This is NOT a stagnant city (Chicago, Jacksonville: real estate, 2015, rental)

[rzzzz]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

I doubt that's true.

If anything many of the highest end buildings in NYC are very local. Really the only exception is towers in Midtown, but even those are about 50% New Yorkers, which doesn't seem particularly low by global city standards. Towers like 432 Park are 50% bought by current city residents. If you go to a superluxury new construction building on the Upper East Side or Upper West Side, it will be 90% local. If you go to the equivalent in London or Miami, it will be 10-20% local.

Probably the only major U.S. city where high end housing construction is primarily due to non-residents would be Miami.

Is that true? In most of the stuff I've read has reported the people moving into places like One 57 are the usual cohort of Russians, Chinese and other "businesspeople" and "scions" from elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/re...residents.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

Is that true? In most of the stuff I've read has reported the people moving into places like One 57 are the usual cohort of Russians, Chinese and other "businesspeople" and "scions" from elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/re...residents.html

That area is so Disneyland-ish too..blech.

[steeps]

Originally Posted by marothisu

You have to use other metrics. This is obvious and not every city is extremely vertical like NYC or Chicago is. Are you going to hold it against Houston or LA because they aren't building **** loads of supertall skyscrapers? No. They're building tons of stuff and nobody in their right mind would hold them not building a lot of supertalls or even high rises against them. Very few cities in the world are actually really, really vertical like NYC or Chicago is. And nobody is claiming that Chicago is building as much as these cities. Anybody who thinks so is a complete idiot and fool. On the other hand, anybody who pays attention to things in Chicago realizes that things are ramping up more and more. There's currently 24 high rises under construction in Chicago with another 6 in site prep and some more ready to begin. A few more just recently completed too. This is not to mention a lot of new construction in areas like West Town, Logan Square, Bridgeport, Bronzeville, Roscoe Village, Lakeview, and Lincoln Park.

NOLA???? You are Corrected above⤴ again. When you always get some dig in to lessen Chicago

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

Is that true? In most of the stuff I've read has reported the people moving into places like One 57 are the usual cohort of Russians, Chinese and other "businesspeople" and "scions" from elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/re...residents.html

It's not true, and One57 is like the least representative building you could find. Even One57 is half New Yorkers.

The biggest concentration of high-end buildings, by far, is on the Upper East and Upper West Sides, and these areas are overwhelmingly filled with locals.

NYC is a coop city, or, when condos, using coop rules. This means no renters allowed, no second homes allowed, very tight rules on background, etc. Very few luxury buildings allow you to buy a unit without such restrictions.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by marothisu

You have to use other metrics. This is obvious and not every city is extremely vertical like NYC or Chicago is.

Ok, then pick your metric. Let's forget skyscrapers, and pretend they aren't relevant to Chicago's construction scene.

# of units u/c?

# of multifamily units u/c?

Whatever metric you choose, Chicago is not doing particularly well. Forget NYC, I'm talking compared to Miami, LA, SF, DC, Seattle, Dallas, Houston. Traditionally, that wasn't the case. Traditionally, Chicago was #2 in the U.S. for urban-type multifamily living.

Just looking at the Census data, Seattle has around twice as much multifamily permitted as Chicago this year. Seattle, historically, would not be competitive with Chicago in terms of urban construction.

https://www.census.gov/construction/...t3yu201409.txt

All these cities have a long way to catch up to Chicago in urbanity, but I don't think it's unfair to say that Chicago is a bit of an underperformer these past few years. It certainly isn't gaining ground on any of these cities.

[rzzzz]

I lived in NYC for a decade and know a little bit about Manhattan co-ops...

All of the new tower buildings and lower rise "glass cube" style buildings are condos, not co-ops. I am not aware of any new co-op buildings.

What are the buildings on the upper east side and west side to which you refer?

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Wrong. There are dozens of supertalls in NYC planned and in development, more than any other city on earth.

