Tapatalk

Downtown Residential Market Thriving

Downtown Residential Market Thriving

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostMar 11, 2011#1

New developments poised to snap up eager residents
Despite the continuing lull in the larger economy and many area real estate markets, the downtown residential real estate sector is thriving, stakeholders say.

“Even though the economy really hasn’t helped accelerate the market like it did several years ago, we’ve really held our own,” said Maggie Campbell, president and CEO of Partnership for Downtown St. Louis. “There seems to be plenty of demand for downtown housing.”
Campbell said much of it is because of the continuing influx of residents downtown. According to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data, the population of the city of St. Louis dropped 8 percent between 2000 and 2010, but a neighborhood breakdown of the census data released by the city showed the downtown area experienced a 359 percent increase in population during that same time.

“In the early days, you were a pioneer if you came down here to live,” Campbell said. “Now, for the people who find it attractive, they know that they won’t be here by themselves.”

Kevin Farrell, senior director of economic and housing development for the Partnership, said although young professionals are still the largest demographic among downtown residents, the demographics of those who have been moving downtown have become increasingly mixed and include mid- and late-career workers as well as retirees.

“The buyer that seems to be drawn to downtown is an established buyer, not just a first-time homebuyer anymore,” said Lisa Grus, broker/owner at Premier Realty Exclusive. “These are the buyers who a year and a half ago were skittish because of the general financial market.” Higher-priced spaces are moving well, she said, sometimes better than one-bedrooms.

“Arguably, it’s the fastest-growing neighborhood in the region and the census data and our own research has proven that,” Campbell said. Farrell said new developments, such as the $109 million Park Pacific Building at 1226 Olive St., which recently began leasing, the $142 million Laurel at 601 Washington Ave. and the $21 million Leather Trades Lofts at 1604 Locust St., which are expected to be available later this year, would bring about 500 additional residential units to the area.





Read more: New developments poised to snap up eager residents | St. Louis Business Journal

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 11, 2011#2

^ That's good fluff but perhaps a better metric for downtown residential market health would be housing values. Why no mention of that in the article?

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostMar 11, 2011#3

it does...

Sarah Tadlock, broker/owner of Downtown Living Now, said apartments rent for $800 to $1,300 per month for a one bedroom, $1,100 to $2,000 for a two bedroom and $2,000 to $8,000 for a penthouse. The average condo sale price is about $180,000, with penthouses going for up to $800,000, she said.

Is it really a fluff piece is occupancy rates are ~90% ???
Stats from year end 2009.
http://www.downtownstl.org/docs/Downtow ... rt2009.pdf

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 11, 2011#4

^ Ahh, I couldn't read the whole article as most of it is subscriber only. It's good that occupancy rates are ~90% and new properties are coming online. However, housing values downtown have fallen more than in other parts of the St. Louis region. If the market were truly thriving, one would likely see more price stability.

And yes, I live in and support downtown.

907
Super MemberSuper Member
907

PostMar 11, 2011#5

^They might have fallen the most because they were also the most inflated...

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostMar 11, 2011#6

Prices are down everywhere because of the great recession.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 11, 2011#7

moorlander wrote:Prices are down everywhere because of the great recession.
Housing values downtown have fallen more than in other parts of the St. Louis region. If the market were truly thriving, one would likely see more price stability.

I've spoken with realtors about the downtown market. We can agree to disagree.

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostMar 11, 2011#8

innov8ion wrote:
moorlander wrote:Prices are down everywhere because of the great recession.
Housing values downtown have fallen more than in other parts of the St. Louis region. If the market were truly thriving, one would likely see more price stability.

We can agree to disagree.
but i'm not disagreeing with you.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 12, 2011#9

^ My bad....

3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostMar 12, 2011#10

innov8ion wrote:
moorlander wrote:Prices are down everywhere because of the great recession.
Housing values downtown have fallen more than in other parts of the St. Louis region. If the market were truly thriving, one would likely see more price stability.

I've spoken with realtors about the downtown market. We can agree to disagree.
Prices have fallen and are unstable everywhere. No one is buying a home these days and things got worse after the homebuyer credit expired.

However if prices have fallen a decent amount, now is the time to buy.

5,703
Life MemberLife Member
5,703

PostMar 12, 2011#11

The next question, is the market such that in an upturn you will see a new residential tower be marketed by the end of 2011? Either Wash Skyhouse coming back, Park Pacific build out as originally rendered, and/or BPV phase II. or is that beyond 2012?

