Further Slide Seen in N.Y. Commercial Real Estate - NY Times
Started by thedeuce
about 16 years ago
Posts: 103
Member since: Feb 2009
Discussion about
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/nyregion/08commercial.html?hp January 8, 2010 Further Slide Seen in N.Y. Commercial Real Estate By CHRISTINE HAUGHNEY There are 920 football fields of available office space in Manhattan. More than 180 major buildings totaling $12.5 billion in value — from Columbus Tower at 1775 Broadway to the office tower 400 Madison Avenue — are in trouble, meaning in many... [more]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/nyregion/08commercial.html?hp January 8, 2010 Further Slide Seen in N.Y. Commercial Real Estate By CHRISTINE HAUGHNEY There are 920 football fields of available office space in Manhattan. More than 180 major buildings totaling $12.5 billion in value — from Columbus Tower at 1775 Broadway to the office tower 400 Madison Avenue — are in trouble, meaning in many cases they face foreclosure or bankruptcy, or have had problems making mortgage payments. Rents for commercial office space fell faster over the past two years than in any such period in the last half century. “I have been in the business for 12 years. I have never seen it this bad,” Peter Von Der Ahe, vice president of investments for the brokerage Marcus & Millichap, said of New York City’s commercial real estate market. According to more veteran colleagues, he said, things have not been so dire since at least the early 1990s. And that is not the most sobering assessment. “It hasn’t hit bottom,” Mr. Von Der Ahe added. He is not alone. More than half a dozen experts on commercial real estate in New York City said that despite some flickering signs of economic recovery here and elsewhere in the country, the universe of big buildings and giant apartment complexes has further to tumble. Rents, they say, will go lower. Vacancy rates are likely to rise, too. Owners of troubled properties will face a final day of reckoning and in some cases lose their properties. “We’re projecting the biggest value losses in the nation,” said Aaron Jodka, a senior real estate economist at Property and Portfolio Research, a Boston-based independent real estate research and advisory firm. He predicts that by 2011, the value of New York metropolitan area office buildings will decline by 58 percent from its late 2007 peak. It is already down 40 percent. Some experts point to the bright sides of a down market — for example, the opportunity to snap up some great bargains. They say that investors who already have been shopping in London for skyscraper deals may set their sights on Manhattan later this year to find deals, and that may fuel some growth in overall sales. Some New Yorkers, especially businesses who have found the market too costly, also may find some deals. “A correction might give opportunities,” said Jonathan Bowles, director of the Center for an Urban Future, an independent research group. “I think it’s healthy for the city’s real estate market to have a down cycle.” But most members of the real estate industry are lockstep in their pessimism, and the reasons are multiple: Jobs must recover first to fill offices with workers, and job growth in New York City has been all but invisible. Many buildings are also tied up in complex financial arrangements that could take years to unravel. Robert Bach, chief economist at the real estate brokerage Grubb & Ellis, compares recovery of the commercial market — which includes everything from office towers to rental apartment buildings to retail space — to turning a big ship around. Taxes on commercial buildings also make up a sizable share of the revenue base for the city. Residential and commercial development generated $307.7 million in tax revenues, not including property taxes, from 2000 to 2007, according to the Real Estate Board of New York. In fact, the industry had a $12.4 billion effect — including construction costs like salaries and purchases made by workers — on the local economy during that period. “The tax base is enormous,” said Michael Slattery, the board’s senior vice president of research. “It helps fund many of the basic services that make our city operate.” Richard Persichetti, director of New York research for Grubb & Ellis, said that when the economy started to slide, office rents fell faster than in any period recorded in at least 50 years. The city has become stuck with more available office space than any other central business district in the nation except Chicago, Washington and Boston. Mr. Persichetti predicts it will take until 2014 to make a major turnaround. “Rents probably won’t start to recover until job growth is created and some of that available space is absorbed,” he said. Some foreign investors may swoop in this year and buy up some of the city’s most desirable and stable skyscrapers, said Robert White, president of the research company Real Capital Analytics which tracks the city’s troubled properties. Then the city will be left with properties in financial difficulties that are half empty and in less coveted locations. Recovery for those buildings, Mr. White said, “is going to take a little bit longer. It’s not going to be in a rush.” No prospective deals on these buildings are apt to be helped by the fact that they are tied up in complicated mortgage structures that grew popular in the boom years. Joseph Harbert, chief operating officer for the New York City region of the commercial brokerage Cushman & Wakefield, says that working out ownership disputes for these buildings will take much longer than in past real estate meltdowns. “In the ’90s, when you had the real estate workouts, you had a lot of single-lender properties. There are more parties and interests in every deal,” said Mr. Harbert. Regardless of these complications, Mr. Harbert, who remains generally optimistic that parts of the real estate economy could recover this spring, says that lenders, skyscraper buyers and renters will not feel comfortable moving forward until they really see that jobs are being created. “They’re kind of waiting for positive signs in the economy,” he said. “When jobs are going to recover, that’s the signal of when people are going to lease and buy.” [less]
Add Your Comment
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
Most popular
-
47 Comments
-
139 Comments
-
19 Comments
-
20 Comments
-
23 Comments
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
It's the worst it's been in all Peter Von Der Ahe's many years in real estate. Thank heavens the reporter found him. Who else among us can remember back as far as 1998?