Then please post links to them. I keep up with proposed development through a consulting job I have (in NYC, Chicago, London, and DC) and I don't see dozens going up at all. There are about half a dozen that are under construction or about to start construction in NYC right now, but in no way are there multiple dozens.

Originally Posted by NOLA101

And if you don't want to use supertalls as a proxy, then name your metric.

How about using the standard metrics that are used to define demand?

Office vacancy rates rates in downtown Chicago are at about 14%. Manhattan is doing great, with a rate of about 10%. Both cities beat the national average of 16.5%.

The best way to judge residential demand is to simply look at increases in average rents. Again, Chicago beat the national average last year. NYC is (as always) all over the place, but is seeing slightly larger increases than Chicago.

Anyways, that is how you look at the health of a development market, and Chicago is beating the national average on basically all counts.

[midwest1]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Ok, then pick your metric. Let's forget skyscrapers, and pretend they aren't relevant to Chicago's construction scene.

# of units u/c?

# of multifamily units u/c?

Whatever metric you choose, Chicago is not doing particularly well. Forget NYC, I'm talking compared to Miami, LA, SF, DC, Seattle, Dallas, Houston. Traditionally, that wasn't the case. Traditionally, Chicago was #2 in the U.S. for urban-type multifamily living.

Just looking at the Census data, Seattle has around twice as much multifamily permitted as Chicago this year. Seattle, historically, would not be competitive with Chicago in terms of urban construction.

https://www.census.gov/construction/...t3yu201409.txt

All these cities have a long way to catch up to Chicago in urbanity, but I don't think it's unfair to say that Chicago is a bit of an underperformer these past few years. It certainly isn't gaining ground on any of these cities.

Curious about the census numbers...they are reporting "privately owned" housing units. Does that exclude apartments/rental units? Because I read somewhere that thousands of rental units are coming online every year for the next few years in downtown Chicago. Most all of the construction recently in Chicago has been rental housing.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Wrong. There are dozens of supertalls in NYC planned and in development, more than any other city on earth.

And if you don't want to use supertalls as a proxy, then name your metric. Want to use just highrise construction, or # of units in construction? Chicago is not really doing that well in these metrics either, at least not relative to other major U.S. cities. Chicago has traditionally been the #2 U.S. city in "urban" type development, but not now.

Who cares? Honestly. Who cares. Unless you have a financial stake in these buildings, are planning to buy one, or are simply a skyscraper fanboy who likes to gawk at cranes and foundation pours all day, this kind of stuff has very little impact on the day to day life of most city residents. New buildings and development are important but its not the end all be all. Neither are imagined rankings. There are plenty of mid-tier global cities which are phenomenal places to live that dont engage in any of this nonsense. Spend less time worrying about the perceived status of the city and more time enjoying it for what it is.

Anyway, all of this current construction reminds me of only one thing and thats 2007.

[steeps]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Wrong. There are dozens of supertalls in NYC planned and in development, more than any other city on earth.

Originally Posted by Attrill

Then please post links to them. I keep up with proposed development through a consulting job I have (in NYC, Chicago, London, and DC) and I don't see dozens going up at all. There are about half a dozen that are under construction or about to start construction in NYC right now, but in no way are there multiple dozens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
And if you don't want to use supertalls as a proxy, then name your metric.

Originally posted by Attrill
How about using the standard metrics that are used to define demand

Office vacancy rates rates in downtown Chicago are at about 14%. Manhattan is doing great, with a rate of about 10%. Both cities beat the national average of 16.5%.

The best way to judge residential demand is to simply look at increases in average rents. Again, Chicago beat the national average last year. NYC is (as always) all over the place, but is seeing slightly larger increases than Chicago.

Anyways, that is how you look at the health of a development market, and Chicago is beating the national average on basically all counts.

NOLA... You were CORRECTED AGAIN on YOUR NEED TO DEMEAN CHICAGO In every thread it is in the topic. IS IT EVERYONE ELSE WRONG???