Green Buildings: Fewer Sick Days, Higher Rents

Environmentally-friendly construction practices have gotten a lot of hype over the past few years but do they really pay off as an investment? A new study found that tenants in green buildings experience increased productivity and fewer sick days. The research also found that that green buildings have lower vacancy rates and higher rents than non-green counterparts.

The study, conducted by the University of San Diego and commercial real estate broker CB Richard Ellis Group, found that tenants in green buildings such as the Behnisch Architekten-designed Unilever offices in Hamburg above are more productive based on two measures: the average number of tenant sick days and a productivity change. Respondents reported an average of 2.88 fewer sick days in their current green office versus their previous non-green office. About 55% of respondents indicated that employee productivity had improved.

Based on the average tenant salary, an office space of 250 square feet per worker and 250 workdays a year, the decrease in sick days translated into a net impact of nearly $5.00 per square foot per year. The increase in productivity translated into a net impact of about $20 per square foot. The study also showed that green buildings have 3.5% lower vacancy rates and 13% higher rental rates than the market.

The work was based on surveys of 154 buildings under CBRE’s management, totaling more than 51.6 million square feet and housing 3,000 tenants in ten markets across the U.S. The study defined a green building as those with LEED certification at any level or those that bear the EPA ENERGY STAR ® label.

Another report out in the past week concluded that constructing new green buildings or retrofitting existing structures with energy efficient air conditioning, solar panels and the like will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy over the next four years. The study, by the U.S. Green Building Council and Booz Allen Hamilton, determined that green construction spending currently supports more than 2 million American jobs and generates more than $100 billion in gross domestic product and wages.

The economic impact of the total green construction market from 2000 to 2008, the study found, was $178 billion. It created or saved 2.4 million jobs and generated $123 billion in wages.

The U.S. Green Building Council certifies LEED buildings and obviously has an interest in the movement, but Rick Fedrizzi, chief exec of the group said something remarkably down to earth in releasing the report: “Our goal is for the phrase ‘green building’ to become obsolete, by making all building and retrofits green – and transforming every job in our industry into a green job.”

Can’t argue with that.

View the original article here

Fewer Foreclosures Could Mean Lower Home Prices

For years now we have been harping on how distressed home sales put downward pressure on home prices all around them.

Close to twelve million borrowers are now in a negative equity position on their homes because so many other borrowers were unable to afford their mortgages. The logical assumption would then be that as foreclosures ease, organic home prices will rebound.

But what if the current, unique state of the housing market turns that assumption on its head?

Foreclosure sales now make up a full one third of the market nationally and far higher percentages in states like California, Florida, Nevada, and Georgia.

The supply of these properties has actually been dropping, pushing prices higher, even in the distressed category. There is huge investor and first-time home buyer demand for distressed properties at the low end of the market, and that has helped stabilize prices.

“We believe the distressed part of the housing market has already bottomed,” said Morgan Stanley analyst Oliver Chang on CNBC’s Squawkbox. “The bid that we see from the investor is the reason for this bottom.”

He sees further declines in organic home prices.

Why?

Banks have been very slow to release their repossessed (REO) inventory onto the market, not to mention that foreclosure processing delays have literally millions of properties still sitting in foreclosure limbo.

There is a dwindling supply of foreclosures and rising investor demand. Analysts keep pointing to overall falling inventories, but the current existing home sales pace doesn’t account for that drop.

The fact is that with so much of the supply distressed, and so few organic sellers putting their homes up for sale, the inventory drop is artificially skewed to the recent lack of movement in foreclosures and a crisis of confidence among potential organic home sellers.

Okay, so what about the fact that banks are ramping up the process now, which could put more properties on the market? That could boost supply, were it not for a new government program to sell foreclosures in bulk to large investors.

Chang says over $1 billion in investor capital has been raised over just the past six weeks to take advantage of this new program, and he claims this could add up to 1.8 million jobs. Property managers, renovators, rental agents, he says would benefit from these bulk rental investments.

