The basic criterion for acceptance into the Hall of Fame is outstanding business performance coupled with a high standard of ethics. Usually the honorees are responsible for successful and/or innovative business activities and have made major life-long contributions to our industry.
– All nominees must be retired from their primary business or
– Must be at least 65 years of age or
– Be deceased
Nominations are not limited to University of St Thomas graduates.
Nominees can represent any discipline related to real estate in Minnesota. The nomination committee is encouraged to nominate candidates from all disciplines of both commercial and residential real estate. The committee is encouraged to solicit recommendations from the real estate community and to encourage others from outside the committee to make nominations to insure a wide variety of candidates.
The Selection Committee will consider the following when making their selection of honorees:
Business: the nominee has made a significant contribution as a leader in the field of real estate;
Nominees are expected to have made a significant impact in their particular area of real estate and be recognized primarily as a person that is an exceptional role model in their discipline.
Weight will be given to such accomplishments as starting and building a business, leading an established business to significantly greater achievements, major transactions, and innovative projects.
Among the factors to be considered are industry recognitions and accomplishments, being an industry pioneer and/or leader, and recognition by others for achievements.
Community: the nominee has had concern for improving his/her community as a business leader
Ethics: the nominee has displayed the highest level of ethics in their business practices.
Beyond the criteria noted here, the Selection Committee has the responsibility and discretionary power to make their determinations from the pool of nominations submitted.
The October 2018 University of St. Thomas / Minnesota Commercial Real Estate Survey is continuing to show to show changes in the sentiment of our panelists as they look out over the next two years. The biannual survey projects a two-year ahead outlook for Minnesota’s commercial real estate industry and forecasts potential opportunities and challenges affecting all commercial real estate sectors.
As was done with all fifteen of our previous surveys, the same group of 50 commercial real estate industry leaders involved in development, finance, and investment were polled regarding their expectations of near-term, future commercial real estate activity. The decisions that these industry leaders are making today will determine what the CRE markets will look like two years from now.
Fall 2018 Results
Observations from October 2018 have recorded several notable changes in the panel’s expectations that were observed in the last survey conducted in December 2017. “There is some concern that we are near the top of the cycle and that overbuilding and increased vacancies may occur in some product types and submarkets.” says Herb Tousley, Director of the Real Estate Programs at the University of St Thomas. “While the forecast for 2020 has become slightly less optimistic, there is no expectation of a major downturn in the commercial real estate market in the Twin Cities. The increase in online shopping, higher interest rates, changes in housing trends and the continued redefinition of the office environment will remain major factors in the performance of commercial real estate in the coming two years.”
Our panelists seem to be most concerned about the expected increase in the cost of building materials and the impact of rising interest rates on values and expected returns for developers and investors. The panel has changed to a more pessimistic outlook on all categories (see the chart at the end of the report). While our respondents are not expecting a major downturn, they are more concerned about future prospects than they have been in our previous surveys.
The composite index of all the other indices the survey continues to indicate a slightly less than neutral expectation looking ahead two years to late 2020. The composite index was recorded at 42. This is slightly less optimistic than the 43 that was recorded a year ago. Index values greater than 50 represent a more optimistic view of the market over the next two years, with values of less than 50 indicating a more pessimistic view. More detailed information about each of the individual indices may be found below.
The individual indexes are detailed below:
The outlook for rental rates has become less optimistic. Market conditions expected in late 2020 are best described by the price for space (rental rates) and the supply of space (occupancy levels). The index for rental rates was 62 compared to 67 one year ago. This means the panel now has a lower expectation of the rate rents will increase for all property types over the next two years. The panel’s sentiment is that the economy will continue to grow and that business conditions will continue improve at slower pace, creating less competition for commercial space.
The outlook for occupancy levels has changed significantly moving from slightly optimistic 52 to more pessimistic 43. This indicates the panelist’s belief that occupancy levels and space absorption may not remain at current levels during the next two years. As a great deal of new product has been delivered the panel is beginning to be concerned about the market’s ability to absorb the new space. This is especially noticeable in the multi-family, office and industrial segments. It is a continuation of a general trend that began 4 years ago. Businesses will continue to grow but they are concentrating on reducing their cost of occupancy by doing more with less space.
