[Jularc]

Record NYC building boom spurred by massive commercial construction projects


Published: October 16, 2007

NEW YORK: Spurred by massive commercial building projects like the World Trade Center, New York is poised to spend a record $83 billion (€58.66 billion) in three years building office towers, apartments, arts centers and sports complexes, an industry group reported Tuesday.

The New York Building Congress' report described a sustained building boom helped by long-term construction projects such as the redevelopment of the trade center site and new stadiums for the New York Yankees and the New York Mets.

Spending on new construction, which was a record $24.6 billion (€17.39 billion) last year, will increase to $26.2 billion (€18.5 billion) this year, $27.5 billion (€19.4 billion) next year and $29 billion (€20.5 billion) in 2009, the group said.

Residential and commercial building, infrastructure projects like road repair and transit hubs, as well expansions of schools and hospitals all are performing strongly, the group said.

The biggest success in recent years is office construction and other commercial spending, which more than doubled between 2005 ($4.3 billion) and this year ($8.3 billion (€5.9 billion).) By 2009, $11.3 billion (€8 billion) will be spent on commercial construction, with 30 million square feet (2.8 million square meters) planned.

The report looked ahead to plans for ground zero, where four skyscrapers at least as tall as the Empire State Building are expected to be under construction in the next three years. A multibillion-dollar transit hub is set to open in 2009, along with a memorial to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Other massive office projects include a new Goldman Sachs headquarters being built downtown, and plans for a new office district near Penn Station and on the far West Side waterfront.

Spending on new homes, which are coming up as new apartment buildings and in conversions of older office buildings, will rise 14 percent this year to $5.6 billion (€3.96 billion), producing more than 35,000 new apartments — nearly four times as many as a decade ago, the report said.

The boom will create more than 13,000 new construction jobs by 2009, for a total of 130,000, the report said.


Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/16/america/NA-GEN-US-NYC-Building-Boom.php)


------------------------------------------------------------------


NYC construction spending seen up 18 pct by 2009


By Joan Gralla
Tue Oct 16, 2007

NEW YORK, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Annual construction spending in New York City, which hit a record $24.6 billion last year, should rise by 18 percent over the next three years on strength in the residential, commercial and government sectors, a trade group said in a report released on Tuesday.

The latest building surge varies from most other booms when either the residential or nonresidential sector has raced ahead of the other, the New York Building Congress said in its report.

"Given all the current positive indicators, it is hard to envision a significant deterioration in construction activity during the forecast period," the trade group said.

The group predicted that construction spending will set annual records through 2009. This year's total should be $26.2 billion, followed by $27.5 billion in 2008, and $29 billion in 2009, the group said.

Helping fuel that growth is the demand for apartments. Though many other housing markets in the nation have cooled after experiencing soaring growth, strong demand is still driving up prices in New York.

"New York City is still playing catch-up from the 1990s," when only 10,000 or less apartments were built a year, the report said. The city needs a minimum of 20,000 new apartments every year, just to keep pace with demand.

More than 30,000 units should be built this year -- the third year in a row at this volume.

Lower crime rates, the re-zoning of waterfront and industrial areas, and the weak dollar, which spurs overseas demand, set off this apartment-building race, the report said.

The office sector has also come into its own, partly due to "pent-up demand" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks froze construction.

While billions of dollars are being spent on Ground Zero's Freedom Tower and three other skyscrapers planned for the former World Trade Center site, the focus could shift to Manhattan's West Side, where developers are vying to relocate Pennsylvania Station and build on the space above the rail yards of the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

The government sector also has big projects under way, and the report said most were "adequately funded through 2009."

That has not always been the case; work on Manhattan's Second Avenue subway, for example, had been halted several times over the decades.

New stadiums for the Yankees and Mets baseball teams, coupled with big expansions planned for Columbia University and the New York University Medical Center, should also boost construction, the report said.

It sees the number of construction jobs hitting 130,000 by 2009, up from 122,600 in 2007.

However, soaring costs, tighter credit and coordination challenges are among factors that could slow the brakes on construction growth, the report said.

