tamtagon wrote:Sometimes when thinking about the downtown area residential inventory increase, and considering how closely the long time big construction and rental property owners monitor and analyze 'the cycles' of development, I'm starting to think the big boys intentionally misread 'the cycle' of (especially) residential supply and demand. Sometimes I think downtown area would be better served by a building surge putting inventory 30% over demand ---- simply because the extra would be absorbed, but maybe not a quickly as the power-players have foreseen; maintaining 'a cycle' ceiling baseline that's actually too low, deters too many outsider from impacting the market, optimizes revenue beyond a reasonable profit and cedes control to the same handful of players.
For years we've been talking about how quickly the CBD residential population would reach 10,000, and look at how quickly Uptown has grown... but really, the population could be so much more already, but the supply just isn't there.
dukemeredith wrote:tamtagon wrote:Sometimes when thinking about the downtown area residential inventory increase, and considering how closely the long time big construction and rental property owners monitor and analyze 'the cycles' of development, I'm starting to think the big boys intentionally misread 'the cycle' of (especially) residential supply and demand. Sometimes I think downtown area would be better served by a building surge putting inventory 30% over demand ---- simply because the extra would be absorbed, but maybe not a quickly as the power-players have foreseen; maintaining 'a cycle' ceiling baseline that's actually too low, deters too many outsider from impacting the market, optimizes revenue beyond a reasonable profit and cedes control to the same handful of players.
For years we've been talking about how quickly the CBD residential population would reach 10,000, and look at how quickly Uptown has grown... but really, the population could be so much more already, but the supply just isn't there.
When I find myself with similar frustrating thoughts, I have to remind myself what's on the horizon for CBD:
- Statler Residences
- Drever apartments
- AMLI apartment tower near Fountain Place
- High rise apartments across from Trammell Crow Center
- High rise apartments at Flora and Olive in the Arts District
And then I look at Google Earth and see all the empty spaces and car parks...
- Field and San Jacinto
- Leonard and San Jacinto (Spire Realty?)
- Elm and Pearl
- Wood and Ervay
- Cadiz and Ervay
- Wood and Field
- Jackson and Griffin
- Main and Lamar
I'm sure there are more
willyk wrote:All good stuff, but like everyone else I feel like Downtown is perpetually on the cusp.
Uptown started with some entrepreneurial developers taking chances in State Thomas. That same breed is taking chances again in West Dallas, East Ross, Henderson and the Design District. I like all of those plays, but Downtown is a better bet than any of them because once it catches on, the gaping price differential between Uptown and Downtown will narrow and deliver significant appreciation to the Downtown investments.
Rents in St. Paul Place average $10 per square foot less than those in the newest Uptown offices. The building is just over 80 percent leased, with major tenants including D Magazine, Crowe Horwath, Sendero Business Systems, MapR Technologies, Vault Aviation and UNICEF.
"It all comes down to having the vision what the space can be," Cook said.
St. Paul Place is just one of a handful of 1980s-era downtown towers that are being renovated. And it's one of several large redevelopments along Ross Avenue on downtown's north side.
The towers in downtown and Uptown Dallas are just blocks apart.
But when it comes to office occupancy, there is a much greater gulf.
While Uptown's major office projects average more than 94 percent leased, downtown's big towers — most of them built in the 1980s — are just over 70 percent rented, according to a new report by commercial property firm JLL.
DPatel304 wrote:I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.
Cord1936 wrote:DPatel304 wrote:I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.
^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.
Tucy wrote:Cord1936 wrote:DPatel304 wrote:I'm not sure how meaningful these numbers are.
^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.
Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?
muncien wrote:Tucy wrote:Cord1936 wrote:^^^^^^^
There are a LOT of single tenant occupied buildings in Downtown Dallas that are completely ignored in this report as if they don't even exist.
Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?
Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.
Tucy wrote:muncien wrote:Tucy wrote:Are there? I can only think of one... Hunt. What buildings am I overlooking?
Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.
Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?
willyk wrote:Tucy wrote:muncien wrote:Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.
Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?
Oncor?
Government buildings?
willyk wrote:Tucy wrote:muncien wrote:Totally speculating here, but what about DMN, Belo, and DART, and ATT? I'm not sure if they're single tenant, but seems like they may be... off the top of my head anyway. There are likely others as well.
Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?
Oncor?
Government buildings?
Cord1936 wrote:willyk wrote:Tucy wrote:
Thanks. DMN True, for the moment, but not terribly significant.