Mortgage analyst Mark Hanson, however, disagrees.

He claims that individual investors will likely spend more on upgrades/renovations than bulk investors and will then sell to owner-occupants at a higher price, thereby not only stabilizing but increasing overall home values, while also juicing jobs.

“Due to epidemic effective negative equity (not having enough equity to pay a Realtor and put a down payment on a new house) the repeat buyer cohort has been cut in half since 2007. They now make up the minority of national resales," says Hanson.

“Investors and first-time buyers ARE the real estate market," he adds. "Investors and first timers want REO and short sales. Anything done to prevent the flow of distressed property will hurt the volume of existing home sales and all of the economic benefit that comes along with them. An REO-to-rent program will bring about record lows in monthly existing home sales volume. And volume precedes price.”

Hanson believes that when the distressed supply is choked off, by selling REO in bulk to rent, not re-sell, then the only thing you have left is meager organic sales.

“The housing market will implode,” he adds.

Yes, lower supply, in a normal market, would generally mean a return to home price appreciation, but that’s not the way today’s market is working because organic demand is still so weak and is hampered by tight credit.

There is even less demand for mid- to higher-priced homes.

“$200K to $300K is the new normal for home builders,” says Rick Palacios of John Burns Real Estate Consulting. “Since new home prices peaked in 2007, new single-family sales of over $500K have been more than cut in half, dropping from 13% to just 6% of all new home transactions.

The existing home market is much the same, with the bulk of sales and demand in the very low price tiers. It just goes to show that in the historic recovery from an historic housing crash, the usual rules just don’t apply.

Questions?  Comments?  document.write("");document.write("RealtyCheck"+"@"+"cnbc.com");document.write('');And follow me on Twitter @Diana_Olick

View the original article here

Green Buildings: Fewer Sick Days, Higher Rents

Environmentally-friendly construction practices have gotten a lot of hype over the past few years but do they really pay off as an investment? A new study found that tenants in green buildings experience increased productivity and fewer sick days. The research also found that that green buildings have lower vacancy rates and higher rents than non-green counterparts.

The study, conducted by the University of San Diego and commercial real estate broker CB Richard Ellis Group, found that tenants in green buildings such as the Behnisch Architekten-designed Unilever offices in Hamburg above are more productive based on two measures: the average number of tenant sick days and a productivity change. Respondents reported an average of 2.88 fewer sick days in their current green office versus their previous non-green office. About 55% of respondents indicated that employee productivity had improved.

Based on the average tenant salary, an office space of 250 square feet per worker and 250 workdays a year, the decrease in sick days translated into a net impact of nearly $5.00 per square foot per year. The increase in productivity translated into a net impact of about $20 per square foot. The study also showed that green buildings have 3.5% lower vacancy rates and 13% higher rental rates than the market.

The work was based on surveys of 154 buildings under CBRE’s management, totaling more than 51.6 million square feet and housing 3,000 tenants in ten markets across the U.S. The study defined a green building as those with LEED certification at any level or those that bear the EPA ENERGY STAR ® label.

Another report out in the past week concluded that constructing new green buildings or retrofitting existing structures with energy efficient air conditioning, solar panels and the like will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump $554 billion into the American economy over the next four years. The study, by the U.S. Green Building Council and Booz Allen Hamilton, determined that green construction spending currently supports more than 2 million American jobs and generates more than $100 billion in gross domestic product and wages.

The economic impact of the total green construction market from 2000 to 2008, the study found, was $178 billion. It created or saved 2.4 million jobs and generated $123 billion in wages.

The U.S. Green Building Council certifies LEED buildings and obviously has an interest in the movement, but Rick Fedrizzi, chief exec of the group said something remarkably down to earth in releasing the report: “Our goal is for the phrase ‘green building’ to become obsolete, by making all building and retrofits green – and transforming every job in our industry into a green job.”

Can’t argue with that.

View the original article here