Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A single developer ditched a single proposal (they hadn't even released renderings yet), because they didn't want to include 35% affordable housing in the project. Big deal....if the economy doesn't crash someone else will buy the lot and build a tower there. And the rest of the transbay redevelopment district is doing fine. Multiple towers and the terminal are under construction, and multiple more towers are approved or proposed. Funding for the train tunnel to the terminal isn't secured yet, but I'm sure it will be eventually. No one said everything's "rosy forever", but things are going fine right now.
Relax. The quote below is all I was referring to. "Breathtaking" is not a word I'd use to describe the situation. More like "impressive, but let's see how long it lasts, and if it holds."
Also, there's definitely a "proceed with caution" mentality gripping SF development right now. All things considered, a lot of leasing (and thus absorption) that occurred in the city occurred with startups and companies that have yet to prove out their business model and are leasing absurd amounts of space at top dollar on expected growth trajectories (and subsequently subletting their unused space to unproven companies just like them). And if it wasn't Splunk, or Splice, or One Kings Lane, or Yammer, or some company you've never heard of, it was We Work signing their most top dollar leases in their entire portfolio for premium space in new buildings (basically survives on startup atmosphere).
Residential construction is a little different, but if I were a developer, I'd take a wait and see attitude before moving forward with any new projects (and paying $100-200M for the land alone only to be forced to withstand entitlement delays and to be forced at the end of the day to include more, more, more affordable housing as the political push becomes ever stronger).
What's under construction now has been in the works for many many years. The only one that was pretty much fast-tracked was Transbay Block 5 (that office tower doing excavation). All the other stuff pretty much took at least the full length of a cycle or more to finally get going. So it's not unreasonable for developers now to back off, knowing that history of development in this town. SF has, by far, the lengthiest, and often the costliest, entitlement process of any major city in the country, and it's only getting worse (and Planning is super super backed up right now).
I'm not being a pessimist, but I'm not about to describe SF's office leasing as "breathtaking" when next year it could partially unwind (before all these new projects even open...which would mean a glut, and broken proformas, at least temporarily, which means SF went from hottest to nottest...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Downtown SFs YTD absorption is breathtaking. 1.2 million sq ft snapped up.
For the sake of reputation on this forum, I'd rather not have posters from every other city, all of whom universally hate posters from SF, proclaim "I told you so!" (even if they have no idea what they're talking about, wouldn't want to accidentally make everyone right by using big words)
I'm still worried about a Tech slowdown happening in 2017 honestly. If that happens, yikes for cities like SF, Seattle, or Austin. Honestly, in SF, maybe that's good to slow down rent growth and keep it flat for a little while.
Chicago's continuing rise on the world stage was further boosted by the latest figures indicating that 2015 will not only be a banner year for new construction and hotel occupancy , but a record-breaking period for foreign real estate investment as well. 2015 saw $3.27 billion of new overseas capital flow into CHICAGO. Foreign buyers accounted for roughly 16 percent of Chicago's total $20.2 billion of real estate sales this year. Chicago now ranks as the fourth largest market in the nation for foreign investment..... up from last year's eighth place......and trails behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C NOW....
Tysons Corner alone in Fairfax has 46 Million, and it's tiny compared to DC (population: 19k)
I don't know about now but a few years ago Tysons (before the plan was in full force to turn it into a city) was right behind New York as far as having the most office space in the country which is impressive considering Tysons really is just a small region between where three towns/cities intersect (McLean, Falls Church and Vienna).
I don't know about now but a few years ago Tysons (before the plan was in full force to turn it into a city) was right behind New York as far as having the most office space in the country which is impressive considering Tysons really is just a small region between where three towns/cities intersect (McLean, Falls Church and Vienna).
Here's some info to add to the discussion:
As of November 2015, Rosslyn/Courthouse/Ballston combined have 24 million square feet of commercial office space. Crystal and Pentagon Cities have 14 million square feet of commercial office space. All of Arlington County has 38 million square feet of commercial office space.
Tysons has 29 million square feet of commercial office space. McLean/Vienna has 2 million square feet of commercial office space. All of Fairfax County has 105 million square feet of office space.
DC's CBD/East End/West End (downtown DC) combined have 91 million square feet of commercial office space. Central DC, which includes adjacent areas of downtown DC, has 123 million square feet of commercial office space. All of DC has 136 million square feet of commercial office space.
DC's densest zone, C-5, permits a FAR of 12 (DC actually has buildings with a FAR greater than 12 due to zoning exceptions)
Arlington's densest zone, C-O-Rossyln, permits a FAR of 10 (equal to DC's C-4 zone. Arlington also has buildings with a FAR greater than 10 due to zoning exceptions)
Developments approved or proposed around the new metrorail stations in Tysons permit a FAR of 5 (equal to DC's C-3 zone)
Although taller buildings exist outside of DC (like in Arlington and Tysons), they are less dense than buildings in DC due to the way DC developers maximize on lot occupancy (hint: this is the boxy building complaint you hear a lot, but it does the job).
Another little tidbit:
I did a lot occupancy analysis about a year ago where I compared the lot that the tallest office building in Charlotte, NC sits on (Census Blook 4008, Census Tract 1) and the lot that the International Square office complex sits on (Census Block 1017, Census Tract 107) in DC. They are roughly the same size lots. I found that the lot where Charlotte's tallest office building (60 floors) sits has the same useable/rentable square footage as the lot where the 12-story International Square complex in DC sits on.
That really shows the difference between height and perceived density versus actual density using lot occupancy and FAR.
Last edited by revitalizer; 12-19-2015 at 10:00 AM..
