Kids + Condos = No Way
Here's a tidbit from a Seattle P-I story last week about the lack of families with children downtown. The article doesn't really have much to do with home prices or bubbles, but we have talked at length about downtown condos in the past, so it is at least worth mentioning.
Sure, there's a way to get families to live in Seattle's urban core, but someone needs to go first — and that seems to be the problem.Oh my, it sounds like such a delightful utopia, doesn't it? After reading this article I remembered how we're always hearing that demand for downtown condos comes from "retiring baby boomers" (old people whose kids have grown up and moved out) and "young professionals" (young people with no kids). If families with children won't move downtown unless they're basically forced to, I guess those two groups would have to be the ones driving condo demand, considering they're pretty much all that's left. That is of course, if you assume that the demand coming from "investors" is negligible.
Parents say they need condos built with families in mind. Developers and families say they need a downtown school. And school district officials say they need to see some demand.
But many local parents leave condos — big ones, in neighborhoods with good parks and schools — because they feel the need for their own yard. So maybe the real problem is an intangible — a cultural bias against raising children in condos. And observers suggest changing that might require gas to become so expensive and affordable houses with yards to be so far away that commuting takes too much time and money.
(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 10.16.2006)
14 comments:
Young professionals and empty nesters are the red herring here, its the red herring developers are using to install a 'lifestyle' into their product... They have no numbers to back it up, there's never any mention of out-of-state investors, yet other local articles mention how condo-towers have sold out overnight on the internet... hmmm... sounds like the Phantom Menace to me.
I know if I were living in Redmond or Issaquah or wherever, and I was enternaining the notion of dropping 500K on a luxury condo, I'd be damned sure I get get my arse out of bed in the morning to check out what unit I was going to purchase and talk it over with the sales office, line or no line...
I just got some B.S. 'be a millionaire overnight' ad for a 3-day conference starring 'Ivanka Trump'... immediately trashed it, but despite the downturn in the condovestor mania, people are still buying in and something tells me if you were to sit in on one of these snake-oil pitches, you'd probably hear Seattle advertised as the 'last bastion of the equity ladder'.
This article reeks of a developer tainted stank. Unless you're overtly non-traditional, you're probably not going to experiment with raising a family downtown. For starters you can't even walk to a convenient 24 grocery store for a baby-formula/diaper raid... so what's the point?
"if you provide some numbers or data, with sources, to prove that the empty nesters and young professionals are a "red herring" I will be more than interested to see it."
Provide some numbers or data, with sources, to "prove" that they aren't. I will be more than interested to see it.
"So give me some proof that Belltown is full of empty units bought by out-of-state investors."
Speaking of red herrings...I don't recall this debate being specifically about belltown. There are condos popping up like magic mushrooms all over the core Seattle neighborhoods.
For my part, I'll note that if the condos were being snapped up like hotcakes by childless yuppies, the developers wouldn't be desperately hawking them with yard signs planted in every median within miles of their properties. Right now, you can find signs for NoMa, Hjarta and the other Ballard monstrosity as far away as downtown Seattle....
"The bylaws allow for no more than 20% rentals in my building"
That bylaw is meaningless. Try enforcing it. How much money does the Board have in its legal/adminstrative column on their budget? Whatever it is, it's not enough... I guarantee it.
I have a kid and I live in a downtown Vancouver (BC) condo. I rent, of course, but we're downtown by choice.
Maybe we're freaks, but I can tell you that there are tons of kids around downtown Vancouver. The schools are oversubscribed; the community centre mom dropins are over-run with strollers.
Lots of bubblesitters like us, actually.
Here's what seattlemoose said, and my responses IN CAPS:
1) Noise
TRUE ENOUGH, BUT PART OF THE URBAN ENERGY PACKAGE, I GUESS.
2) Pollution
NOT DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER. WE GET FRESH AIR STRAIGHT OFF THE PACIFIC. IT'S THE SUBURBAN GUYS INLAND WHO GET STUCK WITH POLLUTION.
3) Crowds
I KINDA LIKE HAVING PEOPLE AROUND. I FIND SUBURBS TO BE BARREN.
4) Bums/panhandlers
TRUE ENOUGH - THIS SUCKS.
5) Lack of nature (trees/green/etc.)
AGAIN, FOR VANCOUVER THIS DOESN'T APPLY. I GET TO PLAY IN STANLEY PARK AND ALL ALONG THE SEAWALL. IF I LIVED IN THE BURBS I COULDN'T.
6) Expensive but small floor plans
SMALLER SPACE, TRUE. BUT THE CITY IS MY LIVING ROOM. I HAVE RESTAURANTS, CAFES, STORES WITHIN 5 MINUTE WALK OF MY PLACE. I ACTUALLY GET TO *INTERACT* WITH OTHER PEOPLE RATHER THAN HIDE OUT FROM HUMAMITY IN MY BASEMENT OR LIVING ROOM.
7) Outrageous HOA fees (non-deductable)
NOT FOR RENTERS!