Land Price Expectations
The rate of increase in land prices is expected moderate. The land price index has increased (become less pessimistic) in the current survey moving from 38 last in December 2107 to 46 this fall. The lowest point for the index was recorded at 31 in the fall 2013 survey. This index has become somewhat less pessimistic. Although land prices are expected to continue to increase during the next two years, any moderation in the rate of increase would help to keep total project costs in check. Higher land prices are a hindrance to new development, making it more difficult to obtain financing and adequate returns for investors.
Building Material Price Expectations
There is a continued expectation that increases in the price of building materials will continue to accelerate. The index for the price of building supplies remains strongly negative, moving from 24 in December 2017 to 27 in October 2018. The panel believes that commodity prices for lumber, concrete, steel and many of the other materials used in construction will continue to increase due to shortages and newly imposed tariffs. Since building materials are a major cost component of any development project any increases in prices will make it difficult to provide adequate returns on future developments.
Return on Investment Expectations
Our panel expects that investors return on investment expectations will increase. The index for investor’s return expectations has become more pessimistic moving from 42 to 39. This indicates that investors will be expecting to achieve higher returns. The consensus among survey respondents indicates that investors will be seeking higher returns due to their expectation of increasing interest rates and concern about market fundamentals over the next two years. Investors will continue to seek out quality investments but they will be much more diligent about how they price risk and evaluate return when considering their investment options.
Equity and loan to value requirements are expected to remain essentially unchanged. The index for the amount of equity required by lenders has decreased slightly, moving from 42 to 41 in December 2017 to 42 in October 2018. Although interest rates have increased somewhat since our last survey, the panel’s belief that is even if interest rates continue to increase moderately credit will still be available for good projects. However, they expect lenders will continue be more risk adverse by tightening their underwriting criteria in the coming two years.
As the economy has stabilized in the past few years, the high-end multifamily housing market has experienced strong growth. Meanwhile, however, a latent demand for affordability has emerged as an untapped market that’s been underserved for years.
Increasingly, developers are looking to affordable projects, which are more appealing to lenders when they reach the cap on the high-density/high-rent projects that had been ruling many markets. The balance between high-rent and more-affordable apartments is also affected by land costs, construction and labor costs, and development speed.
Cost-consciousness is increasingly important as conventional construction costs remain steady despite the industry slowdown. In fact, contractors reviewing work over the past several years have seen construction costs go up on multifamily construction by about $10 per square foot per year. Shaving time off the construction schedule saves money on the construction loan and extra months of interest while getting to revenue generation sooner.
One hedge against labor and construction costs as well as schedule overruns is modular production. In addition to increasing the speed and reducing the cost of construction, modular building provides consistent quality and shortens the design time by providing a kit of parts design teams can work with rather than needing to design everything from the ground up.
Transitioning to the Modular Mind-Set
Changing the speed and method of construction requires changing the mind-set of the design and construction teams. Savvy design is directly tied to how well the teams understand the manufacturing process. In short, to succeed with modular, the teams must rethink how they put things together.
The key is to take the best ideas in terms of both exterior and interior spaces and figure out how to execute those ideas in the factory rather than build them piece by piece in the field. Each individual component requires its own set of considerations: from interiors, including bathrooms and kitchens, to the common spaces, including elevators and stairs, to exteriors, including cladding and framing.
The modular construction trend started with the same philosophy as micro-unit prototypes that emerged a decade ago. At that time, architects and designers sought to make small units for infill projects that also happened to be great places to live. The key to making these smaller spaces more appealing was proper proportions and correct lighting.
Layouts that were shallower from corridor to glass allowed for more daylight across the window width, opening up the room. The smaller size also allowed more room in the budget for upgraded finishes, resulting in a small but well-appointed space. For residents, the smaller, more-affordable units provided access to urban neighborhoods that otherwise might have been beyond their budgets.
Helping Renters Caught in the Middle
Since the recession, there’s been a gap in mid-level housing development while developers focused on affordable, subsidized housing and high-density, luxury projects in urban areas with higher rents. People whose incomes are too high to qualify for subsidies have more-limited options, which presents an opportunity for modular designs that drive costs down and fill the gap with quality housing at affordable prices.
