Historic Number of New Residential Permits in NYC

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gantz

There are plenty places with great subway service that are vacant/under utilized such as Broadway Junction, practically the entire F line and B/Q lines in southern Brooklyn, etc. Half the neighborhoods in the outer boroughs haven't been rezoned since like the 1960s. There are places where you have a block of 1-2 storey warehouses/recycling centers right next to a subway station and a block further away has buildings with million dollar condos...

East NY is undergoing a gigantic upzoning (that's the Broadway Junction area you're referring to). It's easily the largest, most high profile rezoning in the city right now. It's DeBlasio's #1 land use priority.

I don't know what you're referring to re. the F train nor the B/Q lines in Brooklyn. Those areas are heavily developed, growing, and have lots of new construction. They already allow medium density new growth, and there's plenty of it.

The only area I can only imagine you're referring to is the street directly under the F train (McDonald Ave.). That street is not generally zoned for residential, but it's one street, and there's plenty of growth along McDonald too (just not residential). Those areas are mostly Orthodox Jewish and already dense, growing and well-entrenched (and fairly wealthy in parts), and that would not be a logical area to build gigantic subsidized highrises or something.

[chris08876]

Credit: http://www.thenextmiami.com/index.ph...-half-of-2015/

[mhays]

Interesting list. Dodge info is wildly inaccurate (I cancelled a data service I used to get at work due to a lot of absurd or missing information) but it's still an indicator.

NY dominated. It's also an expensive place to build, but the numbers were huge regardless.

Houston appears to have dropped a lot due to the oil thing. But Denver boomed despite oil.

LA's numbers weren't that big at all, even omitting the outer parts of the CSA. And they fell dramatically. (Again, Dodge can be totally wrong.)

San Francisco (the north half apparently) had really low numbers, which speaks to the difficulty of getting stuff built there.

[Hamilton]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...TATE/150819520

Northern Brooklyn set to get 22,000 new apartments by 2019, report says
New study by CityRealty shows a building boom for projects that have more than 20 units.


The amount of large-scale development in northern and central Brooklyn is set to more than double over the next two years, according to a report released Tuesday.

CityRealty, a real estate listings site that publishes market analysis, found that roughly 5,800 new apartments in buildings with more than 20 units are currently projected to be built in 2017—more than double this year's estimate of 2,700.

The firm based the report on projects with at least 20 units in Brooklyn neighborhoods running roughly from Greenpoint down to the Red Hook waterfront, including areas farther inland from Windsor Terrace over to Bushwick. Data included commercial buildings that were converted to residential as well as affordable housing, but not conversions from rental to condominium buildings.

The numbers not only put this area of Brooklyn on track to shatter the last peak of more than 3,200 units built in 2008, but will likely change the skyline and character of the borough, according to the report.

"There is a crush of buildings with 20 or more units under construction, many of them rising 10 or more stories and dramatically changing the built environment," the report noted, indicating that downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg would be the neighborhoods bearing the lion's share of the new developments.

Among the big projects that are currently underway are Pacific Park (formerly known as Atlantic Yards) and Greenpoint Landing, located on the waterfront in the neighborhood from which it draws its name. When complete, Pacific Park, on the border of downtown Brooklyn, is expected to create about 6,500 apartments, while Greenpoint Landing will have 5,500 apartments, making it the second-largest project currently slated for the borough.

The report predicted that, in total, 22,000 new apartments in large-scale buildings are on track to be built by 2019. However, with lead times generally running about two years, barring an economic calamity, those metrics will almost certainly balloon even further with yet-to-be-unveiled new developments. For some context, according to estimates from the U.S. Census, permits for about 7,500 housing units were filed for all of Brooklyn last year.

Meanwhile, rents and sales prices continue to soar. According to two recent market reports from appraisal firm Miller Samuel, the median rent for new development in Brooklyn was $3,405 in June (that report's data was based on roughly the same region of the borough that CityRealty examined), while the median sale price for new development borough-wide was $725,000 in the second quarter of 2015.

CityRealty New Developments Report

[Crawford]

It's nice to hear that there's such growth in Brooklyn, but we still need far more.

My wife and I are looking for a new condo. Our requirements aren't outlandish. We want a two bedroom, 1,000+ square feet, W/D in unit, open kitchen, elevator building, and newer construction or gut renovation, and close to a subway line no more than 20 minutes into Manhattan.

We're very fortunate to have good jobs and better liquidity. We can pay cash up to be a pretty high amount (at least I thought it was a high amount). But we're having trouble finding our forever place. There are some pretty brutal bidding wars right now, so much that it might make sense to look to Manhattan. Williamsburg and Park Slope are very competitive. Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens/Boerum Hill are far worse. You might as well move to prime Manhattan.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's nice to hear that there's such growth in Brooklyn, but we still need far more.

My wife and I are looking for a new condo. Our requirements aren't outlandish. We want a two bedroom, 1,000+ square feet, W/D in unit, open kitchen, elevator building, and newer construction or gut renovation, and close to a subway line no more than 20 minutes into Manhattan.