At some point, the existing stock/building available for buildout will dwindle and the population demographics will be such that higher end or new will be preferable by a portion of that demographic. Hopefully, it will happen sooner or later. However, my gut feeling is it will take a bump in downtown employment with a major relocation or a string of midsize movements in business relocations.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 22, 2011#12

downtown2007 wrote:
innov8ion wrote:
moorlander wrote:Prices are down everywhere because of the great recession.
Housing values downtown have fallen more than in other parts of the St. Louis region. If the market were truly thriving, one would likely see more price stability.

I've spoken with realtors about the downtown market. We can agree to disagree.
Prices have fallen and are unstable everywhere. No one is buying a home these days and things got worse after the homebuyer credit expired.

However if prices have fallen a decent amount, now is the time to buy.
As stated earlier, your assertion is untrue. The median value of St. Louis County homes increased by 8% from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011. In the city, the median value decreased by 11% during the same period.

Also, just because prices have decreased doesn't mean they will not continue to decrease. A trend continues until there is a reversal in trend. I'm not a doom and gloom kinda guy but there has yet to be a reversal. In fact, most analysts in a recent economic survey don't see recovery until 2015. Homes are not investments.

I haven't seen data that shows downtown housing values increasing and am a bit concerned that supply may be outpacing demand.

See: http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 2bc8b.html

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMar 22, 2011#13

Homes are not investments.
This is not at all accurate. Homes (real estate) are and always will be investments. Just like "investments," they have the potential to either increase or decrease in value depending on overall macro trends, or by choosing to make a bad investment.

Re-financing your mortgage four times to pay off credit card debt and auto loans resulting in an effective margin position on your home is a BAD investment (gamble), as is choosing to buy a home in a bad location, or when the prices are extremely high, or when you simply cannot afford it.

Just because one stock has dropped in value in the history of the stock market does not eliminate their standing as investments. Why would the same argument hold true for homes?

Investment does not equal never-ending money train of riskless gains. Otherwise it would not be called investment, it would be called imbecile proof gravy train. Just because homes do not appear to be increasing in value yet has nothing to do with their standing as an investment.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 22, 2011#14

newstl2020 wrote:
Homes are not investments.
This is not at all accurate. Homes (real estate) are and always will be investments. Just like "investments," they have the potential to either increase or decrease in value depending on overall macro trends, or by choosing to make a bad investment.

Just because one stock has dropped in value in the history of the stock market does not eliminate their standing as investments. Why would the same argument hold true for homes?

Re-financing your mortgage four times to pay off credit card debt and auto loans resulting in an effective margin position on your home is a BAD investment (gamble), as is choosing to buy a home in a bad location, or when the prices are extremely high, or when you simply cannot afford it.
Eh? That's your opinion. By the definition, my opinion is valid.

Investment: "Investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets in order to gain profitable returns in form of interest, income, or appreciation of the value of the instrument."

For me, my home is a place to live and I have no expectations of it appreciating in value. I have taxable investments in optionsXpress and nontaxable in my 401k.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMar 22, 2011#15

I know it is semantics, but technically, you just disproved your own argument.

A home is an investment.

You simply believe that a home is a bad investment, in your opinion. I am not arguing your opinion on whether a home is a good, bad, or neutral investment, I am arguing your assertion that a home is not an investment.

Also, I don't know where you found a definition of investment that did not include the element of risk.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 22, 2011#16

newstl2020 wrote:I know it is semantics, but technically, you just disproved your own argument.

A home is an investment.

You simply believe that a home is a bad investment, in your opinion. I am not arguing your opinion on whether a home is a good, bad, or neutral investment, I am arguing your assertion that a home is not an investment.

Also, I don't know where you found a definition of investment that did not include the element of risk.
It is semantics and your logic is flawed. Again, read the definition.

Investment: "Investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets in order to gain profitable returns in form of interest, income, or appreciation of the value of the instrument."

As my interest in owning a home is to just live in it and not gain profitable returns, owning a home is not an investment for me. Your situation may differ and that is acceptable.

To better your understanding, read this Seeking Alpha article on the topic. Also, some level of risk is typically inherent in any investment.

