Metros seeing the largest boom in construction, 2014-2015 (downtown, market, statistics)
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.
SF has some distinct city codes which they must abide by. I don't know if that is specifically slowing them down, or what the real issue is. I do know that SF is highly regulated.
For example, here in Berkeley, morons are protesting a high rise apartment in the residential neighborhood, under the excuse that it's contributing to gentrification and wont fit the neighborhood (they still think Berkeley is a isolated suburb). Little to they realize, people who can afford to live there regardless of the high rise, will move in nevertheless. Thus, we'll have low stock and high prices, worse than now.
Morons in SF have been concerned about two things: "so-called gentrification" and "everyone's view of the bay/shadows over school kids". The first is a b.s. excuse, and their inaction contributes to it, and the second is what aggravates me the most.
Most of these metros are have have have large makeups of single family housing. And besides, single family are a drop in the bucket, $$ wise, compared to commercial and multi family units. I doubt it would make much of a difference.
And besides, there is nothing impressive about mega sprawl via single family tract homes.
A single single-family home would be a drop in the bucket, but not thousands and ten of thousands some large metropolitan areas have a year.
A thousand single family homes sold at $250,000 equates to $250million, so we aren't talking drops but sizable portions for some metros.
There is variability between different areas. NYC has far more multifamily housing, Miami does from lack of developable land and Seattle is on a peninsula the limits land development.
Where as metros that aren't constrained and/or smaller, like Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Charlotte Orlando will likely have a greater percentage of housing growth in single family homes.
Especially since SF's real estate market is the hottest and most expensive; it should be at or very near the top; given current rents and low vacancies, the whole region should be a construction site, but is far from it
SF's real estate market is that expensive precisely because they don't build and that keeps inventory very low. It's a seller's market, and sellers have the upper hand and price high. Having that many people chasing scarce inventory keeps it expensive. It would not be that expensive, and the prices would plunge if San Francisco were building at a torrential pace to meet demand like other cities.
Phoenix hasn't fully recovered from the recession. During that time they overbuilt, especially single and multifamily residential, and retail. Philadelphia hasn't seen a boom in many years, and probably won't for a while. However, Philadelphia is experiencing much more gentrification than Phoenix. New businesses are attracted to Philadelphia's urban environment, diverse cultural attractions, and down to earth vibe compared to larger cities. Phoenix is a nice place in my opinion, but it needs some help in the urban department.
There is variability between different areas. NYC has far more multifamily housing, Miami does from lack of developable land and Seattle is on a peninsula the limits land development.
Where as metros that aren't constrained and/or smaller, like Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Charlotte Orlando will likely have a greater percentage of housing growth in single family homes.
San Francisco is on a peninsula. Seattle is more correctly on an isthmus, a strip of land between two bodies of water (Puget Sound and Lake Washington). Development is constrained to the east by the Lake on the one hand and by the Cascade Mountains on the other and to the west by an over-worked and underfunded ferry system. Development is not constrained to the north or south, except by limited freeway/highway capacity (I-5/US99) - what were easy commutes 20 years ago are now difficult to hard. As a result, upper-middle-class families are migrating in large numbers back into the city, reversing the "white flight" of 40 years ago.
Seattle does have many neighborhoods of primarily single-family housing surrounding the denser urban core, but is rapidly adding density through mixed-use development in and around "urban villages" and transit/light-rail hubs/stations, as well as in-filling vertical density Downtown.
The bigger issue is that limited land, plus large influxes of in-bound families, tech workers, and people from across the country attracted by the Seattle/NW life-style, are driving land values, rents, and housing prices through the roof. While scads of apartments are being built, almost all are renting at $2,500 or higher. Light rail is being built out, but is at least a decade behind the curve, and higher-, not high-, speedrail, which could leapfrog sprawl, is only gradually edging north and south.
Seattle will have a pretty good transit structure by 2020, and even more so once the Ballard extension is built (as well as the Ballard - UW extension). But everyone agrees that Seattle should've had its rail system built decades ago, and not just right now.
Depends what you're looking at. Most overall construction? Look no further than the top 20 in construction starts:
Indeed. But you seem to have forgotten that construction starts in a couple of categories does not equal overall construction. In 2014, the overall construction ranking was New York, followed by DFW, Houston and then everyone else. I doubt 2015 is much different, but I haven't seen the statistics.
San Francisco is on a peninsula. Seattle is more correctly on an isthmus, a strip of land between two bodies of water (Puget Sound and Lake Washington). Development is constrained to the east by the Lake on the one hand and by the Cascade Mountains on the other and to the west by an over-worked and underfunded ferry system. Development is not constrained to the north or south, except by limited freeway/highway capacity (I-5/US99) - what were easy commutes 20 years ago are now difficult to hard. As a result, upper-middle-class families are migrating in large numbers back into the city, reversing the "white flight" of 40 years ago.
Seattle does have many neighborhoods of primarily single-family housing surrounding the denser urban core, but is rapidly adding density through mixed-use development in and around "urban villages" and transit/light-rail hubs/stations, as well as in-filling vertical density Downtown.
The bigger issue is that limited land, plus large influxes of in-bound families, tech workers, and people from across the country attracted by the Seattle/NW life-style, are driving land values, rents, and housing prices through the roof. While scads of apartments are being built, almost all are renting at $2,500 or higher. Light rail is being built out, but is at least a decade behind the curve, and higher-, not high-, speedrail, which could leapfrog sprawl, is only gradually edging north and south.
Interesting! I looked into it and you're right! I always thought it was two peninsula's with a narrow body of water between them, but I see it actually a canal system going across a Lake. That tripped me up.
I agree part of the reason for Seattle's growth is some former suburbanites are moving back, but I think most of the reason is because of newcomers moving in and preferring to live in city. Think Amazon as one leading example.
Related: Seattle has a large number of mid and high rise projects under construction right now, and many more that have been approved, but not started. The list of proposals include two 800+ foot buildings, (888 Tower, the 888 stands for its height and Rainier Square Tower, proposed for next to the original Rainier tower on the pedestal, to be built on land owned by UW), and if these are both built will immediately become the 2nd and 3rd tallest in the city.
I agree part of the reason for Seattle's growth is some former suburbanites are moving back, but I think most of the reason is because of newcomers moving in and preferring to live in city. Think Amazon as one leading example.
Related: Seattle has a large number of mid and high rise projects under construction right now, and many more that have been approved, but not started. The list of proposals include two 800+ foot buildings, (888 Tower, the 888 stands for its height and Rainier Square Tower, proposed for next to the original Rainier tower on the pedestal, to be built on land owned by UW), and if these are both built will immediately become the 2nd and 3rd tallest in the city.
Just last week, a developer submitted plans for a skyscraper within a block that is zoned for unlimited height that will contain 1,120,000 square feet of floor space including 400+ residential units, office, and retail. The developer hasn't revealed the building height yet, but a supposed insider has leaked information that the skyscraper will be a little over 1,100 feet tall. If this happens, then this newly proposed skyscraper will be the tallest building on the west coast.
Obviously Seattle supporters are hoping that this leak is true (the massive floor space of the proposed structure assists the authenticity of the leaked info).
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.
