I'm glad that condos never rally came back

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

San Francisco's Planning Dept. frowns on cars in general and parking in particular and limits spaces in BOTH new condo and new rental buildings to well below a 1:1 ratio of units to parking spaces. Also, the parking that does exist is not deeded so that all building occupants are constantly in competition with their neighbors for a valet space.

Yeah, there's no zoning difference in NYC either. We have the opposite rules for deeded space though. Parking, where it exists, is usually only deeded only, so that transient drivers can't take spaces.

But, putting aside laws, would't you say that a new Pacific Heights condo building of $5 million condos would probably generate more parking demand than a new Mission rental building of $3,000 studios? I mean, wealthy, older people, even in the most urban cities, are more likely to have cars.

Anecdotal, but I didn't know a single person with a car in Manhattan/Brownstone Brooklyn in my 20's. Now I would say around half the people in my age cohort with kids, have a car. And this in neighborhoods with only 20-30% car ownership.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So you are saying that even in Chicago condos HAVE "really come back" leaving me wondering what was the original point.

The construction of condo buildings, particularly highrises, is way, way, way below the rate we were seeing in the early 2000s.

This thread is about condo building construction, not necessarily about values.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But, putting aside laws, would't you say that a new Pacific Heights condo building of $5 million condos would probably generate more parking demand than a new Mission rental building of $3,000 studios? I mean, wealthy, older people, even in the most urban cities, are more likely to have cars.

Absolutely. I've been wondering for years how they can sell these condos where you can be sure getting a space will be tough. When I bought mine 35 years ago, I told the realtor my requirements were: (1) 2/2, (2) off-street parking, (3) fireplace, in that order. I got all 3. Then I was working in Oakland and had to drive to work (it took 3 hours to get to work by transit, ½ an hour by car) and did not want hassles for a space when I got home tired at the end of the day. While I am no longer among them, I think there are still a lot of reverse commuters in SF. Many go down the Peninsula to the tech and biotech companies there.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This being a skyscraper fan website, you are of course being provocative opposing high rise condos in the "built environment".

Personally, I love them because they increase population density which, in turn, encourages the presence of 24/7/52 service options: "cities that never sleep". I'm someone who once did my grocery shopping habitually at 2 AM.

You are really not understanding my point, and that leads me to believe that what is happening in Chicago is rather unique right now.

I’m expressing a preference for apartments over condo highrises for the reasons I have given above. In Chicago I feel that apartments do a much better job of increasing density, walkability, and 24-7 service options than condos have historically done.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The construction of condo buildings, particularly highrises, is way, way, way below the rate we were seeing in the early 2000s.

This thread is about condo building construction, not necessarily about values.

Values reflect demand and construction tends to happen when/where there is demand. I can't speak for Chicago, but all you have to do is look at the "compilation" threads and see how many cities are claiming major construction booms, much of which is condos. San Francisco, which I know best, is putting up as much new housing, both rental and condo, as it can (in spite of a tedious approval process and limits on available sites) and a lot of it is high rise. There is in fact a whole new multifamily high rise district on Rincon Hill and along Folsom St.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m expressing a preference for apartments over condo highrises for the reasons I have given above. In Chicago I feel that apartments do a much better job of increasing density, walkability, and 24-7 service options than condos have historically done.

I don't really perceive much of a difference in cities I know. The only reason I can think of there might be a difference is that apartment dwellers might tend to be younger and more active consumers of night life and maybe restaurant food vs cook-at-home (even though one of the biggest Millennial trends now is supposed to be "meal kit" delivery), and perhaps a higher percentage of condos might be pied-a-terres and second/third/fourth homes that aren't occupied much of the time. But I don't think that's a serious issue.

[mhays]

Seattle has been nearly all rentals in the current boom. In greater Downtown, an area around 2,500 acres (equivalent to two miles by two) has seen starts for something like 26,500 rental apartments and 1,300 condos.

Due to the defect liability issues, developers are saying that they can only build if they can charge four figures per square foot in highrise areas. Some of that of course is unrelated...land is also in the four figures per square foot because very little is zoned for highrises, the City charges millions in fees per building, and so on.

