Cautionary Tale for Dallas from Miami

[HarryMoto]

There's a good commentary from architecture critic Beth Dunlop in today's Miami Herald about keeping Miami -- and cities in general -- on a human scale in the heat of the rush of redevelopment. While the situation in is not as extreme in downtown/uptown Dallas as Miami, these are issues that need to be kept in mind.

Here's part of the essay and the link for entire piece is http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/11761357.htm

Architecture commentary: City in the Sky

BY BETH DUNLOP

bdunlop@herald.com


Are we turning our cities into theme parks for the very rich? This might indeed be the architectural question of the decade for most of America's ''hot'' cities, but it is a particularly trenchant issue right now for Miami.


I know a schoolteacher -- beautiful, young, talented and engaged -- who would love to take part in the transformation of downtown. But on two teachers' salaries, there is little she and her fiancé can afford, and nothing desirable. They've been looking for a year.

This is a small anecdotal truth that indicates a much broader one: We are pricing out the people who really make this place what it is and ought to be: diverse; young and old; artists and authors and teachers and storekeepers, policemen and social workers and public servants; not just those who manage their portfolios while jetting from St. Tropez to Miami to Las Palmas.

A real city is filled with people of all incomes and interests, who spend their money in local stores and restaurants run by other local people, and their time out walking on the streets and playing in public parks, sitting in cafes, browsing and window-shopping, strolling and stopping -- after work, after school, after church or temple, before a movie, a play, a concert. That, more than mere commerce, is the time-tested engine that drives urbanism.

The future Miami skyline could include nearly 100 planned or already-built skyscrapers, most of them condo projects, a once-in-a-city's-lifetime phenomenon that was graphically depicted in The Herald earlier this month. As each newer, taller, bigger, ever-more-fashionable building is announced, I wonder about what we're doing to Miami, why we seem so intent on building a city from the top down rather than the bottom up. I wonder why the city's leaders haven't taken hold of the process to ensure that all-important mix that starts with architecture but ends with people.

We're getting the architecture, but are we leaving the people -- and that all-important urbanism that makes the world's most admired and beloved cities so remarkable to inhabit or even visit -- behind?

I worry that we are building a ''skybox city,'' the urban equivalent of those precious perches at stadiums and arenas with services at the touch of a button. Those skyboxes are great for a privileged few, and that's exactly the case with the Miami we are building today. Instead of skyboxes, we are getting skyscrapers -- some of them architecturally distinguished and others architecturally negligible, at best -- but the effect is much the same. Fans, not skyboxes, make sports facilities flourish. Residents, not skyscrapers alone, make a city.

This is not just a matter of economics, but of city-building, which is much different from construction -- of establishing a vital, vibrant, energetic new way of life in a newly populous urban center. Without that, we'll have a chimerical city that seems to exist as a dazzling skyline only -- like Oz.

[Justin Terveen]

so very true... thanks for sharing this

[CityLove]

I must second these comments. Why can only the priveliged afford to live in these urban areas we are trying to hard to reinvigorate? I definitely don't consider myself poor, but I am having difficulty finding any decent place to live anywhere near Downtown or Uptown. This same fact was discussed in the "Affordable Uptown" thread.

[sterling]

Great article. It is a continued shame in our "capitalist paradise" that we think that rich people are more interesting (sooo not true), and the only ones worthy of planning cities around. Would love to see/hear more on this very subject.

[HarryMoto]

It's especially disconcerting in Miami's case because so many of these new condos will remain unoccupied (bought purely as an investment or for speculation) or only inhabited a few weeks out of the year. So what you'll get are canyons of ghost condos, whose "residents" aren't there to enjoy their panoramas while the buildings block the views of those at ground-level who have to live in the city year-round.

It will be interesting to see how Midtown Miami -- a yoooge (as Trump would say) upscale, "urban village" about the twice the size of Victory, if not more, north of downtown, bordering Little Haiti and the once put-upon, rapidly gentrifying Wynwood area -- alters the landscape even more upon its completion in 2-3 years.

Again, this is a less concern in Dallas because there are far fewer huge condo projects on the books and this area isn't the type of jet-setting vacation destination that Miami is. Still, these issues are worth considering.