Yes, thanks for that. Tysons is a suburb with a fairly large amount of office space and a mall in suburban northern VA. That's about all you can say about that!
Yes, thanks for that. Tysons is a suburb with a fairly large amount of office space and a mall in suburban northern VA. That's about all you can say about that!
You are welcome!
Also, I did some more fact digging to help answer the question of how DC is able to compete with cities that have taller high rises and skyscrapers with the sheer amount of office space (increasingly residential space too in places like NoMa, Navy Yard, Mount Vernon Triangle, and SW Waterfront) it has.
DC is able to because it maintains a high floor-to-area ratio (FAR) over a large portion of its downtown and downtown-adjacent areas. We are talking near 100% lot occupancy. The result may be boxy buildings downtown, but they indeed compensate for the city's height limit. Also, the way developers build buildings in DC's downtown core is a matter of economics and less so about architects not being able to design attractive buildings in DC because architects are forced to design the buildings near 100% lot occupancy because that is what the developers who are paying them are telling them to do.
Here's a comparison of a small sample of buildings in DC and Philly with regards to FAR:
DC
425 13th St, NW
Zoning: C-5
13 floors
FAR: 12.4 (received zoning variance in 1985 as max FAR in the C-5 zone is 12)
International Square
1825/1875 Eye St/1850 K St, NW
12 floors
FAR: 11
1101 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
13 floors
FAR: 10.3
Camden NoMa
60 L St, NE
14 floors
FAR: 10
Philly
Comcast Center
57 floors
FAR: 18
Rittenhouse Hotel
210 West Rittenhouse Square
33 floors
FAR: 10.7
One Logan Square
1801 Cherry St
32 floors
FAR: 8.9
PECO Building
2301 Market St
29 floors
FAR: 6.1
Note: I believe Philly's FAR maxes out with the building at 1500 Locust, which has a FAR of 37.1. The median FAR for buildings in Center City is 15.
What helps DC be in the 3 largest office markets in North America (I count all of NYC as one market) is the breadth of contiguous 10 to 12-story office buildings (we're talking hundreds of buildings near 100% lot occupancy) over a large expanse of DC's downtown core and adjacent areas (250+ blocks) that puts it up there near the top of the list.
In the future looking 15 years out, there will be hundreds of 12 to 14-story residential buildings in downtown (via office to residential conversions), NoMa, Navy Yard, Mount Vernon Triangle, and SW Waterfront with FAR's of 8 to 10.
The way DC will be able to compete on density with the top cities in the future is that it will be forced to be more efficient with its land than other cities. This will keep it in the Top 6/Top 7 and may even move it up one or two spots looking 15 years out.
Last edited by revitalizer; 12-20-2015 at 02:00 PM..
Also, I did some more fact digging to help answer the question of how DC is able to compete with cities that have taller high rises and skyscrapers with the sheer amount of office space (increasingly residential space too in places like NoMa, Navy Yard, Mount Vernon Triangle, and SW Waterfront) it has.
DC is able to because it maintains a high floor-to-area ratio (FAR) over a large portion of its downtown and downtown-adjacent areas. We are talking near 100% lot occupancy. The result may be boxy buildings downtown, but they indeed compensate for the city's height limit. Also, the way developers build buildings in DC's downtown core is a matter of economics and less so about architects not being able to design attractive buildings in DC because architects are forced to design the buildings near 100% lot occupancy because that is what the developers who are paying them are telling them to do.
Here's a comparison of a small sample of buildings in DC and Philly with regards to FAR:
DC
425 13th St, NW
Zoning: C-5
13 floors
FAR: 12.4 (received zoning variance in 1985 as max FAR in the C-5 zone is 12)
International Square
1825/1875 Eye St/1850 K St, NW
12 floors
FAR: 11
1101 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
13 floors
FAR: 10.3
Camden NoMa
60 L St, NE
14 floors
FAR: 10
Philly
Comcast Center
57 floors
FAR: 18
Rittenhouse Hotel
210 West Rittenhouse Square
33 floors
FAR: 10.7
One Logan Square
1801 Cherry St
32 floors
FAR: 8.9
PECO Building
2301 Market St
29 floors
FAR: 6.1
Note: I believe Philly's FAR maxes out with the building at 1500 Locust, which has a FAR of 37.1. The median FAR for buildings in Center City is 15.
What helps DC be in the 3 largest office markets in North America (I count all of NYC as one market) is the breadth of contiguous 10 to 12-story office buildings (we're talking hundreds of buildings near 100% lot occupancy) over a large expanse of DC's downtown core and adjacent areas (250+ blocks) that puts it up there near the top of the list.
In the future looking 15 years out, there will be hundreds of 12 to 14-story residential buildings in downtown (via office to residential conversions), NoMa, Navy Yard, Mount Vernon Triangle, and SW Waterfront with FAR's of 8 to 10.
The way DC will be able to compete on density with the top cities in the future is that it will be forced to be more efficient with its land than other cities. This will keep it in the Top 6/Top 7 and may even move it up one or two spots looking 15 years out.
You know, for some reason, people don't understand this concept on this forum. D.C. urban form is going to be mind blowing for one reason: Height limits! The urban core of 12-14 story mixed use (residential/hotel/office) high-rise's with first floor retail will cover half the city. We complain about height limits, but its the only reason D.C.'s urban core will be more urban than every city but NYC.
There will be thousands of high-rise's in a city only 61.4 sq. mile's in area. It's going to epic and spread for mile's in all direction's! Many of the central neighborhoods in D.C. like Union Market/NOMA, Capital Riverfront/Buzzard Point, Northwest One/Mt. Vernon Triangle, and The Wharf/Waterfront Station will have unprecedented density for D.C.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
