NYC needs more taller buildings !

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by ddhboy

Actually, to address that demand is high for 500K-100K homes, but those simply do not exist in the city, or exist in scarcity, so what your addressing is Luxury demand, which would be condos 800K+. Luxury demand has dropped incredibly, mostly because NYC's luxury demand was mostly people who got a mortgage they couldn't really afford, and so what we are starting to see now are tons of foreclosures on their properties. Believe me, next year is going to be a disaster for the city with a combination of buyers backing out of their contracts or foreclosing, and developers going bust.

How do you see a disaster looming?

You've acknowledged yourself that there is a lot of demand for housing in the <$500k range. You also accurately point out that a lot of luxury housing in the >$800k range was built. If a glut of $800K+ units builds up, then the price of such units will slide downward toward that huge reservoir of demand in the sub-500k range. Buyers entering the market for the first time win. Current owners lose. Real estate agents, developers, the banks, homeowners that did not do their due diligence and other losing interests whine. It's like whining about gravity, though.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I have a question! I have a question! Well, OK, I have more than one question. Why is that necessary? For one thing, the city doesn't need that much office space. And for another, isn't a single city with eight million residents big enough? How crowded do you want it to be?

Commercial rent is high in NYC and is part of why some companies move out of NYC. Development (e.g.tall buildings) that creates more supply of office space encourages job retention and fosters an environment where job creation is more possible in the city. Is this not a good thing?

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by gradstudent77

Commercial rent is high in NYC and is part of why some companies move out of NYC. Development (e.g.tall buildings) that creates more supply of office space encourages job retention and fosters an environment where job creation is more possible in the city. Is this not a good thing?

It would be a good thing if it worked as well in practice as it does in theory. There's plenty of office space available in the Empire State Building--which hasn't operated at full capacity since it opened in 1931. The World Trade Center was hardly at full capacity either, for that matter.

New York City has more office space than it can handle. What it doesn't have is even more exceptionally tall buildings--which it doesn't need.

[gradstudent77]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

It would be a good thing if it worked as well in practice as it does in theory. There's plenty of office space available in the Empire State Building--which hasn't operated at full capacity since it opened in 1931. The World Trade Center was hardly at full capacity either, for that matter.

New York City has more office space than it can handle. What it doesn't have is even more exceptionally tall buildings--which it doesn't need.

It does work in practice. The ownership/management of the buildings are willing to tolerate a certain vacancy rate before they begin to lower rent. Right now, I'd bet a lot of buildings are at vacancy rates higher than they aim to tolerate and this cannot continue indefinitely. They will have to lower prices at some point.

O, and just a small btw, no building or portfolio that is somewhat large should ever be operating at "full capacity". If it was, that means rent is too low.

[Viralmd]

This thread is about skyscrapers, not the luxury housing market. Please stay on topic.

[KLDanford]

MORE tall buildings? MORE buildings to obscure what little sun we get, and make it feel even more like a looming concrete jungle? NO thank you.