With construction costs rising 1 percent a month, inflation could at some point take a toll. "While the appetite for construction has not yet been abated by rising costs, the question remains at what point developers and government might find building to be cost-prohibitive and scale back," the report said.

The forecasts also could be imperiled if Wall Street enters a "prolonged slump," it said. Though the city has tried to diversify its economy, banks and brokerages remain its main industry.

The report also called for "a committed partnership" between government and the private sector to avoid snarls over permits and supply deliveries.


© Reuters 2007. (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-10-16T123013Z_01_N15369307_RTRIDST_0_NEWYORKCITY-CONSTRUCTION.XML&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage2)

[the urban politician]

I don't know where I'll be in 5 years (I take that back, I think I'm pretty sure where I'll be :cool: ), but I'm glad that I'm getting a chance to live in New York right now, during what is quite possibly its greatest period as a city.

[pico44]

I don't know where I'll be in 5 years (I take that back, I think I'm pretty sure where I'll be :cool: ), but I'm glad that I'm getting a chance to live in New York right now, during what is quite possibly its greatest period as a city.


New York is certainly one of the two or three greatest cities in the world right now, perhaps the greatest--depending how one chooses to measure such a thing. But I 'm not sure New York could ever match its unquestionable greatness from 1940 to 1970. It was a a Pax Manahatta that may never be matched by another city again.

[Jesus in a Geo]

New York is certainly one of the two or three greatest cities in the world right now, perhaps the greatest--depending how one chooses to measure such a thing. But I 'm not sure New York could ever match its unquestionable greatness from 1940 to 1970. It was a a Pax Manahatta that may never be matched by another city again.

1940-1970? The latter half of that period was marked by some of the most incredible urban blight and crime in American history. The 1940s and 50s were great, but I would consider the golden era of Manhattan to be 1900-1930, with the zenith in the 1920s. Just my two cents.

That said, the post-9/11 era is possibly as exciting as that era. Despite the horrific nature of the attacks, they galvinized support for NYC from around the country and added a tragic but nonetheless dramatic chapter in the city's already amazing history. And, in the optimism that has prevailed in spite of the initial shock, the city is perhaps reaching another golden age in its storied history.

[ctman987]

New York City is one of the greatest cities in the world and this construction boom can be seen all over the city. Projects small and big are underway or will be underway, some of which will transform areas of the city forever in ways that the creation of Battery Park City did.

This construction boom is also not only about Manhattan. Granted whenever you turn a corner in much of Manhattan you see a building under construction or a building with scaffolding all over it there are huge projects underway in all five boroughs. Tons of construction continues in Brooklyn as downtown and the neighboring areas continue to become more and more attractive, the same is happening in Queens and even the Bronx where peole are seeing the convenience to Manhattan.

Also a huge project that will shape the city will be construction on a huge swath of about 25 acres by the Javits Center, the west side highway and the Hudson River. The city has accepted proposals from 5 differant developers, many of which are partnered with major companies like Goldman Sachs and Conde Nast. These proposals include dozens of skyscrapers with housing, retail, office space, parks and entertainment areas.

[the urban politician]

My cousin and I took a speedboat from Long Island to Manhattan today, and took the boat completely around the entire island of Manhattan.

It was a great experience.

What I witnessed just reaffirmed what I said above. Not only is Manhattan obviously booming, but seemingly every square inch of space in its periphery (Roosevelt Island, downtown Brooklyn, Jersey waterfront) is either developed or under development with fairly dense real estate. This city is a madhouse! :cool:

[pico44]

1940-1970? The latter half of that period was marked by some of the most incredible urban blight and crime in American history. The 1940s and 50s were great, but I would consider the golden era of Manhattan to be 1900-1930, with the zenith in the 1920s. Just my two cents.

That said, the post-9/11 era is possibly as exciting as that era. Despite the horrific nature of the attacks, they galvinized support for NYC from around the country and added a tragic but nonetheless dramatic chapter in the city's already amazing history. And, in the optimism that has prevailed in spite of the initial shock, the city is perhaps reaching another golden age in its storied history.