When they’re designing multi-unit housing, developers look at the bottom line: Higher rents are the biggest driver, and if nicer fixtures command higher rents, there’s no reason to downgrade. The only way to alter this calculus, then, is to change how the apartment itself is built. Modular building provides the means to do so.
There have been movements in the past toward greater efficiency that have helped the individual construction trades from a built-product standpoint but not a labor standpoint, so the developer didn’t realize the savings. But with manufactured components, efficiency reaches a whole new level.
Trending to the Future
Changes to the overall structure of the community, with demographic shifts, can have a ripple effect. New projects generate work in places that haven’t seen development in the recent past, helping to revitalize a neighborhood.
Redevelopment spurs communities to initiate improvement efforts and attracts new residents. In this way, modular components ultimately can redefine multifamily living by providing quality housing with more-reasonable rents, thereby attracting more tenants and giving the entire town a boost.
According to Minnesota Compass, 48.4 percent of Minneapolis households are overburdened by housing costs. To explain, these households pay more than 30% of their gross income towards housing. Just for reference, a house in Minneapolis is averaging around $200,000 which for a first time home buyer with 10 percent down payment amounts to a monthly mortgage around $1,400 including an estimates for coverages and taxes.
There are many factors affecting this overburdened number. According to a Minneapolis City Council housing report, the city’s current population [approx. 412,000] has not been this high since the 1970’s which is still lower than the peak seen in 1950 [reported 521,718]. Further exacerbating the issue is the fact that there are about the same amount of units today as in 1950 in conjunction with a decrease in average household size. In 1950, it was roughly 3.3 persons per household compared to today’s 2.3 persons per household.
The most recent residential housing report from the University of St. Thomas and the 2017 Housing Market Comprehensive Analysis by HUD, give evidence that the cost burden is a result of the simple economic principle of supply and demand. The influx of demand for housing within Minneapolis has increased the risk of displacement. Housing prices are up year over year and there remains record low vacancy levels of 4 percent. Talks with a political liaison, Mark Stenglein, and local developer and founder Bob Lux of Atalus, LLC, reinforced the challenges to affordable housing Continue Reading
Affordable housing is and has been a buzzword in the real estate industry for years. It carries many misconceptions. Let’s clear up these misconceptions before going further.
First, affordable housing is not typically affordable to everyone. It is affordable in that rent or sale value is reduced from market rates in order to allow individuals and families below the median income level to not be “overburdened” by rent or mortgage payments.
Second, the majority of people assisted HAVE jobs and ARE productive members of their communities in which they reside. The idea that affordable housing induces crime and the lowering of community home values, to name a few, is false.
Third, affordable housing is just like any other rental or purchase agreement with the addition of a historical income check. Owners and tenants undergo credit checks and asked of employment. Just in case you weren’t convinced when I stated earlier that a majority of affordable housing owners and tenants are employed.
So, why is this topic being brought up? Of almost 116 million households surveyed by the 2013 American Housing Survey, 36 percent are by definition overburdened by housing costs. To be overburdened by Federal government definition, a household must pay more than 30 percent of their yearly income. There are multiple perspectives to even this number, but before “Part 2” of this discussion, we ask the reader to do some research.
Do you think more affordable housing is needed? Is it a policy issue? Is it a supply and demand issue?
Our reason to talk about affordable housing is simple. With more than a third of the United States overburdened by housing costs and as a part of the University of St. Thomas, the Shenehon Center for Real Estate serves as a resource to the commercial, industrial, residential and corporate segments of real estate industry and the community to advance the public interest in real estate issues and to advance the common good.
St. Thomas’ fourth semiannual survey of 35 industry leaders measures sentiment and is designed to be a forecasting tool.
Leaders in the Twin Cities single-family home-construction industry are generally optimistic about market conditions for the coming year although they have concerns about increasing mortgage rates and higher costs of land and building materials. That’s according to a new survey conducted by the University of St. Thomas Shenehon Center for Real Estate in partnership with the Builders Association of the Twin Cities.
