Using data from Turner & Townsend, Curbed recently reported that the most expensive city in the world in which to build is now San Francisco. On average, it costs USD 417 per square foot. San Francisco is followed by New York ($368 psf), London, Zurich, and Hong Kong. New York took the top spot last year, but San Francisco shot up this year because of, you know, tech.
This number was calculated using a blend of six different types of construction, everything from apartment high-rise and prestige office to general hospital and warehouse distribution centers.
Now, I'm not exactly sure what this number includes. But I'm assuming it is only direct construction costs and doesn't include (contractor) general conditions, land, or any soft costs, which are all significant. Once you add in these other cost inputs, I am sure that you can start to see how things -- including the cost of new housing -- can quickly escalate.
Using data from Turner & Townsend, Curbed recently reported that the most expensive city in the world in which to build is now San Francisco. On average, it costs USD 417 per square foot. San Francisco is followed by New York ($368 psf), London, Zurich, and Hong Kong. New York took the top spot last year, but San Francisco shot up this year because of, you know, tech.
This number was calculated using a blend of six different types of construction, everything from apartment high-rise and prestige office to general hospital and warehouse distribution centers.
Now, I'm not exactly sure what this number includes. But I'm assuming it is only direct construction costs and doesn't include (contractor) general conditions, land, or any soft costs, which are all significant. Once you add in these other cost inputs, I am sure that you can start to see how things -- including the cost of new housing -- can quickly escalate.
The 2020 Summer Olympics, which will be held in Tokyo, have added 5 new sports, one of which is skateboarding. As someone who grew up skateboarding as a teenager, and is all too familiar with being chased out of public spaces, this lends a great deal of legitimacy to the sport.
It's hard to think of a sport that is more closely connected with architecture and, more specifically, public architecture. Curbed's recent long-form article about "the public spaces that shaped skateboarding" is a good reminder of that. Here is an excerpt (EMB refers to Embarcadero Plaza in San Francisco, which was previously known as Justin Herman Plaza):
When skateboarding debuts at the Tokyo Olympics next summer, some three decades after the first polyurethane wheels hit the bricks at EMB, it will have completed the long, improbable trip from criminal act to social and institutional acceptance. But even as an Olympic sport, skateboarding will remain a direct physical response to the varied terrain of American public architecture.
Interestingly enough, one could go on to argue that the history of skateboarding is really steeped in the adoption of public spaces that had, in many cases, failed to serve their intended purpose. In other words, skateboarders were often the only people using these urban spaces:
“What made Justin Herman Plaza attractive to skateboarders and work for skateboarders was its inappropriateness to the traditional city scale and function,” King says. “You had all these planners and architects in the 1950s and ’60s saying cities need these grand, celebratory spaces—and they really didn’t.” But apparently skaters did.
Welcome skateboarding to the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.
Landed is trying to solve this problem by offering downpayment assistance to "essential professionals" -- starting first with teachers -- so that they can buy homes in and near the communities that they serve.
The way it works is pretty simple.
They'll contribute up to half of a traditional 20% downpayment -- so 10% of the value of the home -- in exchange for a 25% share in any future gains, or losses.
Put differently, for every 1% that Landed contributes, it takes 2.5% of any future appreciation (or depreciation). However, on an equity basis, they are actually putting up 50% of the required cash (in the maximum scenario) in order to get 25% of any future gains.
There's no monthly payment associated with Landed's money, but it does need to be repaid at the end of 30 years or when the homeowner exits the agreement, whichever comes first. Homeowners are free to repay Landed at any time should they decide to sell the property or they just want to pay them out.
Landed pitches the service as another version of "the bank of mom and dad." And for many prospective homeowners, I am sure that it makes all the difference in the world.
At first glance, it would seem that each homeowner also benefits from a kind of positive leverage. They only put up 50% of the required equity, but they get to enjoy 75% of the potential gains. However, each homeowner is also responsible for 100% of the carrying costs.
