Boston NOT One of America's Emptiest Cities

kennedy

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
7
Another one of these doom and gloom articles, with Boston appearing (along with NYC) as one city that isn't becoming a ghost town.

America's Emptiest Cities

by Zack O'Malley Greenburg, Forbes.com

Call it a modern-day tale of two cities.

For decades, Las Vegas, ripe with new construction and economic development, burgeoned into a shimmering urban carnival. Detroit, once the fulcrum of American industry, sagged and rusted under its own weight.

These days, it's the worst of times for both.

Las Vegas edged Detroit for the title of America's most abandoned city. Atlanta came in third, followed by Greensboro, N.C., and Dayton, Ohio. Our rankings, a combination of rental and homeowner vacancy rates for the 75 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the country, are based on fourth-quarter data released Feb. 3 by the Census Bureau. Each was ranked on rental vacancies and housing vacancies; the final ranking is an average of the two.

Cities like Detroit and Dayton are casualties of America's lengthy industrial decline. Others, like Las Vegas and Orlando, are mostly victims of the recent housing bust. Boston and New York are among the lone bright spots, while Honolulu is the nation's best with a vacancy rate of 5.8% for homes and a scant 0.5% for rentals.

Still, empty neighborhoods are becoming an increasingly daunting problem across the country. The national rental vacancy rate now stands at 10.1%, up from 9.6% a year ago; homeowner vacancy has edged up from 2.8% to 2.9%. Richmond, Va.'s rental vacancy rate of 23.7% is the worst in America, while Orlando's 7.4% rate is lousiest on the homeowner side. Detroit and Las Vegas are among the worst offenders by both measures--the Motor City sports vacancy rates of 19.9% for rentals and 4% for homes; Sin City has rates of 16% and 4.7%, respectively.

"It's a mess," says Vegas developer Laurence Hallier. "Right now, things are just frozen. Everybody's scared."

Hallier, 40, knows from experience. His $600 million Panorama Towers complex was a tremendous success at its inception three years ago. The first of his four planned residential skyscrapers sold out in six months; the second, which opened in 2007, sold out in 12 weeks. As the third tower neared completion last fall, Hallier had sold 92% of its units. Then the recession hit, and only half the units ended up closing. Hallier says it will take years to break even, and plans for the fourth tower have been delayed indefinitely.

There are others who've made--and lost--far worse gambles on Vegas property. In 2007, Israeli billionaire Yitzhak Tshuva and partner Nochi Dankner paid $1.25 billion to buy a 34.5-acre site on the Strip, with plans to build an $8 billion mega-casino modeled after New York's Plaza Hotel. By November, the value of the lot had plummeted to $650 million--half what they paid for it. Groundbreaking on the casino has been pushed back to 2010, and today, the land may be worth less than the $625 million Tshuva and Dankner borrowed to buy it.

The Plaza debacle is emblematic of the problems afflicting millions of property owners in Vegas and around the country--and can explain, in large part, the origins of America's housing crisis.

As real estate prices skyrocketed during the boom, consumers took out massive loans to buy homes, assuming values would continue to rise. Instead they took a nosedive, especially in places like Las Vegas, Florida and Phoenix, where the housing boom had created excess inventory and so-called "bad loans" were rampant. Many homeowners suddenly found themselves with properties worth far less than the mortgages they'd taken out. In the worst cases, banks foreclosed, leaving people without homes--and with more debt than they'd had to begin with.

The situation in places like Las Vegas is bad enough, but Detroit's problems run much deeper. Though its vacancy rates are marginally better than Sin City's, Motown has been on the empty side for decades. An industrial boomtown during the first half of the 20th century, Detroit's population swelled from 285,000 in 1900 to 990,000 in 1920, reaching a peak of 1.8 million in 1950.

But starting in the 1960s, Detroit began a precipitous decline. Detroit's population is now 900,000--half what it was in the middle of the century--and many of its neighborhoods languish in varying states of decay. Most scholars blame rapid suburbanization, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and federal programs they say exacerbated the situation by creating a culture of joblessness and dependency.

Yet after more than half a century, countless scholars, politicians, community organizers developers and nonprofit workers have been unable to come up with a solution to fix Detroit.

Will Las Vegas eventually suffer the same fate?

"I don't think Vegas is overbuilt," says Hallier. "Despite what everybody says, Vegas still has 2 million people."

Time will tell if this sort of optimism is warranted. Cynics who've witnessed Detroit's decline might liken Hallier's opinions to another Dickens oeuvre: Great Expectations.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-emptiest-cities.html
 
Well no duh. The building boom in the SunBelt was based on housing construction, an unsustainable industry in all but the most favorable bubble economies. Boston and NYC have so much going for it, education, health care, high tech, the list goes on. But time will tell just how this recession will affect Boston and NYC.
 
