As Downtown LA’s busy skyline of cranes indicates, construction is surging in the neighborhood. Rentcafe has quantified just how many new apartments those cranes have brought.
The rental data site analyzed PropertyShark and Yardi Matrix construction data in about 1,000 U.S. neighborhoods, looking at “large-scale rental buildings of 50 or more units located in the largest 30 cities in the U.S.” It found that from 2010 to 2016, 7,551 new units in 35 new residential buildings were built in DTLA.
In that six-year period, these new additions accounted for 63 percent of all available rentals in Downtown, says Rentcafe.
Downtown ranked second among big-city neighborhoods that added the most new units. Long Island City in New York added 12,533 units over the same period of time.
Separate reports looking at the city as a whole have found that while LA is on track to add a record number of units this year, it’s still far less than the number of units that were put on the market in the 1980s.
Though the number of units being brought to market is relatively high according to Rentcafe’s findings, experts have indicated that the units probably aren’t coming online fast enough to create a sizeable dip in LA’s rental prices, which are rising more rapidly than the rents in the rest of the state.
Also, the wave of development may be hitting a wall: An analysis of building permits showed a 6 percent drop in the total number of permits issued in 2015 and the total number of those issued in 2016. That drop is notable as it’s the first such decrease in six years. It remains to be seen whether the decline is the start of a larger trend.
- Top U.S. Neighborhoods that Got the Most Apartments After the Recession [Rentcafe]
- LA rents have surged 4.5 percent since last year [Curbed LA]
- LA developers on pace to build highest number of apartments in two decades [Curbed LA]
Comments
Hold on just a gosh darn minute, My fellow Regulation Bashing-Rent Control is the root of all of our problems-California/LA and it’s liberals are stifling building, Conservatives know best – people: HOW CAN THIS BE TRUE???:
"Downtown ranked second among big-city neighborhoods that added the most new units. Long Island City in New York added 12,533 units over the same period of time."
Why aren’t Anti-Regulation-No Rent Control-Conservatives know best- Cities doing better than us? Why aren’t they building more in their superior pro-growth enviornment? Why aren’t they attracting a larger Demand to encourage said growth? LA is so terrible, you guys state it pretty much as a fact, so how on earth can they be number 2nd in growth. Something isn’t adding up……..
Cue ppl like Or_Nah throwing personal insults rather than something of substance
By USCTrojan90 on 06.06.17 6:04pm
These new apartments are not subject to rent control. They are all built on former parking lots or underutilized commercial land Downtown. Also, Downtown is about the only place where large numbers of apartments are being built. The region as a whole is not building nearly enough to keep rents from soaring.
By LA Denizen on 06.07.17 9:44am
@LA Denizen: It is irrelevant whether or not they are Rent controlled. Almost ALL apartments built after that 1970ish cut off are market rate. The point I was making was that soooo many of our typical LAcurbed commentators constantly like to condemn LA saying we’re being run into the ground by out of crazy liberals, that our Regulations are causing such havoc, that Rent Control among other things is making us soooo much worse than other cities
But thats simply a load of nonsense. Yea things could be better don’t get me wrong (we certainly arent building enough, although we’re building 2nd most), but these ppl make it seem as though LA is at the bottom of the list, NOT the Top which this post proves. Until we see a "Conservative" (or more Conservative) run city pulling stats like this, those ppl don’t have substantiated proof nor ground to stand on making their overly negative claims.
If our "oh so stiffling regulations" result in us being number 2 on the list, i’ll take out regulations, over the deregulated (often red) cities/states, any. darn. day.
Bet you the writers put this article in part to address those fools who constantly want to act like LA is darn near the worst city in America. But we all know the trolls (like Or_NAHare going to descend upon this post somehow looking to condemn & criticize LA. Yet they cant point to a "conservative, deregulated, non-rent controlled" city/state thats doing it better.
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 9:58am
The regulations on construction don’t really apply to the downtown market, which is already zoned for massive height and density. I believe most of these projects are by-right, so the "regulations" we complain about (I am the opposite of a conservative, BTW) are the ones preventing much-needed new development in neighborhoods like Hollywood.
