. The published completion target is December 2028.
The Astera should not be counted as an operating Aston Martin residence in 2026. It is an announced development and a narrower brand commission than the complete Miami identity.
Daytona Beach Shores
In October 2025, Aston Martin and Valor Real Estate Development announced an 86-unit, 18-storey project at Daytona Beach Shores, due in 2029. The agreement was described as the first project in a multi-project partnership.
The site links the residence strategy directly to motor-racing geography. It also confirms that Aston Martin Residences is no longer tied to G&G or Miami; the marque can license and design with a new developer under a repeatable partnership structure.
Brazil and South America
In February 2026, Aston Martin and Setai Grupo GP announced Setai Residences Interiors by Aston Martin in João Pessoa, Paraíba. The proposed 45-storey tower is targeted for completion in 2031 and gives Aston Martin the interior-design role rather than statutory development responsibility.
The project expands the geographical strategy but remains a future scheme. Its presence in the portfolio is evidence of reproduction, not delivery.
Built, completed and announced
As of 28 August 2026, Miami and N°001 Minami Aoyama are confirmed completed in the sources used here. The Astera, Daytona Beach Shores and Setai Residences are announced future developments.
The Library does not count a marketing launch as an operating residence. Each future project must cross its own delivery threshold and may need a separate entry if its legal and design structure materially differs from Miami.
Candour
Most design, unit, amenity and sales information comes from Aston Martin, G&G or the project website. Those sources are authoritative for the parties’ stated intentions and brand contribution but are promotional and do not independently verify sales, completed amenity performance or service quality. The 99 per cent sold figure is therefore retained as a brand-published claim.
The project website contains pre-construction disclaimers that were not fully updated after completion. Its amenities page markets a marina and butler service, while its legal page says the marina is outside the condominium and makes use rights discretionary. The master gives the legal qualification priority over the sales impression.
The 2026 matters are active, disputed legal claims. Allegations of fraud, self-dealing, missing amenities and construction defects are not findings of fact. Riverwalk East denies wrongdoing and disputes responsibility. Public reports also differ in some procedural descriptions and dates; the Library uses the most specific dated court-filing report available and avoids conclusions beyond it.
Aston Martin’s own legal separation is unusually clear: it did not own, develop or sell the units and disclaimed responsibility for marketing, sale, design and construction claims. The Library nevertheless credits its documented design authorship. Creative authorship and legal liability are separate questions.
Timeline
2014 · G&G acquires the prominent Miami River and Biscayne Bay site through the project structure, according to later reporting.
October 2016 · G&G publicly announces its partnership with Aston Martin.
28 February 2017 · Aston Martin presents the 66-floor Miami project and identifies its design team’s role.
18 October 2017 · Construction formally begins; completion is projected for 2021.
June 2019 · Major foundation pour completed; public completion target moves to 2022.
Late 2021 · The tower reaches its full height; contemporary project reporting records the topping-out milestone.
30 April 2024 · Aston Martin announces official completion and opening of the 391-unit tower; 99 per cent sold is claimed.
4 June 2024 · The Astera, Interiors by Aston Martin, is announced for Al Marjan Island with a December 2028 target.
March 2025 · Control of the Miami condominium association passes from the developer to non-developer owners.
26 June 2025 · N°001 Minami Aoyama is announced as completed in Tokyo.
23 October 2025 · Aston Martin Residences Daytona Beach Shores is announced for completion in 2029.
Early 2026 · The Miami association brings its first action concerning alleged missing amenities, related-party contracts and association finances.
23 February 2026 · Setai Residences Interiors by Aston Martin is announced in Brazil for completion in 2031.
15 April 2026 · The Miami association files the reported construction-defect action against Riverwalk East and sixteen project firms.
28 August 2026 · The principal Miami disputes remain unresolved in the public record reviewed for this master.
LHL connections
LHL-A-002 · Bentley Residences — later automotive-branded tower in Sunny Isles Beach; comparison for marque-led design without a hotel operator.
LHL-A-003 · Porsche Design Tower — earlier Miami-area automotive design residence and the chronological predecessor to Aston Martin’s completed tower.
LHL-A-004 · Bugatti Residences, LHL-A-005 · Mercedes-Benz Places and LHL-A-006 · Tonino Lamborghini Residences — the wider automotive licensing field that followed or expanded alongside the Miami proof points.
LHL-A-007 · Pininfarina Residences — comparison between an automotive design house and a vehicle marque extending its design language into real estate.
LHL-A-008 · YOO — comparison for designer-led residential identity without hospitality operation.
LHL-R-021 · Aman Residences, LHL-R-030 · Four Seasons Private Residences and LHL-R-031 · Mandarin Oriental Residences — operator-backed contrasts where the residence proposition includes an established hospitality management system.
Marek Reichman · NO_REGISTRY_NUMBER — separate Part IX · Group VII master prepared; the repeated creative lead linking Miami, New York collaborations, Tokyo and the wider Aston Martin real-estate design method.
The person surfaced by the record
Marek Reichman is the strongest new person to emerge from this entry. He was not merely the executive quoted at opening. Official records repeatedly place him at the head of the design team and connect his method across completed Miami, New York and Tokyo work and further collaborations with Dar Global, Valor and Setai.
He passes as Group VII · Designers & Architects, anchored to LHL-A-001. A separate English Master has been prepared under NO_REGISTRY_NUMBER. It limits his claim to recurring creative leadership, distinguishes his contribution from the wider Aston Martin studio and retains the architects, developers and makers as co-authors of each property.
Germán Coto, Rodolfo Miani and the Revuelta team are important to the project but do not yet pass the Library’s people test on this record alone. Development scale, ownership or one architectural commission is not enough without a reproduced model.
Final assessment
Aston Martin Residences changed the automotive-branded residence from a novelty into a credible global design business. Miami gave the marque a completed skyline object, a large owner community and a design vocabulary that could be reapplied to towers, interiors and bespoke houses.
Its historical importance also lies in the clarity of its limit. The name does not build the concrete, sell the legal unit or operate the condominium. The project’s legal documents make that separation explicit, and the post-turnover disputes show why it matters.
The programme belongs in the Library not because every promise has been proved, but because it makes the A-code model visible in full: powerful design authorship, controlled trademark value, developer-led delivery, association-led operation and a permanent need to distinguish the house people imagine from the property they legally own.