Friday, December 13, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
+Updated+9-20-13.jpg)
+Upated+9-20-13.jpg)
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Monday, October 14, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Thursday, Sep 26 2013 05:24 PM Worth noting in business: Developer buys 175 acres in Seven Oaks
Thursday, Sep 26 2013 05:24 PM
Worth noting in business: Developer buys 175 acres in Seven Oaks
By THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN
Bolthouse Properties LLC has sold 175 acres within southwest Bakersfield's Seven Oaks master-planning community to a Mission Viejo company with plans to build 750 homes there over about the next four years.
Buyer Pacific Cascade Group, an affiliate of Woodbridge Pacific Group, said in a news release it hopes to hire local homebuilders to help it develop the property directly south of Grand Island Village. It has targeted spring 2015 for the first home openings.
The development is expected to including a gated apartment community, an assisted lived/memory care facility and a shopping center by Bolthouse Properties.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Regional Employment Growth Report
Regional Employment Growth Report
...Conclusions
Considering the geographic patterns of employment growth in absolute terms shown in Table 1:
...Conclusions
Considering the geographic patterns of employment growth in absolute terms shown in Table 1:
- The strong employment growth in the last year has brought many areas of the state over or near the pre-recession employment levels. 25 counties exceed the 2007 employment; another 5 are within a year of reaching this level. 16 Senate Districts and 31 Assembly Districts exceed the 2007 employment levels; another 7 Senate Districts and 16 Assembly Districts are within a year of reaching this level. The state as a whole is now 0.1 year from reaching the 2007 employment level at last year's employment growth rate.
- Many of the smaller counties show significant employment gaps from the 2007 peak. As regions, Central Sierra and Upstate California are still several years away at 19.1 and 4.1 years, respectively.
- The key employment areas of Los Angeles, Inland Empire, and Sacramento Region continue to lag, largely counterbalancing the greater growth that has occurred in the coastal regions of the Bay Area, Central Coast, and San Diego/Imperial. The remaining employment gap in Los Angeles County alone balances out the stronger numbers experienced in the Bay Area and Central Coast combined.
- In absolute terms, the Central Valley as a whole exceeds the 2007 peak levels, largely reflecting the significant employment growth in Kern County but also due to positive numbers in 4 of the other 7 counties.
Monday, September 23, 2013
+Updated+9-20-13.jpg)
+Upated+9-20-13.jpg)
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Friday, August 2, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
A new study released today ranks the Bakersfield metro area fourth nationwide in the prevalence technical jobs: science, computer technology, engineering and math.
The Hidden STEM Economy | Brookings Institution
Kern No. 4 for Technical Job
June 10, 2013
Excerpted from Sacramento Business Journal
A new study released today ranks the Bakersfield metro area fourth nationwide in the prevalence technical jobs: science, computer technology, engineering and math.
The Brookings Institution studied jobs requiring science, technology or mathematics --- or STEM – education among the nation’s largest 100 metro areas. The authors found that they accounted for about 20 percent of jobs nationally in 2011, or 26 million positions. About half of those technical jobs do not require a college degree.
Some metro areas on the top-25 list are predictable, like San Jose, San Francisco and Boston. Others are not — such as Bakersfield, where the oil industry plays a central role. The number of blue-collar technical jobs put Bakersfield ahead of Seattle on the Brookings list.
The top ten metro areas for STEM jobs were,
1. San Jose
2. Washington, DC
3. Melbourne, Florida
4. Bakersfield
5. Seattle
6. Houston
7. Madison, Wisconsin
8. Boston
9. Baltimore
10. San Diego
Metro areas that ranked in the top 25 had higher median incomes, lower unemployment rates and better employment growth rates than other large cities, the Brookings study found.
The Bakersfield metro area includes all of Kern County.
For the complete report: http://www.brookings.edu/
Friday, May 17, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Apartment Market Trends: February 2013
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=rmsr97eab&v=00157CTivewliksAuM-GvLfIYp_C4Rz3HWmNwJ0W-v0R7f8WdfFhgI4Eh5BUeoH0PleEJpR_tgvJ2-gkxsPy_91kf5IEpOk8d6-Ntytm4H3u0hvc28pjQEZDJuxbhVnmIC6oxua1UX2CyjWpPBVBpGpOuF2TUvcgDYBD8FxzVScSGPpxhW_nFTK5gFtBAs7rK8ZhSzoefsahqq4u31-7XFIlg%3D%3D
Friday, March 15, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Kern No. 1 in CA for 10-Year Total Personal Income Growth
Kern No. 1 in CA for 10-Year Total Personal Income Growth
January 23, 2013
Excerpted from On Numbers
Kern County ranks first among California counties in total personal income (TPI) growth between 2001 and 2011, according to an analysis released today by the business blog On Numbers.
In 2011, Kern’s TPI rose 75% over 2001, the largest rate among the 32 California counties analyzed.
TPI is the amount of money earned by all people within a given area during a given year. It is a powerful barometer of economic growth, because it is directly affected by increases in population and per capita income.
The analysis involved all counties with more than $5 billion TPI in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
A listing of those 32 California counties is below:
County | Total personal income (2011) | Change (2001-2011) |
Kern, CA | $26,744,017,000 | 74.99% |
Imperial, CA | $5,019,684,000 | 71.38% |
Placer, CA | $17,312,666,000 | 69.19% |
Tulare, CA | $13,315,788,000 | 65.53% |
Riverside, CA | $67,024,780,000 | 62.04% |
Merced, CA | $7,406,375,000 | 59.56% |
Yolo, CA | $7,454,973,000 | 52.18% |
Fresno, CA | $29,741,055,000 | 50.63% |
El Dorado, CA | $9,040,926,000 | 49.59% |
San Diego, CA | $146,955,781,000 | 47.78% |
Butte, CA | $7,347,286,000 | 47.62% |
San Bernardino, CA | $61,957,654,000 | 46.91% |
San Luis Obispo, CA | $10,966,438,000 | 46.26% |
Stanislaus, CA | $16,652,338,000 | 44.45% |
Santa Barbara, CA | $19,303,120,000 | 44.36% |
Napa, CA | $7,077,381,000 | 43.98% |
San Joaquin, CA | $21,591,743,000 | 43.96% |
Ventura, CA | $38,141,164,000 | 43.26% |
Sacramento, CA | $54,861,602,000 | 42.10% |
Shasta, CA | $6,304,893,000 | 40.75% |
Los Angeles, CA | $420,913,463,000 | 38.71% |
Orange, CA | $154,131,535,000 | 37.31% |
Contra Costa, CA | $60,778,675,000 | 36.28% |
San Francisco, CA | $60,432,766,000 | 36.05% |
Monterey, CA | $17,355,940,000 | 33.56% |
Santa Clara, CA | $111,880,131,000 | 32.86% |
Alameda, CA | $75,908,145,000 | 31.85% |
Solano, CA | $15,858,521,000 | 31.80% |
Santa Cruz, CA | $12,919,550,000 | 28.05% |
Marin, CA | $21,871,623,000 | 26.94% |
San Mateo, CA | $50,596,839,000 | 26.52% |
Sonoma, CA | $22,126,957,000 | 26.14% |
Source: On Numbers, using data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Econometric Advisors: About Real Estate :: Single Living to Fuel Housing Demand?
Econometric Advisors: About Real Estate :: Single Living to Fuel Housing Demand?
leave a comment »
January 2, 2013
Gleb Nechayev, Senior Managing Economist, CBRE Econometric Advisors
Gleb Nechayev, Senior Managing Economist, CBRE Econometric Advisors
With the U.S. economy improving, more single-person households are being formed. This trend will help to fuel demand for the nation’s housing, including apartments.
The rise in single-person households is part of a long-term global trend, driven by socio-economic and demographic changes. Between 1940 and 2010, single-person households increased from 7.7% of the national total, to 26.7%. This share is expected to continue climbing through this decade and beyond, with the number of single-person households—about 31 million in 2010—topping 36 million by 2020. As a result, singles will account for 35-40% of the growth in total housing demand over the period, which is more than they have historically.
Early on, single-person renter households grew much more quickly than renters as a whole—moving from 8.3% of renter households in 1940 to 36% in 1980. Compared with owners, however, the share of single renters has not seen much of an increase since then. A number of factors has contributed to this, including declines in young households during the 1980s, the homeownership boom of the late 1990s, and the Great Recession, which forced many single renters to “double up” with others or to move back with their families. Various surveys have shown that since 2007, single-person households have declined as a fraction of all renters, in contrast to the share of single-person households among owners, which has continued to trend up.
As the U.S. economy continues to recover, the rate of single-person household formation is bound to accelerate, helping to boost overall housing demand. Which types of homes stand to benefit from this the most? To answer this, let’s take a closer look at where single-person households tend to live. As recently as 2011, more than half of them lived in single-family homes; the trend—among both owners and renters—has been slightly positive since 2000. Over 30% of single-person households live in apartments (structures with 5 or more units). Given the young age of most new single-person households currently being formed, these larger multi-housing properties are in a favorable position to capture much of the growth in rental demand—as long as their rents are competitive with those of single-family homes.While growth among single-person households across the country is driven by local population growth, much of the variation in single-person households’ propensity to live in apartments over single-family homes stems from their relative affordability. In other words, single-person households compare local single-family home prices and rents with apartment prices and rents, just as families do, when deciding where to live. The greater the variety of housing choices in a particular area, the more relevant such comparisons become.
While single-person households have gained share of occupied units across all types of housing since 2000, they matter a lot more to apartments than they do to single-family. Singles account for about half of the demand for 5+ unit multi-housing and for almost 60% of the demand for high-rise living nationally. In contrast, singles capture just over 20% of the total single-family demand. Single-person households are particularly important to multi-housing demand in areas where their concentration is already high—including places such as the District of Columbia and Philadelphia. The housing choices of single-person households do vary by age, however, and a fairly large number of singles approaching and entering retirement own or rent single-family homes. Rapid growth among this group presents a major opportunity for multi-housing to expand its market share—especially in the suburbs.
How many new single-person households will rent and how many will buy apartments in the coming years will depend on what type of jobs and incomes they will have and how easy it would be for them to obtain mortgages. From a valuation standpoint, in most parts of the country right now, buying apartments looks more attractive than renting them. Investors have certainly taken notice of this opportunity and condominium prices are now rising at a rate well above inflation; and their sale duration is back to levels last seen during the housing boom. More multi-housing construction intended for sale should follow.
The rise in single-person households is one of the long-term trends that greatly favors the multi-housing sector. The group is expected to expand by 4-5 million households this decade, and there is potential for most of this demand to be absorbed by rental apartments and townhouses or condominiums. For investors and developers, better understanding the income and age profile of these new households—along with their lifestyle choices—will be the key to taking some share of the demand from single-family homes, where most of the single-person households live today.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Kern No. 3 in Housing Price Gains Forecast
Kern No. 3 in Housing Price Gains Forecast
January 8, 2013
Kern County is expected to see the third highest gains in housing prices nationwide this year, according to a forecast released today by Clear Capital.
In its Home Data Index Market Report, Clear Capital forecasts Kern housing prices to increase 7.9% over 2013. The only metros with higher expected housing price gains are Seattle and Birmingham.
The report’s Top 50 Major Metro Areas are shown below; the Bakersfield metro area includes all of Kern County.