We're very fortunate to have good jobs and better liquidity. We can pay cash up to be a pretty high amount (at least I thought it was a high amount). But we're having trouble finding our forever place. There are some pretty brutal bidding wars right now, so much that it might make sense to look to Manhattan. Williamsburg and Park Slope are very competitive. Cobble Hill/Carroll Gardens/Boerum Hill are far worse. You might as well move to prime Manhattan.

Just out of curiosity, what is the price range?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Just out of curiosity, what is the price range?

I sent you a PM. Don't want to talk specifics about our assets.

But this is an example of what I'm talking about. This new condo isn't in a prime part of Williamsburg, yet 1,000 square foot 2 beds start above $1.5 million. And they have sold a bunch already, despite marketing just beginning a few days ago.
http://streeteasy.com/building/190-s...treet-brooklyn

To me, that's a lot of money for Southside Williamsburg. Maybe I'm just out of the loop.

[tdawg]

Crawford, have you looked at LIC, particularly the Hunters Point area, out of curiosity?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tdawg

Crawford, have you looked at LIC, particularly the Hunters Point area, out of curiosity?

I would live there, but my wife wants brownstone Brooklyn or maybe Williamsburg. I need to convince her to broaden her horizons re. neighborhoods.

There are tons of nice new condo buildings in LIC, and they are mostly within our price range, so I need to convince her to at least take a look.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I sent you a PM. Don't want to talk specifics about our assets.

I responded to your PM. By the way, I wouldn't look at Williamsburg at all, way too overpriced and overhyped. Too much demand from ignorant out of towners inflating the prices.

[10023]

Moving to LIC seems a bit like moving to Battersea/Vauxhall here in London (with the key difference that the subway is already there, not awaiting an expansion that will be ready in 5 years). It checks all the boxes in terms of access to jobs, high quality buildings, more space for the money and good potential for value appreciation. But it's just not as appealing as more established neighborhoods for all sorts of qualitative reasons (including aesthetics).

That said, money doesn't grow on trees, so both will continue to boom.

Originally Posted by Gantz

I responded to your PM. By the way, I wouldn't look at Williamsburg at all, way too overpriced and overhyped. Too much demand from ignorant out of towners inflating the prices.

That only makes it a bad trade if you think any of that will change. Prices might become more and more inflated by even more out of towners. There is no such thing as intrinsic value in urban residential real estate.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Moving to LIC seems a bit like moving to Battersea/Vauxhall here in London (with the key difference that the subway is already there, not awaiting an expansion that will be ready in 5 years). It checks all the boxes in terms of access to jobs, high quality buildings, more space for the money and good potential for value appreciation. But it's just not as appealing as more established neighborhoods for all sorts of qualitative reasons (including aesthetics).

Yeah, I'm fine with LIC; I can live (almost) anywhere if I'm close to urban stuff, and LIC is good by me. Queens is probably a better bet for price appreciation at this point.

But the wife is the boss and I think she wants more of a classic neighborhood experience. She likes Williamsburg, and we can probably swing it if we extend our budget a bit. A kid (or, gasp, kids) are in the mix, too, so there's that. I would be surprised if we end up not buying in Brooklyn. We'll overpay, like everyone else.

[tdawg]

Totally understand but you might want to consider a visit to Gantry Plaza State Park and a stroll up and down Vernon Blvd. I have a good friend who just moved to Hunters Point from Murray Hill and she's in love with the neighborhood. And believe it or not the Hunters Point historic district looks a lot like Brooklyn.

[chris08876]

Analysis of DOB permit applications with at least 15 units or 15,000 square feet:




===========
TRD

[chris08876]

Summer Ends With Significant August Filing Uptick, 4,020 Units Added To Pipeline

The latest numbers from the DOB show a major increase in year-over-year filings for August, and 2015’s running total has once again surpassed 2014’s, after falling behind in July. In terms of raw numbers, New York City saw new building applications submitted for a total of 4,020 units this past August, more than tripling last year’s figure of 1,281, and putting 2015’s running total of new units at 23,165 as of 8/31, ahead of 2014’s 21,099.

July’s data had appeared foreboding, with the number of units entering the development pipeline across the five boroughs decreasing over 70% year-over-year, falling from 6,403 in 2014 to 1,815 this year. But last year’s impressive number was partially due to anticipated changes in the zoning code and nerves over impending changes to 421-a, which resulted in even larger waves of new building applications in September and December.

Taking a look at broader year-over-year trends, 2015 held up relatively strong compared to last year’s numbers through June, significantly besting 2014’s totals in January, February, March, and May. June saw only a slight increase, and April’s numbers decreased, while July’s figures plummeted. 2015’s 3-month June/July/August total came to 8,799 units, falling short of 2014’s figure of 10,590, but still holding high above 2013’s paltry total of 4,425.

