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.
Houston slowing down. Same for NYC. SF really kicked it up. Nice gains for LA, Chicago, DC, Boston, Dallas, & ATL. Surprised to see a decrease in Seattle.
Dodge is BS. They don't know what projects have started, and they have zero clue about project values. My own firm's projects have been off by a 3:1 ratio in some cases, and totally wrong about what's getting built.
The sad but predictable fact is that nobody really counts this stuff, so half-assed crap like this gets attention.
Seattle is in an epic boom in core districts (and peripheral nodes) and in certain segments like urban multifamily and office, but the boom isn't universal. We're not building a ton of houses for one major example.
Edit: I should explain a bit more about Dodge. Since there's no real source in many locations (like construction-specific tax rolls), they have to create numbers largely from scratch. So they find stuff in the papers or the ads/results of public bids, and populate a database. But they make asinine wild guesses about project values except in locations where realistic values go along with permits (certainly not Seattle). They list projects as "started" apparently because someone sent a press release, even if the job is months away or never happens. And they miss many projects entirely, because some projects never hit bid ads or press. It's not horrible that they try, or even that they don't put enough effort into it to make it accurate. But the results are click bait at best, and extremely misleading.
Dodge is BS. They don't know what projects have started, and they have zero clue about project values. My own firm's projects have been off by a 3:1 ratio in some cases, and totally wrong about what's getting built.
for someone evidence of this, FMC's and Comcast's HQs along with 1919 market broke ground in either Q1/Q2 of 2014 and cost nearly 1.8bn combined. It isn't like those buildings were the only things getting built in a metro of over 5m people. Idk, color me skeptical.
for someone evidence of this, FMC's and Comcast's HQs along with 1919 market broke ground in either Q1/Q2 of 2014 and cost nearly 1.8bn combined. It isn't like those buildings were the only things getting built in a metro of over 5m people. Idk, color me skeptical.
No boom last forever. It's like people and growth spurts. You may hit a period (or extended period) where you get a lot taller and fill out, but eventually your growth levels out and you hit a period (or extended period) of stability.
Markets go up, come down, then go back up...it's the circle of life.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Dodge is BS. They don't know what projects have started, and they have zero clue about project values. My own firm's projects have been off by a 3:1 ratio in some cases, and totally wrong about what's getting built.
The sad but predictable fact is that nobody really counts this stuff, so half-assed crap like this gets attention.
Seattle is in an epic boom in core districts (and peripheral nodes) and in certain segments like urban multifamily and office, but the boom isn't universal. We're not building a ton of houses for one major example.
Edit: I should explain a bit more about Dodge. Since there's no real source in many locations (like construction-specific tax rolls), they have to create numbers largely from scratch. So they find stuff in the papers or the ads/results of public bids, and populate a database. But they make asinine wild guesses about project values except in locations where realistic values go along with permits (certainly not Seattle). They list projects as "started" apparently because someone sent a press release, even if the job is months away or never happens. And they miss many projects entirely, because some projects never hit bid ads or press. It's not horrible that they try, or even that they don't put enough effort into it to make it accurate. But the results are click bait at best, and extremely misleading.
So this whole publication is a conspiracy against Seattle's construction numbers...I get it.
Look at Nashville's percentage change. Second right behind SF. thats crazy
I think SF was just a fluke. We have lots of development but I personally wouldnt say its more than doubled in intensity over the past year but who knows.
I think SF was just a fluke. We have lots of development but I personally wouldnt say its more than doubled in intensity over the past year but who knows.
Congrats to Nashville btw.
Yeah Nashville is booming. Increased much more than our peer cities. Austin decreased. Charlotte isn't even on the list
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.