1,864
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,864

PostMar 23, 2011#17

^I know that for myself and my fiance, owning a home IS an investment in our future. From providing space for our future children to growing old together, we have decided that owning a house to make into a home is something we want...then again we both are from a small rural town in Illinois so we like having big backyards and attatched garages (and some corn fields wouldn't hurt either! 8) )

Also, there is a difference between home and house. A house is a physical structure of walls, ceilings, and floors, usually with a yard and garage; associated with suburbs and not downtown. A home is ANY location you make into your personal residence. When I was at Millikin, my dorm was my home. At SLU, my apartment was my home. And now my apartment with my fiance is our home.

1,093
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,093

PostMar 23, 2011#18

I think with the added jobs in the near future: Unisys, Peabody, Foresight Energy, and Embassy suites at the Laurel, i think DT residential market will be thriving in late 2011 to 2012.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMar 23, 2011#19

Inno, I think you are missing my point. In your original post, you did not state "For me, owning a home is not an investment, it is a place to live. We think of it as a domicile and not a domicile as well as a vehicle to attempt to build equity."

Had you stated ^, you would indeed, be correct. You blanket statement "Owning a home is not an investment" is entirely different from what you have been arguing, and you are completely incorrect in labeling all home buying as non-investment activity.

That's all I was saying. Also, regardless of whether or not you are buying with the apprehension of appreciation on your overall purchase, as you pay your mortgage payment, you build equity in your home, thereby rendering it an investment vehicle. Whether or not you get back as much as you pay is irrelevant. You are housing your money in an (in this case physical) asset by which you can garner (hopefully more than) what you have paid into it back at some point in time.

So technically, whether you are saying a home is not an investment for yourself specifically, or for anyone in general, you are incorrect on both fronts.

But that is not the point of this thread, is it?

PostMar 23, 2011#20

ALSO, buying a home would be considered a long-term investment in any sense of the word, further eroding your intial argument which was based upon short-term market movements. But once again, this is just semantics.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 23, 2011#21

newstl2020 wrote:Inno, I think you are missing my point. In your original post, you did not state "For me, owning a home is not an investment, it is a place to live. We think of it as a domicile and not a domicile as well as a vehicle to attempt to build equity."
I clearly stated, "As my interest in owning a home is to just live in it and not gain profitable returns, owning a home is not an investment for me. Your situation may differ and that is acceptable." Again, Seeking Alpha speaks to this here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/63072-i ... investment
newstl2020 wrote:Had you stated ^, you would indeed, be correct. You blanket statement "Owning a home is not an investment" is entirely different from what you have been arguing, and you are completely incorrect in labeling all home buying as non-investment activity.
If you had read what I have been saying, it was implied that a home is not an investment for all and particularly me. I have confidence in you to read and understand this paragraph and the one above.

Capiche? Great!

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMar 23, 2011#22

Your original post which I am refering to is the one of the first page where you made the blanket statement "A home is not an investment." Go back and read again.

"If you had read what I have been saying, it was implied that a home is not an investment for all and particularly me."

Once again, if you make a payment on a mortgage, regardless of whether or not you are doing so to realize a return, you are building equity. Unless you are going to tell me that a savings account is not SOME form of an investment, and that putting money into a physical asset that you can in turn sell regarless of price in the future also is not an investment, you are incorrect.

Fundamentally, whether you are buying a home to try to make money or simply live in, as soon as you make the first mortgage payment, you are investing your money in that home.

RENDERING IT AN INVESTMENT.

I take back the caps. It's not personal at all. From a financial perspective, the above applies.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 23, 2011#23

^ Definitions of the word investment are here.

Building equity means nothing in the scope of this discussion. Having equity in your home only means that you own x% of what you initially paid. Unrealized profit occurs when comps are higher than the cost and realized profit when sale price is higher than cost. Again, and in my opinion, something is only an investment if you buy it with the expectation that it will gain in value. Much to your chagrin, not everyone cares about that.

You have the right to your opinion but have no right to tell me how to think. I showed you definitions of the word investment and the Seeking Alpha article yet you continue to bicker with me.

2,386
Life MemberLife Member
2,386

PostMar 23, 2011#24

As do you, however wrong it may be. :D

We may want to go to pm's for any further discussion (if you wish) before Matt yells at us, lol.

5,631
Life MemberLife Member
5,631

PostMar 23, 2011#25

newstl2020 wrote:As do you, however wrong it may be. :D
My subjective opinion on whether I consider my home an investment or not can't be wrong so I'd appreciate you just dropping the subject. I never stated that a home can't be an investment for many, to include you.

Thanks for understanding.

Read more posts (666 remaining)