That sucks for most people -- buyers, general contractors who build condos, etc. It also takes away an important facet of a great urban core...people of all kinds, doing all kinds of things.

It's also helped my personal home value rise 50% from the 2007/2008 peak.

Condos in Seattle do tend to have more parking than rentals. While even luxury apartments are routinely built with parking ratios like 0.7 or 0.5 (and middle-market buildings might have none), until recently it was expected that a condo come with a parking space. I have one and rent it to a neighbor. However the podium issue is specific to a city's land use code, soil conditions, land prices, and home values -- in Chicago and the sunbelt you get podiums that take up twice the land. In Seattle you can build 400 units on 1/3 of an acre including 250 underground parking spaces.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I don't really perceive much of a difference in cities I know. The only reason I can think of there might be a difference is that apartment dwellers might tend to be younger and more active consumers of night life and maybe restaurant food vs cook-at-home (even though one of the biggest Millennial trends now is supposed to be "meal kit" delivery), and perhaps a higher percentage of condos might be pied-a-terres and second/third/fourth homes that aren't occupied much of the time. But I don't think that's a serious issue.

I see the difference. In Chicago, take your average 35 story luxury tower:

Condos:
70 units
100-150 parking spots
Less ground level retail
Half the units are pied a terres and thus empty at a given time
More likely to be NIMBYs

Apartments:
250 units
70-150 parking spots (depending on many factors)
Generally more retail space
All the units are lived in
Very unlikely to be NIMBYs

Which is better for the urban environment? Which one creates more 24-7 activity? Which one obstructs more development around it? Which one will have more carless residents? You decide.

[ardecila]

I think it's counter-productive to take these attitudes that condo (or other owner-occupied, be it townhouse, SFH, etc) development is bad for the city.

Apartments are great for people in their 20s or 30s but at some point, many people will achieve financial success and they will want a more stable living situation where housing cost is fixed and predictable, and they can put down roots in a community. Renting can offer a lot of flexibility, buy many Americans still want to buy a home the instant it becomes financially feasible.

If your attitude is that homeowners are bad for the city, and we shouldn't build housing for them, then you're basically ensuring the suburbs will have a steady stream of people, plowing under cornfields and putting up subdivisions. The urban poor and the very wealthy have their own dynamic, but within the middle class, I don't know why we shouldn't make the city as welcoming to older folks as we do for younger ones.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think it's counter-productive to take these attitudes that condo (or other owner-occupied, be it townhouse, SFH, etc) development is bad for the city.

Apartments are great for people in their 20s or 30s but at some point, many people will achieve financial success and they will want a more stable living situation where housing cost is fixed and predictable, and they can put down roots in a community. Renting can offer a lot of flexibility, buy many Americans still want to buy a home the instant it becomes financially feasible.

If your attitude is that homeowners are bad for the city, and we shouldn't build housing for them, then you're basically ensuring the suburbs will have a steady stream of people, plowing under cornfields and putting up subdivisions. The urban poor and the very wealthy have their own dynamic, but within the middle class, I don't know why we shouldn't make the city as welcoming to older folks as we do for younger ones.

But you didn’t even read any of my arguments?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But you didn’t even read any of my arguments?

I personally have not read through this thread, but the condo market in Chicago is not reflective of the market nationally. Lots of reasons for that, but its great if you're a landlord. Bad if you're looking to buy. New deliveries have been few and far between, forcing people to rent even if they don't care to.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I see the difference. In Chicago, take your average 35 story luxury tower:

Condos:
70 units
100-150 parking spots
Less ground level retail
Half the units are pied a terres and thus empty at a given time
More likely to be NIMBYs

Apartments:
250 units
70-150 parking spots (depending on many factors)
Generally more retail space
All the units are lived in
Very unlikely to be NIMBYs

Which is better for the urban environment? Which one creates more 24-7 activity? Which one obstructs more development around it? Which one will have more carless residents? You decide.