The push in applications last year was largely due to anticipated changes to New York’s zoning code, and adjustments to qualifications for 421-a tax abatements. Those administrative changes are obvious in the data, with both September and December of 2014 standing head and shoulders above any other recent months in terms of filings (coming in at 9,390 and 7,864 units, respectively).

Last July’s total count of 6,403 submitted units may have also been inflated by anticipatory filings ahead of building code changes, which were initially expected last September, before being pushed to New Years.

Besides July, September, and December of 2014, no other month in either 2013 or 2015 had over 6,000 applications, with 2013’s April high of 4,058 units coming in just below March 2015’s total of 4,353 units. The only other month with over 4,000 submitted units was November of 2014, which is now joined by this past August.

Approximately one year after some of the most impressive filing frenzies in New York’s history, things appear to be slowing down, at least on paper. But this may not necessarily reflect an actual slowdown in new construction. Since many of the filings from late 2014 were essentially “dummy” applications, a larger percentage of those projects than normal may be awaiting actual permits and construction activity, while those already in the ground in anticipation of 421-a changes could potentially leave their foundations in a zombified state.

Last year, submissions for new units almost doubled from 2013’s total of 22,915, increasing to 44,817. With this year already at 23,165 new units, 2015 is on track to add something in between those two numbers, and has already surpassed the entirety of 2013.

Breaking the year-over-year numbers down by borough, Manhattan has seen the only decrease so far, with the first eight months of 2015 totaling 3,863 new units, down from 6,646 in 2014. Brooklyn saw a slight increase in filings, from 7,275 to 7,509, and so did Staten Island, where numbers rose from 491 to 506. The largest jumps in activity were in Queens, where numbers boomed from 4,959 to 7,386, while the Bronx saw applications for new units more than double, from 1,728 to 3,901.

The numbers for the rest of 2015 will be important in measuring whether the post-2008 development cycle peaked in late 2014 or not. While the uptick in August data is impressive, the steep drop between this July and last seems likely to be echoed by similar contractions in September, November, and December (those three months alone accounted for 21,283 units last year, or nearly the equivalent of the entire total for 2013).

Even if momentum continues to decrease, that probably will not translate into a crash. The fundamentals behind urban growth have changed substantially over the past decade, even since the 2008 financial crisis, with the five boroughs now ranking among the fastest-growing large cities in the country. And while politicians seem incapable of acknowledging, managing, or responding to this growth, it should have the positive side effect of ensuring New York City maintains a relatively healthy construction industry in the near to medium-future, even if the monthly numbers this autumn fall short of the figures from late last year.

Of course, even if all the permitted units are built, developers are not building nearly enough housing to cope with the city’s population growth. With an average increase of over 70,000 people a year since the 2010 Census, New York needs to grow its housing stock by at least 50,000 units a year to prevent continued price spirals.

======================
NYY

[chris08876]

Credit: RD

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

It is difficult to imagine 100k+ p.a., especially when construction tech was less advanced in the old days.

Developers didn't have to go through grueling reviews to get planning permission for projects larger than allowed by zoning. If it met the setback requirements and the dob certified it wouldn't fall down, they could build it. It also helped that greenfield development was still going on in the outer boroughs.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Sorry, but living in NYC is not a right. NY will always attract new people and grow even without price controls/intervention. Raising wages would be the best way to remedy the issue of housing affordability. Why should the taxpayers subsidize the mega corporations who pay minimum wage by giving their workers subsidized housing? Raise wage levels of low income workers instead either by market forces or law.

I agree with you. Cities living is a meritocracy. Not everyone is entitled to live in Manhattan or San Francisco or along the beach in Southern California. Those cities offer the best and therefore attract the most competitive people working in the most competitive industries.

I never buy into the mindset of "why should I pay the high price of living in NYC when I can have a nice urban experience in Cleveland for half the price". It comes down to your mentality and personality. You are either drawn to the "risk/reward" of a global city or you aren't.

Any case it is amazing that NYC continues to set new historic records while so many other NE/MW cities hit their highs 50 years ago and are either still fallling, remaining stagnant or slightly growing.

[uaarkson]

I think people should be a bit more humble. NYC has greatness baked into its DNA but history has proven that it isn't immune from the nation's overall woes.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

I agree with you. Cities living is a meritocracy. Not everyone is entitled to live in Manhattan or San Francisco or along the beach in Southern California.

This is a simplistic way of looking at things, and it leaves a whole lot of people behind with a "fuck you, got mine" type of attitude. I was priced out of SF a couple months ago, the city I was born and raised in, that I wanted to keep living in, and I'm just one of tens of thousands of people that this has happened to in the past couple decades. What makes some rich dude more entitled to live there than me?

Why should it be considered fair that landlords can raise prices to a ridiculous degree in a short period of time, just because there are a bunch of wealthy transplants willing to massively overpay for housing? How is it fair for said transplants to move in, and then claim that they deserve to live there more than the poorer people who got pushed out, simply because they can afford those insanely inflated prices?