1900-1930 was an amazing time for NYC, no doubt. The city was the most dynamic in the world, and revolutionized architecture over this period. But London was the center of capital for a good portion of this time; Paris was still the center of art, literature and fashion; and Berlin was on-again-off-again-on-again, the seat of military might. From 1940-1970 (more like 2000 actually), New York was without a shadow of a doubt the center of the world in art, literature, fashion, finance, power, cuisine, and well, just about everything else....... No other city in the history of the world had ever had such planet-wide significance; and with globalization--which really began in its modern form in New York--no city may ever again.

[arbeiter]

Makes me want to move back so bad!

[MolsonExport]

No other city in the history of the world had ever had such planet-wide significance; and with globalization--which really began in its modern form in New York--no city may ever again.

err...London?

[Alliance]

No other city in the history of the world had ever had such planet-wide significance; and with globalization--which really began in its modern form in New York--no city may ever again.

Except for when Rome as the capitol of the known world or when London ruled 1/4 of it.

Don't make ignroant claims, it makes it look like you're scrambling for attention to compensate for something.

[totheskies]

1900-1930 was an amazing time for NYC, no doubt. The city was the most dynamic in the world, and revolutionized architecture over this period. But London was the center of capital for a good portion of this time; Paris was still the center of art, literature and fashion; and Berlin was on-again-off-again-on-again, the seat of military might. From 1940-1970 (more like 2000 actually), New York was without a shadow of a doubt the center of the world in art, literature, fashion, finance, power, cuisine, and well, just about everything else....... No other city in the history of the world had ever had such planet-wide significance; and with globalization--which really began in its modern form in New York--no city may ever again.


New York is definitely one of the greatest success stories of the modern world, and the long-standing capital of Western media. But the US forgets that there's... let's see... 5.9 Billion people on earth besides us, 1.5 Billion of which speak Chinese as their primary language. Hindi is the second most common language, and THEN English. Of course in the US, you'd think everything is about New York. In fact I don't know if there is a day in my whole entire life that I haven't heard or seen an image relating to the city of New York.

Rome came about as close as any city to "planet-wide significance". It was the center of the Western World for over 1,000 years, and is STILL the center of Christian leadership. Nothing against NYC's greatness, but we (the US) haven't existed long enough to stake such a broad claim.

[Crawford]

New York is definitely one of the greatest success stories of the modern world, and the long-standing capital of Western media. But the US forgets that there's... let's see... 5.9 Billion people on earth besides us, 1.5 Billion of which speak Chinese as their primary language. Hindi is the second most common language, and THEN English. Of course in the US, you'd think everything is about New York. In fact I don't know if there is a day in my whole entire life that I haven't heard or seen an image relating to the city of New York.

Rome came about as close as any city to "planet-wide significance". It was the center of the Western World for over 1,000 years, and is STILL the center of Christian leadership. Nothing against NYC's greatness, but we (the US) haven't existed long enough to stake such a broad claim.

Agreed, I would go with Rome as the most important city of all time.

Strange that it isn't even the most important city in Italy anymore.

[10023]

Agreed, I would go with Rome as the most important city of all time.

Strange that it isn't even the most important city in Italy anymore.

I think that's debatable. Milan is a bigger force in finance, banking and industry (I think partly because the Milanese are basically Germans) but I would be hesitant to say it's "more important" than Rome in a general sense. Milan is pretty small potatoes as a business center anyway.

[pico44]

err...London?

England did a good job of colonizing. Better than France, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands; and thus had tremendous influnce on conquered lands. You are right in that, for a time, everyone in Hong Kong and Calcutta and New York looked to London. But at the same time, everyone in Casablanca and Saigon were forced to look to Paris; Manilla and Beunos Aires to Madrid, Rio to Lisbon, Joburg to Amsterdam etc.

From the 1940s to 2000 everyone looked to New York. And unlike with the great empire-builders of Western Europe, it wasn't because they were forced to. It was--for the first time on this planet--a completely voluntary fixation.

