Sector Speaker: Detlef Hallerman-Director of the Reliant Energy Trade Center at Texas A & M University

Takeaway: As we transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to a ‘green’ economy, there will be many bumps in the road, and hard lessons to be learned. The transition involves moving from a free market energy world to an energy world created by government direction and consumer sentiment…and, the underlying truth of global warming. We are venturing into unknown territory.

Bullets:

• The ‘green movement’ is creating friction in crude oil exploration and refining markets
• One camp says ‘let the free market handle the transition’ and another camp says ‘it is too urgent to rely on markets and we must guide the process through government initiatives’
• In the meantime, coal is still the dominant fuel worldwide, and new coal burning plants are still being built in some countries
• The ‘green goal’ is to achieve an 80% energy change in a few short decades; the change is indeed underway, but it will be incremental and not brisk
• We are very slowly reducing reliance on the ‘Big 3’: coal, natural gas, & crude oil
• It takes only one year in the Permian Basin of Texas to bring a well to production status; offshore and internationally it takes much longer, hence sudden shortages in crude oil cannot be instantly be caught up
• There are a lot of government programs to accelerate battery and electricity storage development, and the solar energy to feed them, but progress is slow; solar energy cannot be created at night and wind energy cannot be created when the wind does not blow. During the Texas energy crisis during the big freeze, frozen infrastructure and no wind combined to reduce electricity generation right when we needed it the most

Click to read more at www.rednews.com.

The move to remote work continues to shake up the U.S. office market, with office vacancies reaching all-time highs in many cities during the third quarter of 2022. But more people working from home should come with at least one positive: a reduction in commute times as fewer cars clog U.S. highways.

The problem? The commute time for the average worker has dropped since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, it’s only dropped by about 2 minutes.

That’s the finding from a report released October 31st from Yardi Kube. Yardi reported that in 2019, 94% of the U.S. workforce was commuting and 8.9 million people worked remotely. That resulted in an average time of travel to work of almost 28 minutes.

In 2021, 27.6 million people worked remotely, resulting in about 18.6 million fewer commuters. The average time for commuters to travel to work in the United States that year fell to 26 minutes.

That isn’t much of a drop, but Yardi reports that this dip of 2 minutes equals about 8.5 hours in commute time saved a year for the average commuter.

But why isn’t the drop in commute times even higher with so many more employees working remotely? Yardi points to commuter habits.

Last year, more than 126 million workers 16 and older were commuting to work each morning. The company’s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data shows that across the United States 67% of these commuters leave for work between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. The busiest timeslot for the morning commute is between 7 a.m. and 7:29 a.m., when more than 18 million people leave for work, or about 14% of total commuters.

The next busiest time slots are 7:30 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. and 8 a.m. to 8:29 a.m., with 12% and 11% of commuters leaving for work during these times.

Yardi’s research finds that commuters can save a significant amount of time on their travel to work by delaying or advancing their time of departure to work by just half an hour.

Consider Chicago. If commuters leave for work at 6:30 a.m. instead of 7 a.m. or after 8 a.m., they can save an average of 17.2 hours in commute times every year. This change can make an even bigger difference in Dallas. Yardi reports that commuters here can save an average of 22.2 hours a year by leaving at those same times.

And in Austin, Texas? Commuters can save a whopping 31.4 hours a year in travel times by leaving at 7:30 a.m. instead of 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. instead of 8:30 a.m.

Commercial Real Estate Enters its “New Normal” Period

A new normal. That’s what the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the commercial real estate market, especially in the office and retail sectors.

That’s the conclusion from the Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2023 report from the Urban Land Institute and PwC US. This report, released each year, includes proprietary data and insights from more than 2,000 real estate industry experts. And this year’s edition — in little surprise — focuses on the way the commercial real estate industry has evolved since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

The report also looks at the more recent headwinds facing the commercial real estate industry, rising inflation rates and persistently high inflation. These two factors are already having an impact on the demand that investors have for commercial assets.

Midwest Real Estate News spoke with Byron Carlock, real estate leader for PwC US, about the report and its findings. Here is some of what this industry expert with more than 28 years of experience in the industry had to say.

Let’s start with the hot topic of the day: What impact are rising interest rates having on commercial real estate deals?

Byron Carlock: Interest rates today are two-and-a-half to three times higher than what people might have been seeing when they began their underwriting on construction projects or acquisitions. The constriction that these higher rates have had on the capital markets is very clear. There is still some funding out there, but at lower loan-to-cost ratios. More deals are going to the non-bank funds that are standing on deck waiting for the deals that traditional banks are now passing on.

