Over Development

[TheArtist]

I have been noticing the slow but steady development of office and some retail space on the NW corner of 91st and yale.  I like the design and layout of the buildings.  Looks like the developer is clearing the way for a new batch of buildings just to the west of the ones he has already. Its actually turning out to be a decent sized development all together.  It would be nice if he does something on the SW corner when the road construction is done perhaps a shopping type version of what he has already done, would really anchor that corner and give it a unique sense of place.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by sendoff

I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.

Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.

From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.

?  From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of plus 12,000, not minus 7,250.  (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)

However, your larger point seems good.  Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.

[TheArtist]

To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits  in 2005.

This has some easy to see graphs for population and home growth etc. for Tulsa.


http://www.localmarketmonitor.com/Sample/Tulsa.pdf#search='2005%20Tulsa%20home%20permits'


This is interesting, guessing its for 2004 or 2005 year.

[sendoff]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by sendoff

I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.

Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.

From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.

?  From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of plus 12,000, not minus 7,250.  (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)

However, your larger point seems good.  Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.

Actually we're both wrong. The Census Bureau shows total population in the Tulsa metro from 2002-2005 to be +19,481. However, most of that gain is from births outnumbering deaths.

Taking out the gain from births over deaths, the net increase in metro population from new people moving in (including international immigration) for 2002-2005 is +261. Without international immigration we are at the -7,256 I originally indicated.

Tulsa population history

[TheArtist]

Ok lol, your all wrong.[]

2000 pop Tulsa county= 563,299

2005 pop Tulsa county= 560,431

2000 housing units=  243,892, occupied units= 226,892

2005 housing units=  256,321, occupied units= 230,058

So the population went down by about 3,000 but the # of occupied units went up by about 3,000  

Plus the number of OWNER occupied houses went up about 18,000 units during the same time....

It appears that a cities population does not have to get larger in order for it to still have housing growth and more owner occupied homes or even more nicer homes being built and bought. Also most of the statistics I have looked at about population and especially job growth for Tulsa shows that 2006 is the year that we have turned the corner to having more jobs etc. than we did at our peak before the recession.  Lets hope that growth continues.  

            http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US40143&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US40%7C05000US40143&_street=&_county=tulsa&_cityTown=tulsa&_state=04000US40&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits  in 2005.

Closer to home, it takes the Tulsa area 3 years to gain the same number of people Dallas-Fort Worth gains in approx. every 36 days.  For Houston, every 43 days.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Ok lol, your all wrong.[]

2000 pop Tulsa county= 563,299

2005 pop Tulsa county= 560,431

2000 housing units=  243,892, occupied units= 226,892

2005 housing units=  256,321, occupied units= 230,058

So the population went down by about 3,000 but the # of occupied units went up by about 3,000  

Plus the number of OWNER occupied houses went up about 18,000 units during the same time....

It appears that a cities population does not have to get larger in order for it to still have housing growth and more owner occupied homes or even more nicer homes being built and bought. Also most of the statistics I have looked at about population and especially job growth for Tulsa shows that 2006 is the year that we have turned the corner to having more jobs etc. than we did at our peak before the recession.  Lets hope that growth continues.  

            http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US40143&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US40%7C05000US40143&_street=&_county=tulsa&_cityTown=tulsa&_state=04000US40&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

We have not been speaking of Tulsa County population. We've been speaking of Tulsa metro population.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by sendoff

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by sendoff

I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.

Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.

From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.

?  From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of plus 12,000, not minus 7,250.  (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)

However, your larger point seems good.  Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.

Actually we're both wrong. The Census Bureau shows total population in the Tulsa metro from 2002-2005 to be +19,481. However, most of that gain is from births outnumbering deaths.

Taking out the gain from births over deaths, the net increase in metro population from new people moving in (including international immigration) for 2002-2005 is +261. Without international immigration we are at the -7,256 I originally indicated.

Tulsa population history

No, only you are wrong.  ;-)  The population estimate for 2002 was 819,350.  The population estimate for 2005 was 831,123.  So, from 2002-2005, the growth was, 11,773 (rounded to 12,000).   (The numbers you gave us show the growth from 2001-2005), and the components of the growth aren't terribly important for this particular topic.)

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits  in 2005.

This has some easy to see graphs for population and home growth etc. for Tulsa.


http://www.localmarketmonitor.com/Sample/Tulsa.pdf#search='2005%20Tulsa%20home%20permits'


This is interesting, guessing its for 2004 or 2005 year.

That "market monitor" chart is interesting.  But I wonder on what they base their "1,956 units absorbed by population growth".  In oneyear???   If we assume just an average of just 3 people per housing unit, that allows for a population growth of almost 6,000.  As we have seen, that's 1 1/2 years' worth of population growth for the Tulsa metro area.

[YoungTulsan]

This might be a little taboo, but couldn't you make a guess that some of the old housing being left behind for new construction (supposedly then creating a glut of places to live) is being filled up by undocumented illegal immigrants?

[hazleton]

Why is Kanbar selling?

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by hazleton

Why is Kanbar selling?

Vodka....too much? Or money, too much?

[aoxamaxoa]

From 11-29-06 Wallstreet Journal
an article on the
opportunity presented investors
from distressed real estate via rising home foreclosures.
"Williams and Williams a Tulsa
based auctioneer says it's sales
of foreclosed homes will
nearly double this year to about 5060.
Dean Williams, Chief Executive
of the auction firm, expects
another near doubling
of sales in 2007."

The article went on to
compare areas outside
our city and said that
in Dallas the number
of sales of homes
foreclosed was
up %23 4800.

The problem is that
the market for foreclosed
homes here is not busy.
The article clearly points
out the busiest markets
are in Michigan,Indiana,
Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Colorado.

Overbuilt?

[BKDotCom]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Overbuilt?

Overbought.
Rates were low, banks were pushing more house than people could afford.   People were buying more than they could afford.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by BKDotCom

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Overbuilt?

Overbought.
Rates were low, banks were pushing more house than people could afford.   People were buying more than they could afford.

Good point. What happens next?