[pico44]

Except for when Rome as the capitol of the known world or when London ruled 1/4 of it.

Don't make ignroant claims, it makes it look like you're scrambling for attention to compensate for something.


Reread my post. Key word is planet-wide. Who's ignorant again?

[pico44]

Agreed, I would go with Rome as the most important city of all time.

Strange that it isn't even the most important city in Italy anymore.


How many Chinese people gave two shits about Rome 2000 years ago? Or Mayans? Or Aboriginal Australians?

[10023]

How many Chinese people gave two shits about Rome 2000 years ago? Or Mayans? Or Aboriginal Australians?
:rolleyes:

How many Aboriginal Australians give two shits about New York today? How many Chinese gave a shit about it in the 1940s?

Don't be an idiot.

[wisla_krakow]

How many Chinese people gave two shits about Rome 2000 years ago? Or Mayans? Or Aboriginal Australians?

Quit bashing cities.

[pico44]

:rolleyes:

How many Aboriginal Australians give two shits about New York today?.


What the hell are you talking about? There are millions of Australians who--throughout the twentieth century--thought of New York first when they thought of the United States.


How many Chinese gave a shit about it in the 1940s?

You really want to go with 1940? Really?


Don't be an idiot

I'll do my best. You try too!

[alleystreetindustry]

i wish that kind of money could be transferred to atlanta.

[Evergrey]

i wish that kind of money could be transferred to atlanta.

oh, I'm sure Atlanta... being the fastest growing metro in the country (in terms of raw population) has billions upon billions of development going on... it's just in the form of "Deer Creek Lakes at Crossing Point"

[TexasPlaya]

Thats great that New York is experiencing such a boom. However, I wonder how much of this development includes affordable housing. I'm all about urban development... but it just pains me to see all this urban infill that only a person with a certain kinda paycheck can afford to live. However, New York City is all basically "urban" development so maybe that doesn't apply there. It still makes you think about how this new urbanism and the effect it has on the lower and middle class. How many urban areas are focusing on improving inner city education, which is a key factor in a middle class family's selection of home.

[zimfar]

Thats great that New York is experiencing such a boom. However, I wonder how much of this development includes affordable housing. I'm all about urban development... but it just pains me to see all this urban infill that only a person with a certain kinda paycheck can afford to live. However, New York City is all basically "urban" development so maybe that doesn't apply there. It still makes you think about how this new urbanism and the effect it has on the lower and middle class. How many urban areas are focusing on improving inner city education, which is a key factor in a middle class family's selection of home.

The outer boroughs (Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens) are going gangbusters on new, affordable housing.:tup:
And our current mayor's focus is on improving public education- which is occuring slowly but steadily.

[L.ARCH]

oh, I'm sure Atlanta... being the fastest growing metro in the country (in terms of raw population) has billions upon billions of development going on... it's just in the form of "Deer Creek Lakes at Crossing Point"

:haha: That's so true...

[PA Pride]

oh, I'm sure Atlanta... being the fastest growing metro in the country (in terms of raw population) has billions upon billions of development going on... it's just in the form of "Deer Creek Lakes at Crossing Point"

HahahahhahHAhahHH!Q!! Good one!

[Capsule F]

Hahaha, Evergrey that was so money!

[fountainhead]

England did a good job of colonizing. Better than France, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands; and thus had tremendous influnce on conquered lands. You are right in that, for a time, everyone in Hong Kong and Calcutta and New York looked to London. But at the same time, everyone in Casablanca and Saigon were forced to look to Paris; Manilla and Beunos Aires to Madrid, Rio to Lisbon, Joburg to Amsterdam etc.

From the 1940s to 2000 everyone looked to New York. And unlike with the great empire-builders of Western Europe, it wasn't because they were forced to. It was--for the first time on this planet--a completely voluntary fixation.

Very eloquently said. Apparantly it is too painful for some that New York was truly the center of the Universe in the latter half of the 20th century, at its undisputable zenith in the 1950's and 1960's. The dynamics of the world at that time conspired to create a city with more clout than any previously seen.

[alleystreetindustry]

oh, I'm sure Atlanta... being the fastest growing metro in the country (in terms of raw population) has billions upon billions of development going on... it's just in the form of "Deer Creek Lakes at Crossing Point"

if only that amount of money was invested in the city..

[Stratosphere 2020]

if only that amount of money was invested in the city..

I am very certain one day Atlanta will thrive as a major urban mecca in the U.S., it takes time. Rome was not built in a day either.

As for New York, I agree with the previous poster. It is sad not to see much is being invested in affordable housing in Manhattan. New York is really becomming the most segragated city I have seen, not only in terms of race, but increasingly in terms of social class, and that is sad for a city that claims to be it.

Within 30 years there will be the rich island of Manhattan where only the rich live, there is the poor Bronx accross the river, and the Middle class Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

[zimfar]

^you clearly don't know NYC very well. The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island all have extremely wealthy areas as well as middle class and poor. Manhattan is quite far from being an exclusive area for the rich island wide. 30 years will not change this.

[nygirl1]

^you clearly don't know NYC very well. The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island all have extremely wealthy areas as well as middle class and poor. Manhattan is quite far from being an exclusive area for the rich island wide. 30 years will not change this.


Agreed. Stratosphere that really isn't how it is over here. Oddly enough that is how folks seem to have it pictured as and it usually becomes a cliche to call Manhattan the Island for the Rich only. Brooklyn has Mill Basin. You probably never heard of it before but if you claimed the people who lived there were middle class than having an 18-24 room mansion on the water is pretty average. Same goes for Riverdale in the Bronx.. I wouldn't exactly call those folks poor. The poorest there probably make more money than most of this forum. How about Malba in Queens? Again probably another unknown hood to you... well there be some of the wealthiest in Queens up there. Oddly enough Gerritsen Beach is not far at all from Mill Basin and that is a rather blue collar hood. I'd say Marine Park and Bergen Beach are fairly middle class.. right next to Mill Basin. Whitestone is kinda grungy but again right next to Malba with the busy and affordable Flushing just south of them.

Next to Riverdale are Spuytin Duyville.. not too bad over there.. and Kingbridge ( affordable, middle class) Then if you head down Jerome you will see some of the crappiest hoods and the further you go south the more widening the gap becomes.

Astoria Queens is Middle Class and Wealthy, nearby is Long Island City also nice, and Queensbridge which is really not too nice at all. You can walk from one area to another with little effort.

In Manhattan it's all about location. I wouldn't say the LES or East village is high class but it definetly isn't poor. Harlem has some really nice hoods especially around Marcus Garvey Park.

[10023]

Since when is Astoria wealthy? I don't really think anything in Queens hits the level of "wealthy", but much of it is certainly middle class.

[tdawg]

Astoria is HUGE. There are, in fact, a few neighborhoods of very high income and housing prices.

[Canadian Mind]

err...London?

I was thinking Rome.

[Dac150]

Within 30 years there will be the rich island of Manhattan where only the rich live, there is the poor Bronx accross the river, and the Middle class Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

:haha: You are so off base with this comment. Thank you, needed a good laugh. :haha:

There are areas of rich, middle class, and poor in every borough of New York City. I would agree with you that the Bronx was considered the poor, run down, gang strucken borough at one time (1970-early 90's), but much has changed, and areas like the Bronx and Harlem are now very cleaned up and nice. The complete opposite of what they used to be.

[TallTallScraperATL]

Its amazing to see how quickly some burgs can transform in a matter of a few decades. How cool to think what city might become the New York of 2107. Atlanta, Miami, Kileen, amazing that All the great cities of the world were all farming, or fishing villages at some point in time.

[Jersey Mentality]

Since when is Astoria wealthy? I don't really think anything in Queens hits the level of "wealthy", but much of it is certainly middle class.

Astoria and Eastern Queens so have some wealthy areas, probably the second richest in the NYC after Manhattan.

[Wheelingman04]

^ I agree too.

[gripja]

Damn, I wish I had a spare million or 2 lying around -- I could turn it into a billion the way NYC's booming.