[rantanamo]

questions:

- is it everyone's right to live everywhere? I couldn't afford L-Mac or Victory prices, but is it my right to live there?

- are the wealthy necessarily a dull group that will create dull, lifeless streets in the innercity hoods of Dallas?

- is not, the type of activity and ground floor of each development > who necessarily lives there?

- don't other urban areas work with mostly wealthy people living there? Again, the ground > those living above.

- Can rents/condo prices be controlled? Might it be a matter of the city offering incentives to a developer? Who decides what is affordable? Or will the market simply take care of this once the supply finally meets the demand.

- Is urban living cheap anywhere compared to suburban housing or would Dallas be venturing into new territory if builders began offering competitively priced condos or townhomes to your typical suburban dwelling?

- Why the heck are condos and townhomes so much more expensive?

[Tnekster]

^I remember back in the 80's when I lived in Chicago I had friends that lived downtown. They wanted to live in the middle of "it" because that was "the" place to be. Since the cost of living downtown was so high the only way they could afford to live the "high-rise" life was to triple or quadruple up in a small unit. In one case I knew a flight attendant that lived in a two bedroom high rise condo with 6 other flight attendants. Now I hear all the time about how we want to create this great urban lifestyle and then hear complaints about the costs associated with this kind of living. If this great urban environment is going to take hold here then we probably should expect the cost of living associated with it to go up. Downtown/Uptown will continue to be expensive as long as the demand for that kind of living stays hot. I still think the prices in Dallas are far more reasonable than a NY or Chicago but it won't stay that way for long. And I guess we could always initiate rent controls but that leads to other problems that we don't want or need. The Victory development is going to bring in some seriously upscale shopping and elevate the standard of living downtown. This will bring in more upscale demand and buyers. The stage is set and this neighborhood is going to be pricey.

By the way, in Chicago that was over 20 years ago. Since then the city has brought in new retailers, coverted lofts and reclaimed "undesirable" areas. Now 20 years later the city is hotter than ever and the construction boom downtown is not for office space anymore, the biggest thing going is 50 story residential high rises. And guess what? They aren't the affordable type. I guess my point is that this downtown/uptown living boom could have legs and we better get used to the costs that go along with it.

[Mballar]

While the issues raised in the article are always valid things to consider, I think that the article was a bit overblown. Cities like Miami, San Francisco, New York, are going to always be places where the rich want to live and will look to buy. These are popular places, for obvious reasons. As for cutting out the small guy, let’s not forget that market factors (good ol supply and demand) ultimately control how much a condo, house, or town home gets sold for. If housing becomes unaffordable in a particular area, then prices will go down.
The rich will always live in the tallest structures, next to the most beautiful water scenery, closest to all of the "action."

[HarryMoto]

While the issues raised in the article are always valid things to consider, I think that the article was a bit overblown. Cities like Miami, San Francisco, New York, are going to always be places where the rich want to live and will look to buy. These are popular places, for obvious reasons. As for cutting out the small guy, let’s not forget that market factors (good ol supply and demand) ultimately control how much a condo, house, or town home gets sold for. If housing becomes unaffordable in a particular area, then prices will go down.
The rich will always live in the tallest structures, next to the most beautiful water scenery, closest to all of the "action."

Agreed. But, as one who was priced out of the Miami market myself, the problem with much of Miami -- and it's probably less true in Dallas or Chicago -- is that so many of these new, high-rise condos are not owner-occupied, or occupied at all much of the year. Flippers and speculators seem to be having a field day. So you end up with density of buildings, not people, at least not year-round. With luck, some of the ground-floor retail will make up for that but some of these have nothing but parking garages facing the street.

And those part-time residents don't care as much about many of the little amenities of a city that people on this board care about.

[Columbus Civil]

Agreed. But, as one who was priced out of the Miami market myself, the problem with much of Miami -- and it's probably less true in Dallas or Chicago -- is that so many of these new, high-rise condos are not owner-occupied, or occupied at all much of the year. Flippers and speculators seem to be having a field day. So you end up with density of buildings, not people, at least not year-round. With luck, some of the ground-floor retail will make up for that but some of these have nothing but parking garages facing the street.

And those part-time residents don't care as much about many of the little amenities of a city that people on this board care about.

Take a look at all of the dark windows in the Vendome or the Mayfair in the evening. I think this is already an issue in Dallas. It will interesting to see if the same phenomenon takes place when the Ritz-Carlton, Azure and W open.

[rantanamo]

And those part-time residents don't care as much about many of the little amenities of a city that people on this board care about.

Very true, very true. It bothers me none for tower in park type towers. Its the mixed-use, more urban type that I think could take away from the energy of the city by taking away peds and the retail they could bring in.

[Lakewooder]

Yep, like Venice, where there are many people who only have vacation homes, the population has dropped...

[Tnekster]

I think it depends on how the development is setup. West Village is very active most of the time but then again they have brought together a mix of development that virtually guarantees that will happen. A tower like the Vendome is very different and probably caters to those homeowners that want it that way. I know people that live there and they use it as a primary residence and not a vacation home. Victory will be very much like West Village in that the development will bring more people into the development every day than the number of people that actually live there. Chicago has a large number of dwellers that buy for the investment and only use their high rise when they happen to be in the city. How many of the rich and famous maintain homes in Manhattan that only use them when they jet into town? Dallas is a business city, were not exactly known for our splendid vacation getaways and although I do agree that we will see some of that here as well I just don't see Dallas having the same kind of issues that a Miami is seeing.

[Mballar]

I think it depends on how the development is setup. West Village is very active most of the time but then again they have brought together a mix of development that virtually guarantees that will happen. A tower like the Vendome is very different and probably caters to those homeowners that want it that way. I know people that live there and they use it as a primary residence and not a vacation home. Victory will be very much like West Village in that the development will bring more people into the development every day than the number of people that actually live there. Chicago has a large number of dwellers that buy for the investment and only use their high rise when they happen to be in the city. How many of the rich and famous maintain homes in Manhattan that only use them when they jet into town? Dallas is a business city, were not exactly known for our splendid vacation getaways and although I do agree that we will see some of that here as well I just don't see Dallas having the same kind of issues that a Miami is seeing.
Well put. I agree!

[The Great Hizzy!]

Wow, can't believe I missed this thread. These questions raised by the author are the very ones I asked of some Miami forumers at another site. Given the land restrictions in place in Miami-Dade County, affordable housing becomes an even greater challenge, and my concern is that most of the 60-90 proposed or under construction projects under way in Miami seem to be high dollar or above average dollar dwellings that don't necessarily address the needs of the larger demographic who will soon be calling Miami home.

I don't think this becomes nearly the issue (overall) in Dallas that it might be now in Miami; Dallas has plenty of room to grow laterally and land use patterns aren't restricted in the same way; property values aren't skyrocketing and affordable housing can be provided in greater variety. Granted, this is still cause for some concern for Dallas residents, but for entirely different reason; Dallas also has suburban competition from outside municipalities that may pull burgeoning families of a variety of incomes away from the core municipality, but that's a different concern for a different thread.

In any case, Miami seems to be heading more towards the likes of a San Francisco than a Dallas at this point.

[texman]

Well, if DTD gets too expensive, we always have East Dallas. That area seems to be growing for the urban middle class with highrises included.

[HarryMoto]

Wow, can't believe I missed this thread. These questions raised by the author are the very ones I asked of some Miami forumers at another site.

Which forum are you referring to? Is there a Miami or South Florida forum akin to this one? I always thought there should be considering the amount of notable Deco and MiMo (Miami Modern) architecture in the region, the presence of major architecture firms like Arquitectonica, and the major architecture/land use issues facing the region.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I believe I asked it at the SSP site. I'm sure there is a Miami architecture site somewhere that is more or less similar to this one, HAIF and the Fort Worth site.

[Tnekster]

Housing speculators retreat



'Too much inventory' causing desperation among some investors


12:00 AM CST on Friday, November 25, 2005



Bloomberg News



Lisa Tershak is offering to pay $5,500 in cash to anyone who buys her three-bedroom house in Leesburg, Va., near Washington.

She's reduced the investment property's asking price five times since July to $464,900, not far from the $450,000 she paid for it in March.

"There's too much inventory," says Ms. Tershak, 35. "Everyone felt the bust coming and decided to dump their properties at the same time."

Investors who helped fuel the U.S. housing boom by bidding up prices are now so desperate for buyers that some are offering cash bonuses in such markets as Washington.

Inventories of unsold single-family homes are near a 17-year high as demand from speculators has waned and mortgage rates have risen from a four-decade low reached in 2003.

"We're at the turning point," says Susan Wachter, professor of real estate at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "We're all hoping for a flat market, and not a plummeting market."

That would be welcomed by Federal Reserve policy-makers as a sign that they are succeeding in slowing the economy to a sustainable pace of growth, said Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York.

"We have seen a 65 basis-point rise in mortgage rates over the last nine weeks, and this does appear to be starting to slow mortgage purchase applications," Mr. Maki says.



The Fed has raised interest rates 12 times in the past year and a half to slow growth to a pace that won't kindle inflation.

The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage, at 6.37 percent, has risen for 10 straight weeks, according to Freddie Mac, the second-biggest purchaser of U.S. mortgages. Applications for loans to purchase real estate are down 12 percent from the record set in June, the Mortgage Bankers Association reports.

Investment buying




Investment buying accounted for almost a quarter of U.S. home transactions last year, according to the National Association of Realtors. Investment-home purchases rose 14 percent to 1.8 million in 2004 from 1.57 million in 2003. The group doesn't have 2005 figures.

David Berson, chief economist at Fannie Mae, said declining demand from speculators will help slow home sales to an annualized 6.77 million this quarter from a record 7.24 million in the third quarter.

"Perhaps investors have decided this is the right time to move out of housing and into other assets," he says.

The falloff in demand is already being felt in regions such as Las Vegas, the fastest-growing housing market in the U.S. a year earlier.

"The mom-and-pop investors are unloading their properties," says Greg Sullivan, a partner in Cash Now Vegas LLC, a Las Vegas company that buys homes from investors and resells them. "When home values were going up $10,000 a month, everyone wanted in. Now, all those properties are sitting empty."

Nationwide, home sales probably will decline in every quarter of 2006, Mr. Berson said.

'Soft landing'




Some 2.45 million single-family houses were listed for sale in September, and the rate of growth in the U.S. median home price will probably slow to 5.3 percent next year from 12 percent this year, according to the Realtors.

"This is the sign of a soft landing in the marketplace," said Nicolas Retsinas, director of housing studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. "I do believe the levels of price appreciation in some of the markets, particularly the two coasts, were unsustainable. At some point they had to moderate."

Still, demand for less expensive housing remains strong.

D.R. Horton Inc., which builds homes that cost less than the national average, reported Nov. 16 that fourth-quarter earnings soared 61 percent and raised its earnings forecast for next year. Fort Worth-based Horton is the largest U.S. homebuilder.

The Fed is "getting exactly what they wanted, and that is a little bit of the 'froth' taken away, but still the economic growth, and growth that supports housing," said Bob Walters, chief economist at Quicken Loans Inc. in Livonia, Mich.

Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor who's now senior economic adviser at Stanford Washington Research Group in Washington, says market forces played a larger role than speculation in pushing up home prices.

Prices rose because of economic growth, low interest rates and a shortage of building lots in some markets, he says.

First to run




"When fundamental factors drive prices up, it certainly does encourage speculation and more buying by investors," Mr. Gramley says. "And when the froth begins to come out of the market, those are the first people who run for the hills."

Cooling speculation is just one sign the housing market is slowing.

Toll Brothers Inc., the largest U.S. builder of luxury homes, on Nov. 8 reduced its sales forecast for 2006 to 9,500 to 10,200 homes from as many as 10,600 projected on Aug. 25.

October housing starts fell to 2.01 million at an annual rate, from 2.13 million the previous month.

Some experts say home prices in previously hot markets such as Boston and Washington will fall in 2006. Mr. Gramley foresees "declines in home prices of maybe 10, 15 or 20 percent on both coasts on a year-over-year basis." "The economy can take that," he says. "It won't cause a major problem, but we don't know if it will stop there."