Category: New York

• More retailers are buying real estate in New York

  Last week we spoke about how many businesses don’t want to own their own real estate, but that some do. We then spoke about Prada’s recent acquisition of 720 and 724 Fifth Avenue for $835 million. However, they’re not the only ones. According to New York’s The Real Deal (thank you John Bell for the article), last year saw the following transactions:

  • Swiss fashion house Akris bought a property from SL Green for $40.6 million
  • Japanese coffee retailer Geshary bought a property on Fifth Avenue from the Riese Organization for $38 million
  • And Dyson bought a building in Soho for $60 million

  Now, some, or a lot of this, is strategic. New York is New York, and global brands need to be there. Another part of this is that there was less competition last year. Fewer real estate companies wanted to buy retail and office buildings, and so end users seem to have stepped in at what they presumably saw as favourable prices.

  But it’s also not totally foreign for retailers to want to own their own real estate. Perhaps the most famous example is McDonald’s, which owns its own real estate and then leases it out to franchisees. Though as I alluded to last week, it’s important to know what business you’re ultimately in. And McDonald’s knows it’s in the real estate business.

  2024.01.07

• Prada just bought a lot of real estate in New York

  We have spoken before about how hotel brands don’t typically own their real estate. But the same is also true of many other businesses. And one common reason for this is that it ties up a lot capital that could be otherwise deployed in the core business. If, for example, you’re in the business of producing exclusive handbags, it usually makes sense to spend your excess cash on making better handbags. And if you find that you’re actually making more money on real estate, then it could be a sign that you’re in the wrong business.

  There are, however, instances where owning your own real estate may make the most sense. Maybe you have an irreplaceable location that you want to secure for the long term. And so there’s real strategic value. Or maybe you keep having annoying legal fights with your landlord and you just want to get back to focusing on luxury handbags. There are other motivating factors to consider here, but these two seem to be behind Prada’s recent acquisition of 724 Fifth Avenue in New York.

  Prada has had a flagship 5-storey retail store at this location since 1997 (and most recently was paying US$22 million in rent). In December, they announced that they had acquired the entire 12-storey building for US$425 million. (That works out to be about $5,395 psf on the gross building area!) And then shortly after, they announced that they had acquired next door — a hard corner — for another US$410 million (total US$835 million).

  All of this makes the deal one of the largest in New York last year. But was it a good deal? I would need some more information to answer from a quantitative real estate perspective. But if I’m Prada, I know that I need to be on Fifth Avenue for the foreseeable future. And now I get access to a hard corner and I no longer have to deal with my landlord. These are clearly strategic things. Last year was also a pretty good time to be buying retail/office buildings with all cash, which is what Prada did.

  2024.01.03

• New York City has a lot of construction scaffolding

  More specifically, it has this many:

  

  This, according to a NYC government website, equals 8,660 active shed permits covering 1,959,444 linear feet. And on average, these construction sheds are erected for 493 days. If you’ve been to New York recently, this will all sound right to you.

  I thought I had read somewhere that this has to do with a property tax benefit. Something about if you keep your hoarding up after construction completion, you can avoid immediate reassessment.

  But according to some sources, the proliferation of sheds is mostly driven by the city’s Facade Inspection & Safety Program, which requires that all buildings taller than 6 floors have their facades closely inspected every 5 five years.

  So presumably, keeping these up for an extended period of time is the less costly and less risky option.

  2023.11.06

• Don’t screw it up, New York

  New York City is set to become the first in the US to implement a congestion charge (a form of road pricing). I first wrote about this back in 2018, and then again in 2019, but now it is looking more and more like it may actually happen sometime next year.

  I think all urbanists agree that this is an important step in the right direction. But some are now worried that New York isn’t going about it in the right way. Here is an excerpt from a recent Vice article by Aaron Gordon:

  With all these plans, you could be excused for thinking New York is doing congestion pricing—a potentially transformative policy that would be a first in the nation—right by not only charging drivers to access some of the densest, most valuable land in the world, but also giving them alternatives. Unfortunately, New York isn’t doing that, and in fact looks set to completely screw up congestion pricing so badly it may discredit the policy in a way that makes it harder for other cities to adopt it. Rather than approaching it as a lynchpin to a wide-ranging effort to reshape Manhattan’s relationship to the private car, congestion pricing has become solely about money—specifically, paying off enough of the credit-card bill New York has run up with a variety of ill-conceived and poorly-executed projects that it can get more credit cards.