Belo - no. Moved out and sold some time ago.
DART - true. But again, not very significant.
AT&T - There's the big one. How could I forget AT&T?
Oncor?
Government buildings?
Not to mention the large hotels that are single tenant buildings ... Hyatt Regency, Sheraton Dallas, Omni, Adolphus, Magnolia, Joule, Fairmount, The Westin, Dallas Marriott, Aloft, Crowne Plaza, Hotel Indigo, Hilton Homewood Suites, and several more.
Hotels are counted as commercial space and the numerous Downtown hotels have to total millions of square feet.
AT&T occupies well over 2 million square feet of single tenant space.
And as you mentioned the government buildings are large single tenant structures.
While of and by themselves they may not be large, when smaller single tenants are totaled the numbers probably add up to something worth noting as well.
Suffice it to say the number of single tenant buildings in Downtown Dallas are quite numerous and altogether add millions of square feet of commercial space.
Cord1936 wrote:^^^^^^^
Just contacted CoStar Group (http://www.costar.com/about/contact) to pose the question as to whether hotel and government data is included in commercial real estate numbers.
CoStar is an industry paid subscription service that actually collects and collates all of the data that feeds Transwestern's free real estate reports.
CoStar indicated government buildings are included in their commercial space reporting while hospitality is not.
DPatel304 wrote:Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.
Tucy wrote:DPatel304 wrote:Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.
We'll see. We've been expecting better numbers for the CBD for thirty years and it never seems to happen.
Thymant wrote:Tucy wrote:DPatel304 wrote:Thanks for the updates. Those numbers aren't too surprising, but I'm expecting better numbers for the CBD going forward, especially now that Uptown is getting very pricey.
We'll see. We've been expecting better numbers for the CBD for thirty years and it never seems to happen.
True but your failing to account the fact that uptown did not exist as it does today 30 years ago so even though percentages are the same the market is larger.
The new plan forecasts 20,000 more residents downtown and 50,000 more in neighborhoods within 2.5 miles of the city center within the next five years.
dukemeredith wrote:20,000 MORE people downtown? So, in addition to the 11,000 already here? In only 5 years?
I’d love to see it. But that ain’t happening.
dukemeredith wrote:Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.
Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.
I was trying to figure out if they were talking about the “new” boundaries of Downtown too. But, based on what I’ve found thus far, they’re taking about the CBD within the freeway loop. I know for a fact the expanded definition of Downtown has more than 11,000 residents. So, there’s no way if could have included Uptown, Victory Park, the Cedars, etc.tamtagon wrote:^cha, at first I was like no way, but, then like, right now what's under construction about to open and about to be under construction represents more than a third of existing apartments! Right? Then I was like, oh they're using the new definition of downtown that includes Victory Park or whatever....
11,000 residents, is the average up to 1.75 per yet? that gives us about 6,300 units, give or take.
Just off the top of my head, there's almost 1,800: Statler 230, Fountain Place 425, Arts District 375, Drever 350, (2 in Farmers Mkt) 400 something like that. I'm sure I've forgotten some already announced/UC or whatever, but that's a long way away from the 11,000 units needed to house 20,000 more people.
But as wild as it sounds, the 50,000 new residents moving into the downtown area over the next 5 years, well heck, it could be more than that. Whaddya know, it's about time.
dukemeredith wrote:Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.
Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.
Tucy wrote:dukemeredith wrote:Unless they know something we don’t, then I don’t see how they’re going to get 11,000+ units in 5 years.
Even in some fantasy world, where (i) Spire, (ii) TC’s residential tower, (iii) Headington’s 4 corners at Field and San Jacinto, (iv) the parking lots around BOA, and (v) the Dallas Smart District are all built out, I still don’t see how we’d get to 11,000 units in 5 years.
And in reality, it would take a lot more than 11,000 units. 1.75 occupants per unit is very unlikely to ever happen. 1.4 is more likely, at full occupancy. 20,000 people at 1.4 per unit requires more than 14,000 new units. That's crazy talk. Doesn't even pass the giggle test.
That would require net absorption of approximately 714 units every quarter for five years. As a point of reference, in the 3rd quarter of 2017, the area CBRE defines as "Oak Lawn", which includes the CBD, Uptown, Victory Park, and Oak Lawn, had net absorption of 437 units.
Has anyone been able to find where in the plan document it actually makes the forecast of 20,000 additional residents in the next five years? I took a quick look and did some key word searches and cannot find it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests