As anyone who reads my blog knows, ( and thanks again to those out there who does by the way!), I am a believer in good vibes and bad vibes people. I hope the attached article, showing Boston's dominance not only nationally but internationally, as the intellectual center of the business world, finally silences the bad vibers out there--at least for a little while.
The impact on Greater Boston's real estate market is directly tied to the measures cited in this article. If there is anybody out there who still believes we are not in full recovery in the Boston office market, please raise your hand.
Of course, the right time for all of the real estate firms in Boston to raise their hands would have been 6 months ago, but it's funny that nobody did. As Satchel Paige said, "Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."
Like a real estate recovery.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Boston Office Market Recovery--Acceleration Stage
Please click on the title for access to the full J. Adams Commercial Boston Office Market Report for the first quarter of 2010. You may also follow the enclosure link.
Driven by the continued surge of net new cash inflows into the mutual funds, the Boston CBD office market registered 270,000 square feet of net absorption in the first quarter of 2010. This is the third straight quarter in which the A markets saw growth in occupied space and the first time in two years that the B markets also were in the black.
The healthcare industry also contributed significantly to net growth, and my projections call for continued expansion in this area due to our state’s number one position in per capita spending by the Natioanal Insitute for Health and the enormous effect the passage of Federal health legislation will have on our economy. The government in general continues to grow at a disproprotionate rate and, along with demand from the private money management sector, will join mutual funds and healthcare to account for over 70% of net absorption over the next two years.
On the supply side, we have underbuilt yet again, with only 380,000 square feet remaining available for lease in the two buildings now under construction—Boston Properties’ Atlantic Wharf and The Fallon Company’s One Marina Park Drive at the Fan Pier. Given that fully permitted projects require three years to complete, there will be no new supply in Boston any sooner than mid 2013.
Much has been made about the delta between the actual vacancy rate, which stands at 9.7%, and the so-called availability rate, which adds space which may come to the market due to the departure of a tenant to the actual vacancy. This latter figure at 16.3% implies a cushion for growth for the tenant market. I wouldn’t count on it. Available space carries three inherent elements of uncertainty:
1. Whether a tenant who has not yet made a relocation decision will actually do so.
2. Whether office use will still be the highest and best use for poorly located, outdated B properties which do experience a large vacancy.
3. Over what period of time potential space comes to the market, if at all.
With virtually no space under construction, the potential available space has effectively become a substitute for new construction. Assuming all of the potential space comes to the market, which would ignore all the uncertainties above, a total of 2.2 million square feet of A space, would be delivered through 2012. If our year to date net absorption is annualized, 2010 net absorption will total 1.1 million square feet. I am conservatively projecting 580,000 and 650,000 square feet of net absorption in 2011 and 2012. Total net absorption would thus be 2.3 million square feet through 2012.
I do not believe that even one half of projected availability will ever materialize. Vacancy is vacancy. Availability is marketing. The CBD market is not only recovering, but its rate of recovery is accelerating.
Driven by the continued surge of net new cash inflows into the mutual funds, the Boston CBD office market registered 270,000 square feet of net absorption in the first quarter of 2010. This is the third straight quarter in which the A markets saw growth in occupied space and the first time in two years that the B markets also were in the black.
The healthcare industry also contributed significantly to net growth, and my projections call for continued expansion in this area due to our state’s number one position in per capita spending by the Natioanal Insitute for Health and the enormous effect the passage of Federal health legislation will have on our economy. The government in general continues to grow at a disproprotionate rate and, along with demand from the private money management sector, will join mutual funds and healthcare to account for over 70% of net absorption over the next two years.
On the supply side, we have underbuilt yet again, with only 380,000 square feet remaining available for lease in the two buildings now under construction—Boston Properties’ Atlantic Wharf and The Fallon Company’s One Marina Park Drive at the Fan Pier. Given that fully permitted projects require three years to complete, there will be no new supply in Boston any sooner than mid 2013.
Much has been made about the delta between the actual vacancy rate, which stands at 9.7%, and the so-called availability rate, which adds space which may come to the market due to the departure of a tenant to the actual vacancy. This latter figure at 16.3% implies a cushion for growth for the tenant market. I wouldn’t count on it. Available space carries three inherent elements of uncertainty:
1. Whether a tenant who has not yet made a relocation decision will actually do so.
2. Whether office use will still be the highest and best use for poorly located, outdated B properties which do experience a large vacancy.
3. Over what period of time potential space comes to the market, if at all.
With virtually no space under construction, the potential available space has effectively become a substitute for new construction. Assuming all of the potential space comes to the market, which would ignore all the uncertainties above, a total of 2.2 million square feet of A space, would be delivered through 2012. If our year to date net absorption is annualized, 2010 net absorption will total 1.1 million square feet. I am conservatively projecting 580,000 and 650,000 square feet of net absorption in 2011 and 2012. Total net absorption would thus be 2.3 million square feet through 2012.
I do not believe that even one half of projected availability will ever materialize. Vacancy is vacancy. Availability is marketing. The CBD market is not only recovering, but its rate of recovery is accelerating.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Real Numbers on Boston Real Estate
And here come the market reports from the "big houses." I am anticipating 16 variations of the phrase "cautioulsy optimistic". I am expecting the figures to be so aggregated as to make no sense at any local market level. And I can guarantee that no firm will make an actual square footage projection of net growth or decline. I'm not picking on the firm behind this column. Other firms will be worse because the report will be written in Los Angeles or Chicago. But it's time to take a stand for accuracy and for putting your money where your mouth is.
Here's the reality. The suburban markets are still in decline. The A markets in the CBD have registered their 3rd straight quarter of net absorption. In the first quarter of 2010, net absorption was 280,000 square feet and, for the first time in 22 months, this absorption included the B markets. The total amount of available space under construction in the city is a whopping 380,000. That's 380,000 rsf in a 72 million square foot market. We are not building enough space to accommodate our current rate of growth.
I don't care about "availability". I care about what's vacant today. Availability is amorphous—it’s all about the probability that some space may come available in the future. And the CBD vacancy rate is 9.1 %, DOWN, from 9.5 % on January 1, 2010. As to the future, I am projecting net absorption of 450,000 square feet in 2010 and 580,000 square feet in 2011.
As to the financial markets, I guess nobody has paid attention to the stock market or the massive net inflows into mutual funds over the past 18 months, inflows that drive the Boston office market. I guess nobody has paid attention to the fact that productivity levels in Massachusetts are at the highest levels since the statistsic was first measured in the 1950's. Why is this important? Because it is not sustainable and companies will hire and hire quickly.
I am tired of vague, generalistic assessments of markets that provide no insights to local market differentiation and that carry "party line" messages about “challenging times.” I’m bored with companies that never actually stick their necks on the line and state what net absorption WILL BE, not what it was. I'm not cautiously optimistic. I am totally optimistic. And I’m not afraid to put the numbers out there in clear view.
My entire market report will be online within the week.
Here's the reality. The suburban markets are still in decline. The A markets in the CBD have registered their 3rd straight quarter of net absorption. In the first quarter of 2010, net absorption was 280,000 square feet and, for the first time in 22 months, this absorption included the B markets. The total amount of available space under construction in the city is a whopping 380,000. That's 380,000 rsf in a 72 million square foot market. We are not building enough space to accommodate our current rate of growth.
I don't care about "availability". I care about what's vacant today. Availability is amorphous—it’s all about the probability that some space may come available in the future. And the CBD vacancy rate is 9.1 %, DOWN, from 9.5 % on January 1, 2010. As to the future, I am projecting net absorption of 450,000 square feet in 2010 and 580,000 square feet in 2011.
As to the financial markets, I guess nobody has paid attention to the stock market or the massive net inflows into mutual funds over the past 18 months, inflows that drive the Boston office market. I guess nobody has paid attention to the fact that productivity levels in Massachusetts are at the highest levels since the statistsic was first measured in the 1950's. Why is this important? Because it is not sustainable and companies will hire and hire quickly.
I am tired of vague, generalistic assessments of markets that provide no insights to local market differentiation and that carry "party line" messages about “challenging times.” I’m bored with companies that never actually stick their necks on the line and state what net absorption WILL BE, not what it was. I'm not cautiously optimistic. I am totally optimistic. And I’m not afraid to put the numbers out there in clear view.
My entire market report will be online within the week.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How Not to Get Things Built--Kairos Shen, The Mayor, The Greenway, and Filene's
So the Mayor is worried about the Greenway. He’s also worried about Filene’s. He should be. Let’s start with the Greenway and the real world.
If anything is to be built along the Greenway, there must be a compromise between aesthetics and economics. Unless the public sector is going to construct buildings along the Greenway, which it is not, then only the private sector will do so. And the private sector will only do so if they can make a profit. Simple as that. There are 2 components to the cost of construction--the price of the land and the cost of construction. The land along the Greenway is among the most expensive land in the Northeast. Why--because it is on the Greenway and on the waterfront.
The price of land is usually measured in terms of the price per square foot of land per square foot of the development on the land. Right now, on a per square foot basis, land along the Greenway would easily carry a price of $150 per square foot of development. The construction cost for a Class A property, both hard and soft, is roughly $400.00 per square foot. The combined market “price” of land and building is therefore $550.00. But we need to account for profit. To achieve a 20% annual return on the land and building costs, a developer would need to carry a hypothetical purchase price, as opposed to market price, of $440.00. At 20%, this would enable the developer to receive a return at the $550 market price.
Let’s consider a real proposal. Don Chiofaro purchased the Aquarium Garage for $150 Million. This is a land purchase--not a garage purchase, unless the City feels Don can rent parking spaces for about $2,000 per day per space. The land measures 57,346 square feet, so Don paid $2,615 per square foot of land. Now he has to knock down the garage and construct income producing property large enough to generate revenue to justify the $2,615 purchase price per square foot of land. He also has to construct a building large enough to justify a $550.00 development cost. And he needs to profit. I have stated this at 20% per year.
So how much building does Don need? If Don built a property using every inch of the land area, the property would have to be at least 17 stories tall to justify the land cost ($2,615 / $150 market price).
Today's market net income per square foot of office space is $35.00. To get a 20% return, Don needs to carry a “purchase price” of building square footage of $28.00. At 20%, this “price” meets the market rent of $35.00. To justify the cost of construction alone, a hypothetical property would need an additonal equivalent of $35.00 in net income per built square foot. If Don utilized every inch of the site, he would need additional property height of a minimum of 14 stories of space ($400 of construction cost / $28.00 per square foot of net income.
So, at a minimum, Don requires a 31-story building which covers every inch of the site. The building would have 57,000 square foot floorplates. Nobody builds 57,000 square foot floor plates because they are not acceptable to the Boston tenant market. The City would never allow anyone to build to the entire perimeter of the site because it would leave a) no open space at ground level, and b) no open vertical space for views and light.
The building plate acceptable to the market is 35,000 square foot at the most. This would leave over 20,000 square feet at ground level as open space along the Greenway. The much more slender building would also allow better views of the water than the existing garage.
At 30,000 square feet, the tower would need to be at least 50 stories tall.
Now Kairos Shen can imagine all he wants about low rise buildings linking the Financial District to the sea. And because of a person like him and the Mayor and everybody else that is afraid of heights in the City, nothing will happen. The Greenway will remain as exactly what the Mayor fears it to be: "cold and boring." Maybe he’ll threaten eminent domain again. We’re a big city. It takes big buildings to justify big prices or else we end up with Big Nothing.
Speaking of eminent domain, let’s talk about the Mayor’s favorite project in the City—the Filene’s redevelopment. Remember the Mayor’s idea to move City Hall to a fish pier at the end of South Boston? That was right about the time he thought he could, by dictum, create a 110-story building on the sliver of land at 133 Federal Street. Well, space is available long-term now at the existing 133 Federal Street and nobody talks about South Boston City Hall.
So how’s this: a swap. Let John Hynes and his development team at Filene’s create a New City Hall right in the heart of the City. And, in exchange, extend a 99-year lease to Mr. Hynes and his team on the land under and surrounding City Hall. The former would certainly revitalize Downtown Crossing. And the latter would certainly bring long overdue life back to the brick desert. And there would be no need to tear down the existing City Hall. Just a thought.
If anything is to be built along the Greenway, there must be a compromise between aesthetics and economics. Unless the public sector is going to construct buildings along the Greenway, which it is not, then only the private sector will do so. And the private sector will only do so if they can make a profit. Simple as that. There are 2 components to the cost of construction--the price of the land and the cost of construction. The land along the Greenway is among the most expensive land in the Northeast. Why--because it is on the Greenway and on the waterfront.
The price of land is usually measured in terms of the price per square foot of land per square foot of the development on the land. Right now, on a per square foot basis, land along the Greenway would easily carry a price of $150 per square foot of development. The construction cost for a Class A property, both hard and soft, is roughly $400.00 per square foot. The combined market “price” of land and building is therefore $550.00. But we need to account for profit. To achieve a 20% annual return on the land and building costs, a developer would need to carry a hypothetical purchase price, as opposed to market price, of $440.00. At 20%, this would enable the developer to receive a return at the $550 market price.
Let’s consider a real proposal. Don Chiofaro purchased the Aquarium Garage for $150 Million. This is a land purchase--not a garage purchase, unless the City feels Don can rent parking spaces for about $2,000 per day per space. The land measures 57,346 square feet, so Don paid $2,615 per square foot of land. Now he has to knock down the garage and construct income producing property large enough to generate revenue to justify the $2,615 purchase price per square foot of land. He also has to construct a building large enough to justify a $550.00 development cost. And he needs to profit. I have stated this at 20% per year.
So how much building does Don need? If Don built a property using every inch of the land area, the property would have to be at least 17 stories tall to justify the land cost ($2,615 / $150 market price).
Today's market net income per square foot of office space is $35.00. To get a 20% return, Don needs to carry a “purchase price” of building square footage of $28.00. At 20%, this “price” meets the market rent of $35.00. To justify the cost of construction alone, a hypothetical property would need an additonal equivalent of $35.00 in net income per built square foot. If Don utilized every inch of the site, he would need additional property height of a minimum of 14 stories of space ($400 of construction cost / $28.00 per square foot of net income.
So, at a minimum, Don requires a 31-story building which covers every inch of the site. The building would have 57,000 square foot floorplates. Nobody builds 57,000 square foot floor plates because they are not acceptable to the Boston tenant market. The City would never allow anyone to build to the entire perimeter of the site because it would leave a) no open space at ground level, and b) no open vertical space for views and light.
The building plate acceptable to the market is 35,000 square foot at the most. This would leave over 20,000 square feet at ground level as open space along the Greenway. The much more slender building would also allow better views of the water than the existing garage.
At 30,000 square feet, the tower would need to be at least 50 stories tall.
Now Kairos Shen can imagine all he wants about low rise buildings linking the Financial District to the sea. And because of a person like him and the Mayor and everybody else that is afraid of heights in the City, nothing will happen. The Greenway will remain as exactly what the Mayor fears it to be: "cold and boring." Maybe he’ll threaten eminent domain again. We’re a big city. It takes big buildings to justify big prices or else we end up with Big Nothing.
Speaking of eminent domain, let’s talk about the Mayor’s favorite project in the City—the Filene’s redevelopment. Remember the Mayor’s idea to move City Hall to a fish pier at the end of South Boston? That was right about the time he thought he could, by dictum, create a 110-story building on the sliver of land at 133 Federal Street. Well, space is available long-term now at the existing 133 Federal Street and nobody talks about South Boston City Hall.
So how’s this: a swap. Let John Hynes and his development team at Filene’s create a New City Hall right in the heart of the City. And, in exchange, extend a 99-year lease to Mr. Hynes and his team on the land under and surrounding City Hall. The former would certainly revitalize Downtown Crossing. And the latter would certainly bring long overdue life back to the brick desert. And there would be no need to tear down the existing City Hall. Just a thought.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
There's still snow on the Himalayas and people are moving to Boston
High housing costs. Cold weather. High taxes. Bad traffic. Hidden politics.
How about:
High paying jobs. The nations's best universities and hospitals. 4 seasons. Taxes per capita below the national average. A 15% rise in home sales. A CBD office market with the 2nd lowest vacancy rate in the country behind only D.C. ( for obvious reasons.) Culture.
I hate to report that, contrary to the pending demise of Boston, we're not " de-mising."
By the way, year to date net growth in CBD occupied space is POSITIVE 290,000. Who woulda thunk it?
I love this town.
How about:
High paying jobs. The nations's best universities and hospitals. 4 seasons. Taxes per capita below the national average. A 15% rise in home sales. A CBD office market with the 2nd lowest vacancy rate in the country behind only D.C. ( for obvious reasons.) Culture.
I hate to report that, contrary to the pending demise of Boston, we're not " de-mising."
By the way, year to date net growth in CBD occupied space is POSITIVE 290,000. Who woulda thunk it?
I love this town.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fear of New York, fear of heights, and Boston's Greenway--a fool's paradise of Menino's own making
"Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the height restrictions on these particular properties are intended to prevent shadows and strong winds thrown off by tall buildings from making the Greenway a cold, uncomfortable place."
I think the Mayor means well. But, Mr. Mayor, in all due respects, have you been on the Greenway lately? It already is a cold, uncomfortable place. In fact, it's also boring and utterly unused. Every proposed non-profit project has collapsed. I for one don't look over my shoulder at New York all day (“I don’t want to Manhattanize the Greenway,’’ the mayor said.) Why not? Manhattan is exciting. Or try the waterfront of Sydney, or Hong Kong, or any major, thriving city in the world that is not afraid of itself.
Now let's get to the economics. Columbus Center let out its final death knell on Monday. The project was not feasible from its inception due to height restrictions on air rights requiring decking. The pictures were pretty, but nobody ever believed in the project. And we gave money to the "developer" every time he whined.
On the south side of the Harbor, nothing is really happening in the private sector. One new office building in 10 years. We are a market of 72 million square feet. The total amount of space under construction and not already leased is 230,000 square feet in exactly 2 buildings--One Marina Park Drive and Russia Wharf. From the start of construction, it takes 3 years to construct a building for occupancy. The City is not prepared for the future demands of the modern tenant, because we are not allowing the construction of tall, modern, green, highly technical buildings which our companies will demand.
To connect the city to the sea, as the Mayor desires, we must provide a reason for people to approach the connection itself. Nobody uses the Greenway today because it is perceived as a curving linear path between South Station and North Station. It is shorter and far more interesting to walk up the streets of the Financial District, stopping at the Langham or Faneuil Hall for a beverage or lingering on the grass at Post Office Square, than it is to walk a barren stretch of disconnected parcels of grass.
If we want a thriving Greenway, we need to get over our fear of heights and our fear of the private sector. Otherwise, we will end up with the country's most expensive dog-walking parks.
I think the Mayor means well. But, Mr. Mayor, in all due respects, have you been on the Greenway lately? It already is a cold, uncomfortable place. In fact, it's also boring and utterly unused. Every proposed non-profit project has collapsed. I for one don't look over my shoulder at New York all day (“I don’t want to Manhattanize the Greenway,’’ the mayor said.) Why not? Manhattan is exciting. Or try the waterfront of Sydney, or Hong Kong, or any major, thriving city in the world that is not afraid of itself.
Now let's get to the economics. Columbus Center let out its final death knell on Monday. The project was not feasible from its inception due to height restrictions on air rights requiring decking. The pictures were pretty, but nobody ever believed in the project. And we gave money to the "developer" every time he whined.
On the south side of the Harbor, nothing is really happening in the private sector. One new office building in 10 years. We are a market of 72 million square feet. The total amount of space under construction and not already leased is 230,000 square feet in exactly 2 buildings--One Marina Park Drive and Russia Wharf. From the start of construction, it takes 3 years to construct a building for occupancy. The City is not prepared for the future demands of the modern tenant, because we are not allowing the construction of tall, modern, green, highly technical buildings which our companies will demand.
To connect the city to the sea, as the Mayor desires, we must provide a reason for people to approach the connection itself. Nobody uses the Greenway today because it is perceived as a curving linear path between South Station and North Station. It is shorter and far more interesting to walk up the streets of the Financial District, stopping at the Langham or Faneuil Hall for a beverage or lingering on the grass at Post Office Square, than it is to walk a barren stretch of disconnected parcels of grass.
If we want a thriving Greenway, we need to get over our fear of heights and our fear of the private sector. Otherwise, we will end up with the country's most expensive dog-walking parks.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How connected is Boston to the world?
I enjoyed today's article in Mass High Tech (link above) written by Doug Banks, entitled "Checking the Traffic Density Jobs Indicator." Doug was musing about the lightness of traffic over the past year and its correlation to employment in Boston. As a geographer and a broker, I realized that Doug had become a student of geography and specifically of aereal connections which is a significant subset of the field. I'm getting boring so here's a story.
A more recent example of aereal conncection maps is this DOT map of the volume of vehicular freight movement among major US cities in 2002. It served as a guideline for anticipating major roadway repairs.
So when you're cruising or crawling down 93, you can thank Doug Banks and be happy about the economy. Or you can just mutter under your breath.
On August 6, 2006, Madonna performed at the Stadio Olympico in Rome. This is the rather infamous concert in which she sang while on a cross. All cellphone usage was measured coming from the Stadio. The lines terminated at major cities around the world and the thickness of the line indicated the volume of flow. Interestingly, NYC did not have the thickest flow (nor did Miami!). The strongest flow was to Paris. There are several 3D maps of this cellphone phenomenon.
I’ve included one showing the flow right over Rome.
Mapping connections between places in a formal manner had its beginnings in maps of the railroads in the 1870's, which showed freight tonnage flows between cities. NYC was still the dominant hub but in 10 years, Chicago had claimed its position atop the freight world as shown by the thickness of the volume of freight of all kinds coming into the City of the Big Shoulders.
A more recent example of aereal conncection maps is this DOT map of the volume of vehicular freight movement among major US cities in 2002. It served as a guideline for anticipating major roadway repairs.So what does this have to do with Boston and real estate? Everything. We are exporters of knowledge and technology. We don't send barges of wheat down the Mystic River nor do we load much coal to ship to China. And if we are exporting something you can't touch, how do we measure our impact?
There are numerous links showing Boston's connections as measured by number of flights and passengers on the FAA website and the Massport website. But the best site I have ever seen, because it is animated, can be found at http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work/flightpatterns/. What Aaron has done is cover flights on a continuous basis over the course of a day. And it is absolute artwork. Watch Boston and San Francisco. You will notice a particularly thick line between San Francisco and Boston? Ditto for internet traffic and ditto for cellphone traffic. There are not many flights between Boston and Toronto and not many between Boston and Dallas. And both of these cities are much larger than both Boston and San Francisco. NYC is the most connected city to Boston and, in fact to every other city in the US, but it is flow of all types of communication between two cities that determine the degree of their intreaction. And high tech, high knowledge cities tend to connect with other high tech, high knowledge cities. Boston is connected where it counts. And connections mean jobs which means demand for real estate. Boston's vacancy rate has been hovering between 9 and 10%. The vacancy rate for space in the the Dallas CBD is 30%. Connections are good.
So when you're cruising or crawling down 93, you can thank Doug Banks and be happy about the economy. Or you can just mutter under your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
