Most Apartments Delivered in 2014: DC Ranks Second, Dallas is #1

[dc_denizen]

DC Ranks Second Among Cities for Most Apartments Delivered in 2014

link



The DC metro area will deliver 18,000 apartments in 2014, earning it second place on the list of metros adding the most apartments this year.

I wonder how this list would look with condos+apartments.

Top Ten Metros:



Bottom Ten:

[Crawford]

The article is garbage. We have Census data.

https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/msamonthly.html

DC is not really among the top multifamily markets.

[the urban politician]

^ Building permits do not always equate with unit delivery

[dc_denizen]

^^ DC is absolutely among the top multifamily markets, in the same league as Austin and Seattle, as you'll see if you open that link (which btw has no information about apartment construction, just total permits by unit size; its also historical data not forecasts of 2014 completions).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The article is garbage. We have Census data.

https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/msamonthly.html

DC is not really among the top multifamily markets.

Not this again. I've explained repeatedly why this isn't an exact metric, or even a ballpark metric.

For example projects getting building permits and not starting.

And permits staying vested from past years, for a long time in the case of some cities.

And even the various ways a "unit" can be described, particularly in the case of micros and student housing.

And did you notice that the OP is about rental apartments but the Census is about all multifamily?

And that the census is covering future projects, while the article is about completions?

[mhays]

Completions are interesting. I'd caution that "busiest" could also be about groundbreakings.

Obviously any data about groundbreakings would have to look at the past, not the future. Speaking as a general contractor, anyone who claims a job "will definitely start" this summer, or even next week, doesn't know what he's talking about (or is a developer whose job it is to sound optimistic and certain).

Likewise, "having financing" is BS until dirt is moving, and probably not even then. For a job starting in two months, the construction cost is a big variable, and so are interest rates. Even if they weren't, the "financial partners" haven't made final decisions about participation.

Onto Seattle. Our metro apartment deliveries are peaking in 2014 and 2015. Overbuilding is possible in some urban districts...the vast majority of construction has been in walkable urban districts, particularly ones where it's viable to do fewer parking spaces than living units. But the suburban walkable and semi-walkable types have been taking off lately. As for the urban districts, if you're anywhere near Amazon, which has millions of square feet of offices underway, there's no such thing as overbuilding.

[fflint]

Jesus, the slicing and dicing is becoming absurd!

Oakland is not a "Metro Area," and clearly the Bay Area will deliver thousands of apartments in 2014.

[jpdivola]

Couple quick points:

1) DC_Denizen, thanks for finding this and posting. Crawford, thanks for finding the Census link. Mhayes, thanks for pointing out some of this differences between deliveries and the Census permit data.

Let's see if we can try to narrow this debate a little.

2) This list seems suspect. It show's NYC delivering 8,800 units for a 3.7% supply increase. This implies NYC has 238k apartments. The implied total for Dallas is 655k apartment. Maybe the base is only apartments built in the past 20 years or something, but this makes me a little skeptical of the list.

2) Using the Census permit YTD permit data for December for 2012 and 2013, should give us a rough proxy of activity for 2014. (Yeah, I understand this is not synonymous with 2014 deliveries, but is nonetheless a measure of muti-unit activity).


2012 permits by MSA ranked by number of units in 5+ unit buildings.
Name 5 or more Units 2 or more units

1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Isl 18063 20137
2. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington,* TX 15679 15976
3. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,* TX 14748 14883
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana,* 11666 12486
5. Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos,* TX 11117 11249
6. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,* 11000 11382
7. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue,* WA 8927 9400
8. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield,* CO 7923 8156
9. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach,* 7424 7578
10. Raleigh-Cary,* NC 6355 6460

2013 permits by MSA ranked by number of units in 5+ unit buildings.

Name 5+ Units 2+ units

1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Isl 27670 30009
2. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,* TX 16771 16913
3. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington,* TX 16503 16945
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana,* 15468 16452
5. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach,* 13226 13416
6. Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos,* TX 11509 11911
7. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,* 10862 11028
8. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue,* WA 10094 10709
9. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta,* GA 9281 9494
10. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield,* CO 7987 8291

Sorry for the messy formatting. The first set of numbers is number of units permitted in structures with 5 or more units. This is what the list is sorted by. I also included the figure for those with 2 or more units. The outcome is pretty similar.

Take aways from the Census permit data:

1) Looks like 2 huge MSAs NYC and LA have a ton of permits, not surprising given their size.
2) Dallas and Houston also lead. Again, not too surprising given their big pop sizes and fast growth rates.
3) DC is near the top, but not number 2 in either year. Perhaps if we went back to 2011 DC would have scored higher. (Possible, given that DC was among the best performers during and after the recession) But, nonetheless, DC is among the top spots in the nation for multi-family activity. Definitely in league with Seattle and Austin.

[Owlhorn]

Don't know which numbers are right, but there is definitely an uptick in DFW over the last couple of years and completions continue to fall behind the demand.

[ardecila]

This is interesting. Think about the countless transit-oriented neighborhoods Dallas could be building if they coordinated transit planning with land use. Clearly the demand is there for apartment living. Washington is doing just that, and the results are nothing short of amazing.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by fflint

Jesus, the slicing and dicing is becoming absurd!

Oakland is not a "Metro Area," and clearly the Bay Area will deliver thousands of apartments in 2014.

Seriously what the hell is up with all these studies/lists that mix metropolitan divisions (which are components of metropolitan areas) and full metropolitan areas together, and then call them all "metros", as if it's a comparison of the same thing? It's apples and oranges, and it's pretty stupid.

[rellott]

I know here in Houston we can't seem to build them fast enough resulting in rising rents. Once we catch up to demand the rents will level off and maybe go down a bit. Not surprised with Dallas and Austin building so many either.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by rellott

I know here in Houston we can't seem to build them fast enough resulting in rising rents. Once we catch up to demand the rents will level off and maybe go down a bit. Not surprised with Dallas and Austin building so many either.

I would think Houston would be #1 on the list. I have heard that the biggest issue with Houston is simply not enough man power to meet all of the demand. It is incredible what is happening to Houston; the city is growing so fast.

Although New York might change (even higher) with De Blasio. He is suppose to unveil some sort of plan to meet the housing demand on May 1st. In terms of affordable housing, it will net several 100,000+ units.

[antinimby]

Why is Houston growing so fast? Is it the departure of photolith effect?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Why is Houston growing so fast? Is it the departure of photolith effect?

Booming energy industry. Cheaper alternative for young people. A refuge from the heavily taxed Northeast.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Booming energy industry. Cheaper alternative for young people. A refuge from the heavily taxed Northeast.

Partially true, except that the high rents can be partially blamed on extremely high property taxes in Houston and the surrounding areas. Everyone here loves to claim Houston is so low in taxes. When you add up all the state, local, property taxes, there isn't really much difference between the states in overall tax liability, excluding the top and bottom 5 on the list. Houston's booming in the energy sector as well as in medical. The reason so many apartments are being built is because literally 80% of the city is full of ghetto/barrio/rundown areas that professionals just don't want to live in, therefore huge numbers are being built in the relatively few gentrifying/gentrified areas of town, plus of course huge numbers in the suburbs.

Houston is strange. The nice apartments are all sky-high in price (and trust me, I know this first hand every time I pay my monthly rent here!) but there are lots of low-cost options as long as you don't mind living in a veritable shithole full of crime, filth and assorted non-niceties. There's not much in the way of "moderate" level apartments, mainly because Houston itself either has really nice neighborhoods or really crappy ones, not much in between. Unfortunate, but true.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[mhays]

In some cities, "expensive" means $3/sf, or $5+. Guessing you're still talking less than that range?

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by mhays

In some cities, "expensive" means $3/sf, or $5+. Guessing you're still talking less than that range?

Yes, mhays. Much less. But anyplace with $3-5/sf rents is going to be somewhere like Manhattan, perhaps Back Bay Boston, and the highest price rentals in good parts of L.A., San Fran, etc... But Houston is getting to the $2/sf range, which in my mind is quickly become unaffordable for all but the top 5% of incomes.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[mhays]

More cities than that. Seattle isn't off the charts and you need $3+ to build a highrise here (not including parking), and even some woodframes charge that much.

I don't buy the 5% figure at all. If you live in an expensive city, you probably do with less square footage or have a roommate. You might skip the car. Rather than affordability being defined by a 30%-of-income metric, it might be 50% housing+transportation. That can mean 45% housing and 5% transportation, or 60% and 5%.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by mhays

if you live in an expensive city, you probably do with less square footage or have a roommate. You might skip the car. Rather than affordability being defined by a 30%-of-income metric, it might be 50% housing+transportation. That can mean 45% housing and 5% transportation, or 60% and 5%.

+1