Boston has its problems but it's never going to have THIS problem, not as long as it's chock full of universities and hospitals.
 
Vegas was built on a bet over which dried up first: pool of greedy developers or the Colorado.
 
Is Vegas in trouble because the pool of gamblers is way down, or because each average gambler is individually spending (losing) less money in casinos?

As for Detroit, I'd like to understand why its decline has been managed so much less gracefully than Cleveland's or Pittsburgh's.
 
Well, Boston is still 25% emptier than it was in 1950.
 
Boston and even New York, which is not as dependent on finance as it might seem, have relatively diversified economies vis-a-vis rust belt wastelands clinging to heavy industry and sunbelt mirages subsisting on sunscreen and real estate.

Has anyone been following the horror stories from Fort Myers?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08lehigh.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/09/090209fa_fact_packer

Maybe Richard Florida is right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography

Re: Las Vegas, another reason we don't need Harry Reid's toy train to nowhere, which is giving high speed rail a bad name in Washington. Acela needs huge technical and capacity upgrades - and the rest of the Northeast could use better service, too. There's no reason people here should be flying around on shitty little turboprop planes that can easily fall victim to harsh weather when the same distance in Europe would be covered by competitive rail service.
 
Florida real estate has always been tricky.

Lehigh Acres is and has always been a dump. When you fly into "Lee County International Airport" you come in right over it. Nothing but hundreds of acres of subdivision streets laid out in old cattle country with no houses.

The unincorporated part of "Ft Myers" between McGregor and the Caloosahatchie River is nice. Sanibel is very nice, though more crowded than I would like, and Captiva and a few buckets of Planters' Punch is divine.

L1110073.jpg


L1110076.jpg


L1110120.jpg


L1110123.jpg


L1110127.jpg


L1110133.jpg
 
^ No surprise the beachfront property is doing ok.
 
As for Detroit, I'd like to understand why its decline has been managed so much less gracefully than Cleveland's or Pittsburgh's.

Ron, my guess would be that Detroit was more of one industry town compared to Cleveland or Pittsburgh. All have suffered, but historically Detroit seems to have had a much greater boom and then bust cycle.
 
A lot if not most of the credit in Boston has to go to the leadership in the city. There is a plaque in Downtown Crossing listing the names of this group.
 
Pittsburgh was once a one industry town, too - it wasn't known as "Steeltown" for nothing. The city went to great pains to diversify the local economy, doing all that it could to copy the Boston/SF model of investment in higher education, high tech, and medicine. None of that effort managed to reverse Pittsburgh's decline, though; it merely stabilized it.
 
Still, they did something right. Nobody today uses Pittsburgh as a metaphor for misgovernment, crime, and decay. The downtown skyline is gorgeous and the university district between Pitt and CMU is quite attractive.

I've met people who were quite enthusiastic about moving to Pittsburgh -- something that's impossible to imagine for Detroit.
 
I generally agree. Pittsburgh is pleasant. You have to wonder if it has at least one thing Cleveland and Detroit do not - scenery, maybe? - that helps arrest its decline. If geography is destiny in an inherenly mobile knowledge economy, then it's no wonder the coasts continue to thrive, along with some nestled, hilly oases (Austin comes to mind, too).

Still, a cautionary note from Florida:

Many second-tier midwestern cities have tried to reinvent themselves in different ways, with varying degrees of success. Pittsburgh, for instance, has sought to reimagine itself as a high-tech center, and has met with more success than just about anywhere else. Still, its population has declined from a high of almost 700,000 in the mid-20th century to roughly 300,000 today.
 
Pittsburgh is most definitly not in decline and in fact (until recently) has been doing very nicely. It's more or less on the Boston model: universities lead to hospitals that lead to high-tech that lead to etc, etc, etc.
 
Where is this plaque specifically?

It was dead center at Summer/Winter & Washington intersection. I don't know if it's still there and I don't remember if this group was 'The Vault' or if included more people that the vault. We never mention Mayor Hynes or Collins on this board but they deserve a lot of credit. I we look around we can see a lot of mistakes but Boston was absolutely desperate, possibly the worst city in the country. Someday I find the quote from Fourtune Magazine fro, maybe the 30's that was something to effect, Boston is dead and wil never come back.
 
Really? I associate Collins and Hynes with the city's worst mistakes -- the demolition of the West End and Scollay Square.

I'll look around there for the plaque soon.
 
I know "What if" history is a fools game, but I often wonder what would have happened to Boston if the West End was never demo'd and the Expressway was never built.
Would the city have bounced back the way the North End did, or continued it downward spiral to oblivion?
 
Really? I associate Collins and Hynes with the city's worst mistakes -- the demolition of the West End and Scollay Square.

I'll look around there for the plaque soon.

The thing is how many of us on this forum would have known that then. Not me.
 

Back
Top