What I like about this article is that, despite the above, it actually does give a decent gloss of what the recovery in commercial real estate will look like, and how long it might reasonably take. Perhaps because the commercial collapse is lagging behind the residential one, the predictions are not as hyperbolically apocalyptic. Less doom, more gloom. That seems healthy and reasonable to me.
Tina
(Brooklyn broker)
How does commercial real estate affect residential real estate prices?
in NYC commercial and residential go hand in hand. If office space is vacant that means less people working and less people renting or buying bottom line.
at some point they should also become substitutes. lots of current-day residential buildings are renovated office/warehouse/hotels/etc. if the commercial market is relatively weaker than residential, developers can capitalize on the differential by purchasing distressed commercial and re-purposing into residential. if the price psf plus renovation costs make sense, it should happen. and then more and cheaper residential rentals or condos on the market. i haven't personally heard of any recent commercial transactions of this sort but will be watching for it.
FiDi is a great example of how that conversion at work
From the article: "He predicts that by 2011, the value of New York metropolitan area office buildings will decline by 58 percent from its late 2007 peak. It is already down 40 percent."
vs.
From tina24hour: "Perhaps because the commercial collapse is lagging behind the residential one, the predictions are not as hyperbolically apocalyptic."
Extra, extra, read all about it!! Real estate broker says residential market is down more than 40%. Commercial market, down only 40%, lags. Now that's a headline.
thedeuce, hotels are doing horribly. that is an area that is particularly easy for conversion, given the abundance of plumbing available. whatever happened to the Jasper, the condo turned hotel turned condo turned hotel? the one with that sultry ad featuring a barely-clad woman and lots of steam? oh, those were the days. when shvo reigned supreme.
Some day, yes. But I don't see too many lenders handing out money for conversion projects in this market.
Krugman has a chart up on the (national) relationship between commercial real estate and housing that shows the lag time as well over the last decade.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/
Thk you sls. Holy crap. Her stmt makes me what to hit a puppy.
malthus, likely not. but when we look ahead we've already got product in the pipeline after we've absorbed what we think is there. and at some point whoever has possession of these projects will want to do something with them.
True that. But lots of distressed condos to chew through first.
"Thk you sls. Holy crap. Her stmt makes me what to hit a puppy."
it is wrong to hit puppies. you should limit yourself to hitting brokers
malthus: interesting chart. also interesting that the housing market blipped "up" in the last six months while CRE continued the cliff dive in the last six months. Interesting that the "professionals" are still in bail mode as opposed to the layman housing buyer. Time will tell whether the last six month blip up in housing will come to be known as the lemming factor.
years of mastication.
"How does commercial real estate affect residential real estate prices?"
The cause and effect is generally not direct (exception - some linkage over the long-term via conversions as discussed above), but the two are affected by many of the same macro drivers. Interest rates, GDP/employment/income, etc. In that regard, there was an interesting comment is this article (published the same day as the one that spawned this thread) - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/global/08chanos.html?scp=1&sq=chanos&st=cse - that “bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses.” It seems to me that the withdrawal of credit has hurt the Manhattan commercial market much more severely to date than it has the Manhattan residential market (despite tina24hour's claim to the contrary). With the Fed meddling more aggressively in the residential mortgage market than in any other sector of fixed income (buying every mortgage security in sight, etc.), this is perhaps to be expected. However, it begs the question of whether current residential prices still reflect only a partially deflated bubble because the Fed has simply stepped into the shoes of the securitization market to provide an alternate source of excess credit. Personally I think both availability and price of credit for residential real estate are skewed by current policy, with the result that valuations are held above levels that the market would set on its own. Presumably this is in fact the point of the policy, as part of the kick-the-can-down-the-road (or "extend and pretend" or whatever you prefer to call it) strategy for rehabbing the capital base of the financial sector.
“Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses"
sorry for double post of the quote there