  You can rightly say that this is decades in the making. Mayor Bloomberg first proposed the idea back in 2007, and I’m sure there were others before him with a similar idea.

  So Gordon raises a valid point: It’s important that NYC gets this right. Otherwise, it’s going to be that much more difficult for other North American cities to even think about implementing road pricing.

  For the full Vice article, click here.

  2023.09.19

• New York City enacts strict short-term rental law

  This past week, New York City enacted a new short-term rental registration law that is not very friendly toward platforms like Airbnb and VRBO. Here are some of the new rules:

  • All hosts must register with the city
  • No more than 2 paying guests can stay in a short-term rental at one time, regardless of the size of the home (does this mean families are excluded?)
  • Hosts and visitors must leave all doors inside the dwelling unlocked (presumably this is to stop people from creating self-contained suites within a larger home)
  • And the host must be physically present while the dwelling is being rented

  So in a way, this takes us back to the original use case of Airbnb: “Hey, I have extra space in my home. Would you like to rent this mostly clean air mattress in my living room and be my roommate for a bit?” Of course, this is not how most people like to Airbnb today. And so this is also a kind of ban on short-term rentals in New York City.

  It’s certainly stricter than the regulations we have in Toronto. Here, it must be your principal residence. Meaning you’re only legally allowed to operate one short-term rental at a time. But you don’t need to be physically present while the home is being rented. If you want to earn some extra cash while you’re away in Rio de Janeiro for New Year’s Eve, you can do that.

  However, the rules are still fairly strict. For instance, if you have a basement apartment or a laneway suite on your property, you are not technically permitted to short-term rent these dwellings, even if you live in the main portion of the home. It has to be your exact principal residence.

  Presumably the intent behind this is to not remove any housing from the long-term rental market. And if it’s your principal residence, then yeah, there’s no net loss. Though this feels like an overreach to me. It’s the same property and a homeowner could very easily decide to not even do a long-term rental in these secondary suites.

  But overall, I guess it’s still slightly more flexible than forcing hostel-like short-term rentals. Long live the hotel?

  2023.09.08

• New York City is piloting about a dozen motion sensor cameras

  This won’t come as a surprise to many of you. But I recently attended a community meeting where someone was advocating for adding new lanes to a particular road. Their argument was that traffic congestion is forcing too many cars to sit needlessly idle and that that is bad for the environment. The proposed solution of adding new lanes would get traffic moving, reduce idling pollution, and therefore be overall better for the environment.

  I disagree entirely.

  But transportation planning seems to be one of those things that many people feel is intuitive. It’s one of those things where people feel confident saying, “I know how to fix this. We just need to do this.” But the reality is that cities are incredibly complex organisms and it’s not always obvious what should be done. So I think that a big part of making our cities better comes down to having much better data. And that’s why I’m very intrigued by the work that startup Viva, and others, are doing.

  

  Viva uses small street-light mounted cameras and machine learning to track urban mobility (see image above). Currently they track 9 different modes: pedestrian, bicycle, e-scooter, motorcycle, car, van, light truck, semi-truck, and bus. And after they collect this data, the relevant information is extracted and then everything else is deleted for privacy reasons. There are also plans to make this data openly available to the public so that people can use it and/or build on top of it.

  Obviously this is still going to raise privacy concerns and that is something that will need to be carefully addressed. But I do think that the data from a platform like this is going to be invaluable for cities. Among many other things, it will help us to better allocate space among the various modes and design much safer streets. Hopefully it can also help to take some of the politics out of these sorts of decisions: “Here’s the data. Take a look.”

  Viva currently has 1,000 sensors already installed in London (where they are being used to evaluate the impacts of congestion pricing), and about half a dozen in New York. So it’ll be interesting to see what this leads to. And who knows, maybe it will actually turn us all into amateur transportation planners. We’ll certainly have access to a lot more data.

  For more information on Viva, here’s their website.

  Image: Viva

  2023.04.17

• New York’s iconic Flatiron Building just sold

  Well sort of.

  Previously leased to Macmillan Publishers for the last 60 years, the building has been sitting vacant since 2019 and supposedly needs something like $100 million in CapEx to make it leasable again. Four of the five current owners have wanted to renovate it, but the fifth kept blocking it, and so the other partners sued for a “partition auction.”

  That auction happened last week, and even though the four owners were really trying to lock down the 25% share that they didn’t own, the auction was won by an outsider at $190 million. That said, a 10% deposit was to be due the following day and, apparently, that never happened. So maybe it hasn’t sold yet. But whatever, it’s still interesting to think about its purchase price.