LA is a great city, and California is, in my opinion, the best state in the nation – that doesn’t mean that things like outdated zoning and rent control aren’t giving us problems for our housing and affordability.
Tokyo is often cited among housing/urban planning geeks as a de-regulated city that, because of the lack of regulations, manages to stay more affordable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#10312f2648d5
By disqusted on 06.07.17 11:10am
@Disqusted: I actually agree with you for the most part, I guess my issue or misunderstanding is with how aggressive some of the anti-regulation comments are. I absolutely agree area’s like Hollywood, Beverly Grove, WeHo Santa Monica Corridor, ect should be zoned in a manner that promotes increased density. But keep in mind the City for the most part agrees with you/us too. Hollywood was recently rezoned, but when you have Wienstein and those anti-development ppl/organizations suing the new zoning plan, there’s only so much progress we can make.
But something about your Tokyo reference: Do we really want to emulate Tokyo? Look where their de-regulated housing sector got them? Have you seen the size of their apartments, the extreme density? Their standard of living is certainly different than ours, and in a country where Bigger is Better, I’m not sure how that would go over. For instance, one of my favorite things about LA is that I could get a massive 1 bedroom (roughly 850-1000sqft), with a pool, wall to tall balcony, garage parking, on site laundry all for $1600. For $1600 you’d get a closet in NYC. We also cant just get rid of our parking/automotive related regulations bc unlike NYC and Tokyo, we are WAY to spread out and lack the rapid-transit to offset removing those.
But yes, there are certainly SOME regulations we could get rid of. Moderate tones convince more ppl and yours certainly accomplished that.
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 11:54am
This has nothing to do with rent control, conservatives or liberals.
It has everything to do with a nationwide NIMBY problem and bad zoning policy (plus a broken CEQA) feeding each other.
By goingup on 06.07.17 3:24pm
@Goingup: So the issue is nationwide, not really an LA one? Meaning LA is one of the least bad offenders compared to other cities? (since DTLA ranks number 2, and LA overall ranks number 5) Well, if thats the case, i’ll take whatever LA is doing in comparison to the other cities nationwide.
Can we improve? Yes. Are we even close to one of the worst? No. Is our so called Liberal Over-regulated Housing Policies stifling construction? Well, compared to the rest of the country I think this proves the answer is No. Condition of relativity and compared to our counter parts were doing better than most.
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 3:42pm
I think if you look at LA’s numbers per capita, you’ll find us way, way, down on the list.
Even if that were not true however, our measuring stick should not be the crap performance of other cities. The number of units LA needs right now is in the hundreds of thousands. That’s the number that we need to match, not Long Island City’s.
By goingup on 06.07.17 10:21pm
How do you build more when there is no free land and it is a matter of redevelopment? Los Angeles is very much built out and now its just a game of reusing land. I don’t see rental units coming online fast enough and people will have to live further away for affordable rents. I know many people that live in Valencia, Palmdale, Lancaster, etc and commute in due to unaffordable rents near their work.
By PhilipPi on 06.07.17 9:54am
@Sunk818: Your 100% right, we are not building/creating new units fast enough, but we are doing it at the 2nd best rate in the entire country.
Our issue so it seems is less to do with those often demonized liberal over-regulated stifling conditions, but more so because of the MASSIVE demand LA creates (Due to but not limited to its Climate, liberal tolerant/welcoming environment, diverse culture, ect…)
Also unfortunately I have a feeling most of these units built were the so called "luxury" units that only the upper-middle class & upper class can afford (or multiple ppl packed into units). So if someone was in that category, i’m sure they’re feeling the benifits of this stat . However, even if the average Angeleno cant afford those new units, building this many units is certainly having a positive effect on housing costs in comparison to if LESS units were built.
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 10:13am
Read the report closer. It is just comparing neighborhoods across the country. LA as a whole would rank very low in building new apartments.