Top 50 Major Metro Markets | ||||||||||
Forecast Rank | Metropolitan Statistical Area | Qtr/Qtr % +/- | Yr/Yr | REO Saturation | One Year Forecast | |||||
1 | Seattle, WA – Tacoma, WA – Bellevue, WA | 2.8% | 15.7% | 9.3% | 13.5% | |||||
2 | Birmingham, AL – Hoover, AL | 3.6% | 13.3% | 24.1% | 10.0% | |||||
3 | Bakersfield, CA | 2.0% | 10.8% | 26.5% | 7.9% | |||||
4 | Fresno, CA | 1.7% | 7.9% | 24.6% | 7.6% | |||||
5 | Minneapolis, MN – St. Paul, MN – Bloomington, WI | 2.3% | 16.3% | 19.0% | 7.3% | |||||
6 | Milwaukee, WI – Waukesha, WI – West Allis, WI | 1.4% | 4.9% | 23.1% | 6.4% | |||||
7 | Phoenix, AZ – Mesa, AZ – Scottsdale, AZ | 3.1% | 26.1% | 17.6% | 6.1% | |||||
8 | Houston, TX – Baytown, TX – Sugar Land, TX | 1.8% | 6.3% | 18.3% | 6.1% | |||||
9 | Washington, DC – Arlington, VA – Alexandria, VA | 1.4% | 10.2% | 7.3% | 6.1% | |||||
10 | Miami, FL – Ft. Lauderdale, FL – Miami Beach, FL | 2.2% | 14.0% | 26.3% | 6.0% | |||||
11 | Jacksonville, FL | 1.0% | 5.7% | 27.2% | 5.0% | |||||
12 | Las Vegas, NV – Paradise, NV | 2.5% | 12.5% | 41.8% | 4.9% | |||||
13 | Sacramento, CA – Arden, CA – Roseville, CA | 2.7% | 11.5% | 18.9% | 4.8% | |||||
14 | Portland, OR – Vancouver, WA – Beaverton, OR | 1.8% | 6.8% | 9.7% | 4.7% | |||||
15 | Richmond, VA | 0.9% | 5.1% | 15.3% | 4.6% | |||||
16 | Tucson, AZ | 2.4% | 11.5% | 29.5% | 4.5% | |||||
17 | Tampa, FL – St. Petersburg, FL – Clearwater, FL | 0.6% | 5.6% | 25.2% | 4.3% | |||||
18 | San Francisco, CA – Oakland, CA – Fremont, CA | 3.0% | 16.1% | 14.4% | 4.2% | |||||
19 | Dayton, OH | 0.8% | 1.5% | 27.2% | 4.2% | |||||
20 | Riverside, CA – San Bernardino, CA – Ontario, CA | 1.5% | 8.9% | 23.8% | 4.1% | |||||
21 | Cleveland, OH – Elyria, OH – Mentor, OH | 1.9% | 3.8% | 31.1% | 3.6% | |||||
22 | San Jose, CA – Sunnyvale, CA – Santa Clara, CA | 3.1% | 17.2% | 8.8% | 3.3% | |||||
23 | Cincinnati, OH – Middletown, OH | 0.8% | 3.7% | 20.4% | 3.2% | |||||
24 | Providence, RI – New Bedford, MA – Fall River, MA | 1.2% | 0.3% | 8.0% | 3.2% | |||||
25 | Oxnard, CA – Thousand Oaks, CA – Ventura, CA | 1.4% | 5.1% | 18.1% | 3.1% | |||||
26 | Orlando, FL | 1.2% | 8.6% | 26.0% | 3.0% | |||||
27 | Dallas, TX – Fort Worth, TX – Arlington, TX | 0.2% | 2.5% | 26.1% | 2.6% | |||||
28 | San Diego, CA – Carlsbad, CA – San Marcos, CA | 1.7% | 8.4% | 15.1% | 2.4% | |||||
29 | Hartford, CT – West Hartford, CT – East Hartford, CT | -0.5% | 2.3% | 4.2% | 2.2% | |||||
30 | Los Angeles, CA – Long Beach, CA – Santa Ana, CA | 1.9% | 8.9% | 17.1% | 1.9% | |||||
31 | Pittsburgh, PA | 0.4% | 5.9% | 6.4% | 1.9% | |||||
32 | Memphis, TN | 0.7% | 3.0% | 36.4% | 1.8% | |||||
33 | Columbus, OH | -1.6% | 2.3% | 29.0% | 1.5% | |||||
34 | Honolulu, HI | 0.3% | 0.4% | 9.8% | 1.4% | |||||
35 | Nashville, TN – Davidson, TN – Murfreesboro, TN | 0.6% | ||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)