The Twin Cities Home Builders Survey is patterned after St. Thomas’ Minnesota Commercial Real Estate Survey that began in 2010. The Home Builders Survey polls the same panel of 35 industry leaders annually in June and again in December about their expectations for the upcoming year in six key areas of the housing market. These experts are asked to assign a number of zero to 100 for each of the six questions. A midpoint score of 50 is neutral; scores higher than 50 indicate a more favorable outlook and scores lower than 50 indicate a more pessimistic outlook.
“The industry leaders we poll every six months are actively engaged in studying both the demand and supply side of the housing market,” said Herb Tousley, director of real estate programs at the university. “Since they are involved in creating new housing units and adjusting supply-to-demand conditions, these individuals are close to the actual changes taking place in the market.” “These results align closely with what we are hearing from the market and our members.” Said David Siegel, Executive Director of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. “While there is a great need for residential construction in the Twin Cities, there are still several factors holding it back including land prices, the regulatory burden and a shortage of labor.”
Here are the scores for each of the six questions that were asked in August 2017:
Housing Starts: 65
This score increased increased from 61 in December 2016 to 65, it indicates a high expectation that the number of single-family housing starts will show a marked increase in 2018. Last year was one of the best in recent years with about 5,300 permits issued.
Sale Price per S F: 74
This score is even more optimistic than last December’s score of 72. It reinforces the panel’s continued expectations that home prices will continue to increase. The net result is the belief that sale prices will increase at a rate that will more than offset the expected increases in project costs.
Land prices: 23
At 23 this index has decreased sharply from last December’s score of 31 moving even deeper into the pessimistic range. Indications are that the rate of increased land prices will accelerate in 2018. While there may be enough finished lots available, the higher land prices will squeeze profitability.
Availability of finished lots: 60
This index increased from 51 last December to 60 in June reflecting builders increased optimism that there will be an increase in the availability of finished lots in 2018. An adequate supply of well-located finished lots is crucial to the health of the home building industry.
Cost of building materials: 24
The outlook for the expected increases in the costs of building materials continues to persist. This index moved from 29 in December 2016 to an even more pessimistic score of 24 in June 2016. This score is an indication of increased concern by our panelists that much of the gain from increased sale prices and more building starts will be offset by higher costs. These expected increases in costs could depress profitability and could reduce the number of new homes built.
Mortgage rates: 28
This index remains unchanged at 28. It is an indication that the panel continues to expect mortgage rates to increase in the next 12 months. Although mortgage rates increased during the fourth quarter of 2016, most panelists are expecting an additional increase of ¼% to ½% half a percent within the next year. The affordability issues created by higher rates could put a damper on home-building activity.
Last week the Minnesota Business Journal reported, Lutsen Resort, a staple of Minnesota tourism for over 125 years, went on the market for just under 10 million dollars. However, it is not the first resort in the Great North to go on the market recently. The Star Tribune reports Gunflint Lodge sold for over 6 million dollars and Superior Shores and Resort, just south of Lutsen, in Two Harbors is also currently on the market.
Is this a trend? Why are resorts going on the market? Should consumers be worried about their options for North Shore leisure?
Herb Tousley, of the University of St. Thomas’ Shenehon Center for Real Estate, commented that these resorts often times require a “hands-on” approach to management of the site. He also noted, “due to this approach, many owners see the opportunity to sell, in what they perceive to be, a high value market in order to exit the business.”
Statistics from the U.S. Travel Association show that domestic leisure travel is up from 2 billion trips in 2007 to 2.28 billion trips reported in 2016. More specifically, the Minnesota average household income has returned to pre-recession levels at $79,893. The private sector employment numbers (FRED) also seem to indicate the economy is in relatively good health. These indicators are great for resorts and the hospitality industry in general. Even with the ominous question of, “are we due for an economic adjustment?” It is not a predictable event. From general market signs, a resort may be an investment for some leisure.
Since the housing bubble burst in 2008, the market has seen an increase in demand for homes, but home inventories remain stagnant. Further, either from the bank restrictions or consumer caution new home growth has been at record lows for the last 10 years. Whether this is just a trend or due to socio-economic reasons can be debated, but statistics do show Millenials are living with their parents longer and seem to be putting off buying homes due to a different economic situation than previous generations at the same age (US Census).
1. For-sale inventories dropped even lower over the past year.
For the fourth year in a row, the inventory of homes for sale across the US not only failed to recover, but dropped yet again. At the end of 2016 there were an historically low 1.65 million homes for sale nationwide, which at the current sales rate was just 3.6 months of supply – almost half of the 6.0 months level that is considered a balanced market.
2. Fewer homes were built over the last 10 years than any 10-year period in recent history.
Even with the recent recovery in both single-family and multifamily construction, markets nationwide are still feeling the effects of the deep and extended decline in housing construction. Over the past 10 years, just 9 million new housing units were completed and added to the housing stock. This was the lowest 10-year period on records dating back to the 1970s, and far below the 14 and 15 million units averaged over the 1980s and 1990s.
By QuickLiquidity | Date: June 13, 2017 | Category: History
In the late-1920s, New York’s economy was booming and a competition to build the world’s tallest building was heating up. One man who was at the center of it all was Walter Chrysler of the Chrysler Corporation, who wanted to build the world’s tallest building as a monument to himself and American capitalism. Chrysler began construction of his monument, the Chrysler Building in 1928 at 405 Lexington Avenue. Despite the buildings name, the Chrysler Corporation did not pay for the construction of the building and never owned it. Instead Chrysler paid for it himself, with the hope of his children one day inheriting the world’s tallest building.
The architects of a competing building, 40 Wall Street, had devised a plan to prevent the Chrysler Building from ever becoming the world’s tallest building. Seeking the title for themselves, they planned 40 Wall Street to be 925 feet tall: 85 feet taller than the Chrysler Building had originally planned to be. When Chrysler found out about 40 Wall Street’s plans he decided to add a surprise 186-foot spire to his building. 40 Wall Street finished construction first in April of 1930, and held a celebration for being the tallest building in the world, without knowing that they were about to be surpassed. Less then two months later, the construction workers at the Chrysler Building hoisted 4 parts of the secret spire to the top and riveted them together in 90 minutes. At 1,046 feet high, the Chrysler Building became the world’s tallest building¹.
John J. Raskob of General Motors, a rival of Chryslers, also aspired to build the world’s tallest building. Raskob purchased 350 Fifth Avenue and began construction of the Empire State Building in March of 1930, only a few months before the Chrysler Building was completed. Raskob hired architect William F. Lamb, who finished the original drawings for the Empire State Building in only two weeks. In one of their first meetings Raskob had taken a jumbo pencil, stood it on its end and asked Lamb, “Bill, how high can you make it so that it won’t fall down?” Using over 3,400 laborers a day, the building went up in just over a year, well ahead of schedule and under budget at $40 million, which would be nearly $600 million today. During certain periods of construction, the frame grew a remarkable four-and-a-half stories a week. Not to be bested by the Chrysler Building, Raskob put the final cherry at the top of his building – a spire, making the Empire State Building a soaring 102 stories and 1,250 feet high. The Empire State Building was completed in May of 1931 and became the world’s tallest building, a title it would hold for nearly 40 years until the World Trade Center was completed in 1970. While successful in beating the Chrysler Building in height, the Empire State Building was far from being the success Raskob had hoped.
A recent post by the New York Times blog, shows Minneapolis is among the leaders in urban development. One may ask, why and how does Minneapolis keep attracting people to the city? Simple, the city’s diverse population allows for vibrant restaurants and events, and municipal transportation creates accessibility to and from these destinations. Looking deeper, destinations and even housing were only possible through recent Minneapolis commercial development. You can see from almost any point in the city a construction crane or sign saying, “Opening Soon.”
Setting aside apartment and condo developments, the last 15 years has seen revitalization of major Minneapolis buildings. The old Sears building on Lake Street is now the Midtown Global Market which hosts over 1.5 million visitors a year, and the Foshay Tower is now the W-Hotel. Recently, the Minneapolis Armory, also on the national landmark registrar, looks to be renovated into a venue hosting large crowds as an event center. The Armory was recently sold for $6 million dollars to Nedal Yusuf Abul-Hajj who has submitted plans to convert the 80 year old building.