By LA Denizen on 06.07.17 10:29am
The "2nd best rate" in the country is only for the specific neighborhood of downtown. City-wide, LA falls behind New York, but also behind Dallas and Houston/Ft. Worth, in terms of housing starts, despite the latter two cities having a much smaller population base: http://www.constructconnect.com/blog/economy/historical-pattern-composition-housing-starts-major-u-s-cities/
So there is your example of "conservative" cities with fewer regulations that affect housing building more than Los Angeles. Don’t get me wrong, stuff is obviously getting built in Los Angeles, but not as much as we could, and more expensively than we could.
By disqusted on 06.07.17 11:16am
@disgusted: Being ranked 5th for Overall LA isnt terrible either, remember my critique is that the LA hatting demonizers on here often make it seem like we’re at the bottom of the barrel. not the top. And you have to keep in mind our square area relative of those other places. We have VERY residential zones like Hancock Park, Melrose, ect, that water down our ability to build multi-unit complexes quickly. The Nimby affect here is significantly stronger than NYC.
Also taking a quote from your post:
"Los Angeles (13.3 million people) is the nation’s second most populous MSA, but its housing starts total in 2016 (32,000 units) ranked fifth. Single-family permits in L.A. of late have remained well below their pre-Great Recession levels, but multi-family starts have soared past their best performances earlier in the period covered."
So once again, my point is that the doom and gloom comments/predictions we see frequently on here are not accurate based on real world conditions.
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 12:06pm
You seem to have some really specific comments and commenters in mind that I’m not familiar with. I read a lot of comments opposed to rent control but not many that I would call LA haters. People can be opposed to regulation and still think that LA is great. And LA can suffer from regulation and still be building a lot of new units. That doesn’t mean that LA isn’t suffering because of regulation. It just means that LA is so great that it can move forward in spite of the regulations. See? I love LA!
By CaliSon on 06.07.17 12:22pm
Totally agree. Our regulations and zoning are badly stifling us – we could (and should) be adding a multiple of that number of units every year without any problem.
By goingup on 06.07.17 3:27pm
@CaliSon: Now if everyone was as eloquent and rational with their critique as you just exhibited that would be one thing. However you sir you are the model/exception not the rule. I like you, have no issue with improving our city (especially zone issues in dense zone like Hollywood that prevent us from increasing density to adequate levels). However when ppl throw out blanket negative scathing critiques of LA, making it seem as though our "liberal overly regulated policies" are destroying the rate at which we are building, when in reality we are still VERY close to the top of the category….thats when I feel the need to call them out (and troll the trolls) . You however, do not fit that criteria.
@GoingUp: Doesnt seem to be stifling us to the degree of other cities
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 3:28pm
@USCTrojan90: LA is the most rent burdened city in the country, so you’ll forgive me if I disagree.
By goingup on 06.07.17 10:24pm
Trojan, please post another non-factual, illogical, word salad rant on this topic as I have truly enjoyed watching you beclown yourself in spectacular fashion these past two days.
By DJCRoy on 06.07.17 1:56pm
@DJCRoy: Dont worry I am sure you will post something soon to elicit a response from me. Or Curbed will post something else refuting your beliefs. But for now, I am quiet content with this one. Quite wonderful seeing statistics proving our city is not nearly as bad as you guys often claim nor are our regulations stifling our growth to the levels you ppl pretend it is. DTLA being 2nd, or overall LA being 5th is a ranking I am completely ok with (could be better, but FAR from the worst).
And please keep commenting on my posts. Im loving the attention. Heck my comments elicit as much response as the articles themselves
By USCTrojan90 on 06.07.17 3:33pm
I’m much less interested in a study that compares LA to other cities than I am to one that compares the number of new units built to the number of new units that we need, and that is a much less favorable comparison.
We need something like 550,000 new units. 7,551 barely makes a blip, no matter what other cities are doing.
By CaliSon on 06.08.17 11:29am
Yes, there’s number of new units, and then also number of new units per capita, and number of new units relative to the demand/vacancy rate. No matter which way you slice it, development in LA is waaayyyy behind what we need to create more affordability.
By disqusted on 06.08.17 2:01pm