  According to Wikipedia, the Flatiron Building is 255,000 square feet. So at $190 million, the building was “purchased” for $745 per foot. Assuming that it needs another $100 million, that’s another $392 psf, for a total of $1,137 psf.

  What I am curious about now is how this compares to other office buildings in midtown Manhattan. Is there any sort of premium for being the Flatiron Building? And what would space in this building lease for following a renovation? i.e. What cap rate is the market demanding right now for an empty office building needing $100 million in renovations? Or, is the play to convert to residential?

  I don’t know enough about the real estate market in midtown Manhattan to answer these questions with any sort of precision, but I’m hoping some of you do and that you’ll leave a comment below.

  2023.03.27

• The most expensive new subway line in the world

  In other New York City news, they apparently have the most expensive new subway line in the world:

  At $2.5 billion per mile, construction costs for the 1.8-mile Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway were 8 to 12 times more expensive than similar subway projects in Italy, Istanbul, Sweden, Paris, Berlin and Spain, according to a report from New York University’s Marron Institute of Urban Management.

  This is an important problem because public transit is good for cities:

  It is not possible to outdo the subway in capacity per amount of land consumed— and in a high-demand city, 12-lane freeways are prohibitively land-intensive. Hook (1994) argued that Japan focused on rail transportation in its largest cities because it had high land values in the postwar era and such strong property rights that widespread land condemnation for freeways based on the American model was impossible.

  If this is a topic that interests you, I would encourage you to check out the report, as well as their Transit Costs Project website. It allows you to compare transit project costs for 159 different cities.

  2023.02.24

• New York City appoints first Chief Public Realm Officer

  This could be a good idea:

  New York City Mayor Eric Adams today appointed Ya-Ting Liu as the city’s first-ever chief public realm officer, delivering on a key promise from his State of the City address. In this newly created role, Liu will coordinate across city government, community organizations, and the private sector to create extraordinary public spaces across the entire city and continue to drive the city’s economic recovery.

  As chief public realm officer, Liu will focus on delivering two components of Mayor Adams’ “Working People’s Agenda.” She will execute on a plan to invest $375 million to create and expand high-quality public spaces in all five boroughs, which includes the Broadway Vision plan, a full reconstruction of Jamaica Avenue from Sutphin Boulevard to Merrick Boulevard, and permanent upgrades to Open Streets in the Bronx and on Staten Island. At the same time, she will lead the administration’s work to deliver a permanent outdoor dining program in partnership with the City Council that works for businesses and residents, building on the massive success of the pandemic-era temporary Open Restaurants program, with clear design guidelines and accessible tools for restaurant owners and communities.

  When done right, public spaces have been proven to promote economic development. Perhaps the most obvious example in New York is the High Line. The first two phases cost around $153 million to construct, and as of 2014 it was already attracting some 5 million visitors a year and thought to be responsible for over $2 billion of economic activity. As of 2019, the number of annual visitors had increased to 8 million.

  So if New York ends up with more of these spaces — you know, enjoyable spaces that attract lots of humans and investment — this could be a good idea.

  2023.02.23

• Where the rich don’t drive — is density the new luxury?

  This data is from 2019, but I imagine that things would look pretty similar today and that it might even be a little more pronounced. The dataset from the above article looked at how many people have cars in a given area (a darker dot = fewer cars) and then plotted this against population density and income per capita.

  Here’s what that looks like for the regions of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and Houston (data from 2013 to 2017):

  

  What is fascinating about these charts is that they show two different correlations. In dense and transit-rich cities such as New York and Boston, car usage is most closely linked with population density and not with income. The dark dots form a horizontal line near the top.

  However, in the case of Los Angeles and Houston, car usage is instead most closely linked with income and not with population density. The dark dots form a vertical line near the left — the lowest income per capita.

  So what does this tell us?

  It tells us that if you design a city to broadly require a car, then you are likely to sort people based on those that can afford a lot of car and those that cannot. On the other hand, if you design a city around transit, then you are likely to instead create a place where both the rich and poor get around in similar ways.

  There is also evidence that the latter is being increasingly viewed as more desirable. 2017 was the first year in the US where high-income young people (ages 26 to 33) drove less than low-income young people. Presumably these high-income people had choices, and so I tend to view this as a preference.

  As a whole, this is surely a good thing for our cities. But now I think we need to be careful not to allow density and walkability to become the new luxury that only the rich can afford.

  2023.01.02