I've often been told that the New York Times is almost persona non grata around here, but I saw this Saturday, and I thought others here might also be interested in it...
They had an article (can someone find and post a link to it?) that discussed real estate development and vacancy rates. They did a table split by decades, and the thing I found most interesting was that of all housing (single-family, apartments, condos, etc.) built since the year 2000, almost 20% of that housing is now sitting vacant. The other decades are generally running between 2-4% vacancy rates.
I'm afraid this real estate recession we're in isn't going to end well or soon, especially for places like California, Nevada, or Florida.
I'm the one who doesn't care for the NYT, as they're nothing more than a propaganda arm for the DNC, and their cratering circulation numbers are evidence of their shrinking credibility.
That said, I'd love to see a link to this article (I took three or four minutes and couldn't find it, and then my attention span went.... Wait, what was I saying?).
Twenty percent vacancy of all housing built since 2000 seems unbelieveable, and I'd love to see their sourcing.
I will try to look it up and post it here. Honestly, I probably won't be able to do that until Thursday night, which is why I was hoping someone else could find a link before then.
Link on housing data, courtesy of the US Census Bureau in the form of an April 30 press release.
The complete press release
Chart showing vacancy rate of single-unit properties either for sale or for rent
(Look for "Year structure built" in the leftmost column.)
From that Census data:
That looks a like significantly less than 20 percent vacancy for post-2000 structures. I wonder if the NYT has newer data?
I'm the one who doesn't care for the NYT, as they're nothing more than a propaganda arm for the DNC, and their cratering circulation numbers are evidence of their shrinking credibility.
Any declining circulation of the NYT is attributable to the tendency for people to get more news from the Internet, rather than printed newspapers.
Michael Fuerst
Any declining circulation of the NYT is attributable to the tendency for people to get more news from the Internet, rather than printed newspapers.
Forbes article on newspaper circulation
Apparently, some newspapers (USA Today and WSJ) are actually increasing in circulation. The NYT's daily circulation fell a little more than the national average (3.85% vs. 3.57% national decrease over the past year), but their Sunday circulation was nearly decimated (9.3% reduction).
"Any declining circulation of the NYT is attributable to the tendency for people to get more news from the Internet, rather than printed newspapers."
I'm sure the NYT keeps telling themselves that.
Okay, got the story here. will do bullet points so Gordy doesn't shoot me...
Saturday 5-3-08 New York Times, page B-3
Off the Charts: It's Newer Homes That Stand Empty as Vacancies Rise
by Floyd Norris
(Source: Census Bureau, via Haver Analytics)
*2.9 percent of homes intended for owner occupancy were vacant at the end of the 1st quarter. ... Before 2006, that figure had never exceeded 2%.
*Over all, 10.1% of homes intended for rental are vacant. That rate is a little below the record level hit in 2004, but it is still higher than it ever was before the construction boom of this decade.
*...in the owner market, the vacancies are much more concentrated in condominiums. In buildings with five to nine units--like many garden apartment buildings--the condominium vacancy rate is an unprecedented 15.2%. That is up from 12.2% at the end of 2007. Before 2006, that rate had never been as high as 10%.
*For homes and condominiums built after March 2000, the vacancy rate for homes intended for owner occupancy is 10.2%, up from 8.8% at the end of 2007.
*For rental units, the figures are even greater. There 25.2%--or one of every four--of housing units built since the spring of 2000 are vacant.
*Areas with highest vacancy rates in houses intended for owner-occupancy fell into 2 categories: Rust Belt areas like Detroit, Akron, and Cleveland, and former boom areas like Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas. Although home prices have fallen sharply in parts of CA, only the Sacremento area shows high vacancy levels.
*Residential construction's share of the economy fell to 3.8% in the 1st quarter, down from a peak of 6.3% in the 1st quarter of 2006, when home prices were nearing their highs. But that figure is not far below the average figure for the 1990s, 4.1% and well ablove the low of 3.3%, reached in the 1st quarter of 1991 after that last major housing market setback.
Their chart showing home vacancies by date of construction:
April 2000 to present 10.2%
1995 to March, 2000 2.2
1990-94 2.2
1980-89 1.9
1970-79 1.8
1960-69 2.2
1950-59 2.2
1940-49 3.1
1939 or earlier 2.6
(Haver Analytics has a website. Apparently they maintain databases and do software and database analysis for governments and private companies.)
Thanks.
I don't see where they're getting 20 percent vacacy of all housing built since 2000, though.
We would probably have to buy the complete report from Haver to see that. Any guesses as to how many zeroes we need to put on the check? I'm thinking at least 2 or 3.
True.
But if the NYT wants to use the figure in a article about how the sky is falling, you'd think they'd at least be willing to document it.
Post new comment