This bears no resemblence to how two 35 story buildings would be different in other markets, I think that's why we're not really getting the argument. If this is how development has shifted in Chicago, then sure, the apartments are better.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Which is better for the urban environment? Which one creates more 24-7 activity? Which one obstructs more development around it? Which one will have more carless residents? You decide.

Those condo units also have wealthier owners, meaning more potential spending power, they're more likely to have children, important if we want to fix urban education, and are likely more invested in the city, so likely more volunteering and community involvement.

Also, condos just tend to be nicer buildings. Generally better, higher quality architecture, nicer interiors and better long term valuation.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Doady

Condominum, freehold, rental refers to type of housing ownership.

Apartment, townhouse, semi-detached house, detached house refers to type of housing structure.

TOD refers to increasing density and designing neighbourhoods to make transit more accessible. It has nothing to do with discouraging home ownership.

Apartments (both condos and rental) are both higher density. A 300-unit condominum apartment building adds as much to the housing supply as a 300-unit rental apartment building. Both have to follow the same parking requirements.

A condominium apartment can be rented out too. A condominium apartment building can have many renters living inside it.

Condo-crazy Toronto is building a lot more apartments than Chicago, and CTA ridership fell by 5% in 2016. Chicago is a poor model for transit growth.

Yeah... I'm not sure I'm following OP either. There is nothing wrong with condos and they never went away. Maybe Chicago is different?

[C.]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, what I'm saying is that a new construction 70 unit condo building will have 90ish parking spots, while the same if planned as apartments will have 50ish parking spots, and perhaps 20-25 if near a transit stop, plus 30 bicycle spaces (depending on community negotiations).

I never knew this was a uniquely Chicago thing...

I never seen a zoning code that differentiated parking standards by tenure type.

[C.]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I see the difference. In Chicago, take your average 35 story luxury tower:

Condos:
70 units
100-150 parking spots
Less ground level retail
Half the units are pied a terres and thus empty at a given time
More likely to be NIMBYs

Apartments:
250 units
70-150 parking spots (depending on many factors)
Generally more retail space
All the units are lived in
Very unlikely to be NIMBYs

Which is better for the urban environment? Which one creates more 24-7 activity? Which one obstructs more development around it? Which one will have more carless residents? You decide.

Interesting...

So a word about condos acting as second or, third homes. This is not actually a bad thing because the city collects property taxes, which can be substantial for luxury condos, but they don't consume much in city services since the wealthy owner isn't there year round.

For example, there is a massive luxury condo tower going up in Jersey City right now that will have 780 units, with the lowest costing in the $750,000 range. The amount of revenue the city will receive from this single development is so substantial that it will lower the property tax rate for the entire city by about 2 percent when completed, according to preliminary calculations.

What percentage of the units will be used for rentals, owner-occupied primary residences, or "pied a terres" remains to be seen. I don't think it matters. There's ground floor retail, a less than 1:1 parking standard, and it's a hell of a lot more productive than the surface parking lot it replaced.

[C.]

one last comment:

Outside the big cities, rentals tend to have more of a suburban design with condos being more urban and usually located downtown. Here is an extreme example. Has anyone had similar experiences?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, what I'm saying is that a new construction 70 unit condo building will have 90ish parking spots, while the same if planned as apartments will have 50ish parking spots, and perhaps 20-25 if near a transit stop, plus 30 bicycle spaces (depending on community negotiations).

I never knew this was a uniquely Chicago thing...

That doesn't mean much as parking is determined by bedrooms and not the number of units in a building. Rentals in Chicago may be more studios and one bedrooms while condos are 2 to 3 bedrooms. I will repeat my question. Are you saying a high end 3 bedroom condo with have more parking than a high end 3 bedroom rental?

[JManc]

Here in Houston, parking is based on occupancy. Doesn't matter if Building is condos of apartments. I hope condos don't go away, we plan on buying a condo in town after we pay off our rental house next year.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by CIA

I never seen a zoning code that differentiated parking standards by tenure type.

It’s not zoning code that does this. Developers are making this choice