[ginsan2]

^you clearly don't know NYC very well. The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island all have extremely wealthy areas as well as middle class and poor. Manhattan is quite far from being an exclusive area for the rich island wide. 30 years will not change this.

Yes, but 30 years also isn't going to change the fact that Manhattan is seen as New York, and the other boroughs are seen as bridge-and-tunnel in their social class. There may very well be wealth in NYC outside of Manhattan, but there certainly isn't status.

Demand for Manhattan will never decrease, and that's what happens to be making real estate so insane. Why don't we write some sort of insipid television show about bubbly, stupid women in their mid-to-late thirties permanently possessed of the common sense and relational maturity of a 15 year olds who... get this... live in Brooklyn and pretend like they don't know anything outside of it!.

That should set Brooklyn up as the next "die to live there" destination.

And oh, as a complete EDIT, let's also say for parody's sake that they have the fashion sense of whores. Old whores. Whores that remember when the Copa Cabana was the place to be. I think that as long as there are hideously tacky shoes by Jimmy Choo or haute couture that doesn't match in any way, we'd be Anderson gold.

[zimfar]

Yes, but 30 years also isn't going to change the fact that Manhattan is seen as New York, and the other boroughs are seen as bridge-and-tunnel in their social class. There may very well be wealth in NYC outside of Manhattan, but there certainly isn't status.

Hmmmm, I'm quite sure Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Dumbo and Park Slope already enjoy a much higher caché and status than say- Inwood, Fort George, Hamilton Heights or Harlem/East Harlem in Manhattan.

For that matter, Riverdale in the Bronx trumps them all when it comes to 'social class'. So I'm not really sure what you mean.

'Seen as New York' may mean one thing in the wider media, but within the city it's something else entirely.

[nygirl1]

^^ It is kinda funny that some seem to forget that one of New Yorks most affluent neighborhoods is in the Bronx. If not the most affluent neighborhood. Anyone ever been to Riverdale? Lottttta money up there.

[tdawg]

zimfar, you tell any New Yorker worth their weight you live in Cobble Hill, which i did for seven years, and they will certainly agree that it is one of the city's most beautiful, exclusive, expensive and charming neighborhoods.

[nygirl1]

BoCoCa!

[10023]

zimfar, you tell any New Yorker worth their weight you live in Cobble Hill, which i did for seven years, and they will certainly agree that it is one of the city's most beautiful, exclusive, expensive and charming neighborhoods.
Difference is you're talking about a New Yorker, who knows better. I think the other post was about perceptions across the country / around the world, which is certainly still that New York = Manhattan and will be for a long time.

[muppet]

aw man thats great news for NYC, its developing fast in already one of the most overdeveloped cities in the world. I wish they had similar stats for London, it would be interesting to see how they compare.

[passdoubt]

I wonder how much of this development includes affordable housing. I'm all about urban development... but it just pains me to see all this urban infill that only a person with a certain kinda paycheck can afford to live. However, New York City is all basically "urban" development so maybe that doesn't apply there. It still makes you think about how this new urbanism and the effect it has on the lower and middle class.
Compared to other American cities, I think NY has pretty good policy on tying new construction to affordable housing via inclusionary zoning. It could be strengthened, but at least the overall idea that all that luxury development should be subsidizing housing for low and moderate income people too is accepted in NY.

Add to that the popularity of co-ops in NY, which are practically unheard of in some parts of the country. Co-ops make up something like 30% of units in NYC I believe, which is way higher than other cities. And a good deal of them are limited-equity, so they stay affordable.

Increasingly there are million-dollar apartments across the street from public housing in different parts of New York. The old barriers to neighborhood revitalization are being broken down. It's slowly being dismantled, but New York still has rent control. Yuppies move into apartments for $2k/month but the little old ladies in the neighborhood are still paying $600 for identical units.

Also, a good deal of NYC is not "urban" -- parts of Staten Island and Outer Queens are low-density suburbia where families, many of immigrants, drive everywhere in bad traffic and have front lawns.