I ran a couple of quick return scenarios, assuming a $500,000 purchase price and a 10 year hold, in order to test whether Landed or the homeowner would receive a higher IRR once the property gets sold.
I didn't carry any transaction costs, but I did factor in principal recapture, as well as utilities, insurance, and maintenance.
My rough numbers suggest that it depends on the annual rate of appreciation. If appreciation stays close to the rate of inflation, it could tip in favor of Landed because they don't put out any money after t = 0.
But at higher rates of appreciation, the homeowner starts to benefit from the favorable 75/25 split at the end of the hold period.
Either way, Landed is providing a service to people who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy a home. That has value. Here's some more information on how it works, in case you're interested.
The 2020 Summer Olympics, which will be held in Tokyo, have added 5 new sports, one of which is skateboarding. As someone who grew up skateboarding as a teenager, and is all too familiar with being chased out of public spaces, this lends a great deal of legitimacy to the sport.
It's hard to think of a sport that is more closely connected with architecture and, more specifically, public architecture. Curbed's recent long-form article about "the public spaces that shaped skateboarding" is a good reminder of that. Here is an excerpt (EMB refers to Embarcadero Plaza in San Francisco, which was previously known as Justin Herman Plaza):
When skateboarding debuts at the Tokyo Olympics next summer, some three decades after the first polyurethane wheels hit the bricks at EMB, it will have completed the long, improbable trip from criminal act to social and institutional acceptance. But even as an Olympic sport, skateboarding will remain a direct physical response to the varied terrain of American public architecture.
Interestingly enough, one could go on to argue that the history of skateboarding is really steeped in the adoption of public spaces that had, in many cases, failed to serve their intended purpose. In other words, skateboarders were often the only people using these urban spaces:
“What made Justin Herman Plaza attractive to skateboarders and work for skateboarders was its inappropriateness to the traditional city scale and function,” King says. “You had all these planners and architects in the 1950s and ’60s saying cities need these grand, celebratory spaces—and they really didn’t.” But apparently skaters did.
Welcome skateboarding to the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.
Landed is trying to solve this problem by offering downpayment assistance to "essential professionals" -- starting first with teachers -- so that they can buy homes in and near the communities that they serve.
The way it works is pretty simple.
They'll contribute up to half of a traditional 20% downpayment -- so 10% of the value of the home -- in exchange for a 25% share in any future gains, or losses.
Put differently, for every 1% that Landed contributes, it takes 2.5% of any future appreciation (or depreciation). However, on an equity basis, they are actually putting up 50% of the required cash (in the maximum scenario) in order to get 25% of any future gains.
There's no monthly payment associated with Landed's money, but it does need to be repaid at the end of 30 years or when the homeowner exits the agreement, whichever comes first. Homeowners are free to repay Landed at any time should they decide to sell the property or they just want to pay them out.
Landed pitches the service as another version of "the bank of mom and dad." And for many prospective homeowners, I am sure that it makes all the difference in the world.
At first glance, it would seem that each homeowner also benefits from a kind of positive leverage. They only put up 50% of the required equity, but they get to enjoy 75% of the potential gains. However, each homeowner is also responsible for 100% of the carrying costs.
I ran a couple of quick return scenarios, assuming a $500,000 purchase price and a 10 year hold, in order to test whether Landed or the homeowner would receive a higher IRR once the property gets sold.
I didn't carry any transaction costs, but I did factor in principal recapture, as well as utilities, insurance, and maintenance.
My rough numbers suggest that it depends on the annual rate of appreciation. If appreciation stays close to the rate of inflation, it could tip in favor of Landed because they don't put out any money after t = 0.
But at higher rates of appreciation, the homeowner starts to benefit from the favorable 75/25 split at the end of the hold period.
Either way, Landed is providing a service to people who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy a home. That has value. Here's some more information on how it works, in case you're interested.