8) Buildings that don't fill and revert back to rentals
--
9) Paying for services/facilities you don't need or use
GOOD POINT - THE POOL IN MY BUILDING SEEMS TO BE RARELY USED. SUCKS TO BE MY LANDLORD WHO PAYS FOR IT.
10) Crime
THIS DEFINITELY SUCKS IN VANCOUVER. BUT, PART OF THE PACKAGE.
And if you don't have the proof, stop saying it.
I think that's what we all want. We keep seeing articles that make the unsubstantiated claim that retirees and "young professionals" are supplying a huge demand for condos. People here are just pointing out that no hard evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim.
I don't think anyone here is claiming that the majority of the demand is definitely being driven by investors, just that we don't know.
Personally I think it's just as likely that most of the demand is coming from the two aforementioned groups. Ever heard of the phrase "more money than sense"?
"I don't think anyone here is claiming that the majority of the demand is definitely being driven by investors, just that we don't know."
Well said, Tim.
I have no evidence that condo demand is being driven by any particular group -- but neither do the writers, realtors and RE industry shills who continually assert that price increases are a result of a sudden ubran migration of childless yuppies.
To me, it's just as likely that condominiums are in greater "demand" because they are cheaper than single-family homes (on average). Since this is a far simpler explanation than The Great Yuppie Caravan of 2006, Occam's Razor dictates that it should be the default argument.
In other words: if you want me to believe that people are abandoning decades-old demographic trends, you have to prove it, trackbike. I don't have to prove the inverse.
Addendum:
Actually, I have evidence that baby boomers, in particular, aren't moving to the city (at least on a national scale):
Baby boomers aren't as hot on vacation homes as believed.
FTA:
"The suburban-to-urban flow of homeowners represents just 5 percent of the stock of all retirement-age empty-nest homeowners located in central cities.When the urban-to-suburban flow of empty-nesters is taken into account,the net migration effect from the suburbs to urban area is –7.2 percent.Any return of empty-nesters to the urban core is not enough to stem the tide of urban-suburban flight."
Boo-yahr, trackbike. Data smackdowns hurt, don't they?
"Um, I don't know, since that is national-level data, has nothing to do with Seattle"
Except for the minor detail that Seattle is a US city (last I checked), and therefore, one of the cities included in the analysis.
"...and doesn't have anything to do with young professionals at all."
No, and that's why I said that the data was referring to BABY BOOMERS. Which, if we go back to your post at the very tippy-top of the comments...
"Is there something wrong with young professionals and retirees?" (emphasis mine)
...happens to be relevant to the discussion.
trackbike,
I responded to your antagonistic comments with a plainly-worded explanation of the basic point that I and other commenters are trying to make, and you replied with a personal insult.
If that's the way that you want to participate in this conversation, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
trackbike's agenda:
Ever heard the expression "sour grapes"?
'nuff said
This thread reminds me of an atheist and a christian trying to argue the existence of God.
There is no proof that all the downtown condos are being bought by investors, urban pros, or empty nesters. All we have is speculation. I think trackbike does have some decent points that should not be immediately dismissed. Myself, I like would like some raw data about the Seattle area condo market and investors. I have long wondered who is buying all the new Seattle condos, and really no one has supplied anything concrete.
I welcome contrary opinions and I don't have a problem with trackbike's position, just his tone. He started out antagonistic and has remained that way. Sounds to me like he wants argument, not discussion. They are not the same thing.
I too am interested in who is buying these downtown condos, and trackbike's anecdotal evidence is useful to some degree. But at this point no one has done any studies to determine any data on this for Seattle, so the "prove it's not true" arguments (for either side) don't hold much water. All we have at this point is the national study, which gives a theory that we can't support or disprove with local data.
grivetti -- if you provide some numbers or data, with sources, to prove that the empty nesters and young professionals are a "red herring" I will be more than interested to see it
dude, don't be a Donnie Rumsfeld "prove to me the weapons AREN'T there!", the burden of proof lies with the people that cite it as an reason for downtown condo demand...
Some developer's are already bagging out on the whole condo-boom.
Lease wins out...
The developers filed plans with the city in August to replace the 53-year-old building with two 28-story condo towers, but decided not to build because they had concerns about the current market...
*sniff* *sniff*... smells a little like panic's in the air.
So, that tells me the current projects already in the pipeline are increasingly anxious to fill those 10K-25K Reservations at the condo-sales office. If that's the case... the steady supply of "young professionals" and "empty nesters" is drying up, but my opinion is that the Phantom Menace is disappearing as well, no packed 'be a millionair overnight' seminars, no retirment portfolios being rolled into investment properites...
Mix that in with a little lending tightening, and watch-out...
So who else is there to milk? Families of course, "come on down! The family will love it! Let's all live like Eastern Europeans in Apartment towers! Yeehaw! It'll be 'kitch'!"
I'm not buying... thanks trackbike
That is wonderful news for downtown! Please stay where you are -- it's where you belong (I'll bet none of your current neighbors can spell "kitsch" either!)
Dude, have you ran into Tyler Durden on a Red-Eye yet? He might be able to help you...
Post a Comment