Commercial real estate transaction volume has fallen dramatically in the last 60 days. The question now is how much will the industry readjust to these higher rates?

Have the interest rate hikes been too sudden? Would it have been better for the Fed to raise its rate at a more gradual pace?

Carlock: The Fed wanted to send a signal very quickly to help reduce asset inflation. There is talk about how a healthy economy might have a 5% to 6% unemployment rate. We are now at 3.5%. This rapid escalation of the Fed’s rate, then, was designed to let some air out to the tires of this economy very quickly. Sadly, it has. What is interesting to me, though, is that the demand for certain product types is still very healthy. Multifamily housing, especially, is still in high demand. We are still an under-housed society. The developers that are trying to meet the need this country has for new housing were caught flat-footed by these interest-rate hikes. Their deals might no longer meet underwriting criteria.

Given the uncertainty of the economy, do investors still view commercial real estate as a good investment?

Carlock: Real estate has always been viewed as a safe haven in times of inflation. Those who can increase their allocations in real estate seem to be wanting to do so. Those who are not able to do so are hampered by the denominator effect. Their valuation doesn’t get them to the margins they need to get to other assets such as real estate. But in general, people do still view real estate as a good investment. In today’s market, some of the alternative assets such as data centers, life sciences facilities and self-storage facilities are seeing great competition from investors.

There is still great concern, though, about the office sector. The post-pandemic reality is that owners have to redesign spaces to inspire people to want to come back to the office, to make it an enjoyable as opposed to obligatory experience. Building owners are redesigning office spaces for this new normal. Today, it’s about going to the office for collaboration, planning, mentoring and training, not to do the head-down work in a cubicle.

Are more office tenants seeking Class-A space to inspire their workers to come back to the office?

Carlock: That is one of the big changes coming out of the pandemic, the rising demand for Class-A-plus office space. The rates people are willing to pay for that higher class of building are very impressive. But what happens to the lower-class office space? There is a lot of talk about converting these spaces to alternative uses. Some cities are offering incentives to encourage these conversions. They might need more multifamily housing, so they are encouraging owners to convert their obsolete office buildings into apartments.

This will force some hard decisions about our existing office space. The downtown buildings with large floor plates built from the ‘60s to the ‘80s might need a change. That’s significant because about 80% of our office stock was built in the ‘80s or before. We will see a great change in which office space is relevant and which is not.

Are you seeing more apartment renters moving to the suburbs following the pandemic?

Carlock: There is evidence that the pandemic did reopen the suburbs after years of us talking about the suburbs being dead. There’s a big difference when the commute to the city for work is now two or three days a week instead of five. During the pandemic, we saw tremendous numbers of people moving further out from the city as they gained permission to work remotely. Apartment rents in most of the gateway cities are at or above their pre-pandemic levels. People are moving to the suburbs to get some relief from that. The move to the suburbs is a comment on affordability and the flexibility that comes from working remotely.

Are more companies moving their office spaces to less expensive but still large cities now that so many of their employees are working remotely.

Carlock: We have seen more migration southward. People have chosen to move to business-friendly environments with relative affordability and easy access to a talent base. They are moving to cities like Nashville, Austin, Dallas and Phoenix. We can’t ignore the attractiveness of business-friendly, low-income-tax states like Texas and Tennessee.

Just look at Nashville. It’s hard to go there and not say, ‘My goodness. I can see myself living here.’ It’s a business-friendly environment. There are talented workers available. Some of the financial services businesses that have moved to Nashville from New York thought that they might have a hard time persuading their New York City workers to move to Nashville. But it turns out that those workers love living in Nashville.

This issue of mobility and the attractiveness of cities and states is something worth noting for cities struggling to keep their businesses. Just look at the corporate relocations and exodus we’ve seen in Chicago. Some of these cities that are losing businesses might need to move away from the tax-and-spend policies they’ve relied on in the past.

What should cities do today to keep not only their businesses but to inspire people to want to move to their multifamily properties?

Carlock: Can we re-imagine our cities? As polarized as we get in this country about political and social issues, we can all agree on the importance of art, green space, gathering spaces and music. Our major city cores continue to offer all of that. You can’t recreate the depth of culture that has been developed during 100 years or more in our cities. If we could move away from the political polarization to think about making our cities better and more attractive for people, that could make a major difference in our country.

That’s a lofty goal, but it is doable. There is an emotional draw to the urban core. History has taught us that. Just look at Chicago. It has such wonderful architecture and culture. If we could solve some of the big problems cities face and focus on the culture and beauty that they provide, we can make a dramatic improvement in our country’s health. We need to find a way to improve the collaboration between public and private funding to do greater things to reimagine our cities.