Research Facts & Figures > Real Estate
Real Estate
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SITE SEARCH
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FORECLOSURES
REAL ESTATE LINKS
Please Note: Pages listed in bolded, large type are most up-to-date.
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SITE SEARCH
The East Bay EDA contracts with loopnet.com to provide access to all of its East Bay commercial property listings that are for lease or for sale, by a wide variety of property types (sorted by city) that can be accessed by clicking the link below.
Commercial-Industrial Property Search
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
San Jose was the Bay Area region most affected by the economic downturn. As a result, the San Jose market saw a full quarter of office space left vacant in 2002, before beginning to recover in 2003 (Figure 4). In 2003, the East Bay and San Francisco markets also suffered, with office vacancy rates of 14.7 and 23.9 percent, respectively. In 2006, the East Bay’s office vacancy rate declined to reach 11.9 percent, compared to 10.9 percent in San Jose and 14.3 percent in San Francisco. Industrial vacancy rates, which do not include San Francisco in this comparison, were also impacted by the economic downturn, and have declined steadily in both the East Bay and San Jose markets after peaks in 2002 and 2003. In 2006, the East Bay’s industrial vacancy rate was 7.4 percent, compared to 7.9 percent in San Jose. Office rents in San Jose increased 11.9 percent between 2002 and 2006, while rents in the East Bay increased 4.8 percent during the same period. In contrast, after experiencing a drop in 2002 and 2003, the San Francisco market saw an overall increase of 20.3 percent in office rents between 2002 and 2006, indicating a renewed interest in office space for the region. During the same period, the East Bay and San Jose markets saw little change between 2002 and 2006, as rent per square foot hovered between $2.00 and $2.60.2
East Bay R&D Vacancy Rates and Asking Rates - Data
East Bay Industrial Vacancy Rates and Asking Rates - Data
East Bay Warehouse Vacancy Rates and Asking Rates - Data
East Bay Office Vacancy Rates and Asking Rates - Data
East Bay Commercial Vacancy Rates Comparison Charts by Type - Data
East Bay Commercial Asking Rates Comparison Charts by Type - Data
Bay Area Office Vacancy Rates and Asking Rates - Data
NAI BT Research Rant - SF Bay Area Monthly Deals, Development Activity & Real Estate News PDF
NAI BT Real Estate Tracker - East Bay I880 Corridor Monthly Market Stats & Lease & Sale Transactions PDF
NAI BT Quarterly
Reports - East Bay Quarterly
Manufacturing, Office, R&D, & Warehouse vacancy rates,
asking rental
rates, absorption and new construction PDF
NAI BT 2008 Northern
California Commercial Real Estate Overview
- Complete Northern
California Annual
Commercial
Real Estate Overview PDF
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
Residential construction has increased in many regions around the United States since the beginning of the decade. Due to the large amount of undeveloped land in the region, the East Bay has served as the “last frontier” for single-family residential construction in the Bay Area region in recent years. Availability of land, coupled with selling prices that were lower by Bay Area standards, drove significant growth in single-family residential construction in unincorporated Contra Costa County. This growth played a large role in the sharp increases in permit values from 2001 through 2005 that were seen in the East Bay (Figure 1). In 2006, residential construction in the East Bay and San Francisco regions decreased, while permit values continued to rise in the San Jose region.
During the same period (2001 to 2006), the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County and the cities of Brentwood and Oakland issued the highest number of residential permits. In the East Bay cities of Berkeley, Dublin, Oakland, Emeryville and Fremont, construction of single-family residential units was outpaced by multi-family construction during this period (Figure 3). Construction in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County was primarily residential, while in Oakland, non-residential construction made up a larger portion of total construction. 1 Fremont, San Leandro and San Ramon were the only East Bay cities to see the valuations of non-residential
Non-residential construction activity in the Bay Area was quite different than residential during the same period (2001 to 2006).The turbulence of the economy during the early part of the decade is depicted in non-residential construction, as permit values decreased significantly in all three regions (Figure 2). Non-residential construction permit values in the East Bay were least affected by the economic downturn, recovering in 2003 and increasing at a moderate pace in the years following. In San Francisco and San Jose, a decrease in non-residential construction occurred in 2003 and 2004, showing more substantial increases in the years following, bringing both regions back to levels equivalent to the East Bay in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, non-residential construction permit values in the San Jose region were well below the peak years of the early part of the decade, but were the highest in the Bay Area.
The effect of the nationwide surge, and subsequent fall, in single-family home construction was most evident in the East Bay where single-family home construction peaked in 2002, when over 7,000 permits were issued. With the exception of a spike in 2005, the number of single-family permits issued in the East Bay dropped dramatically in 2006 to just below 5,000. The amount of multi-family permits issued in the East Bay has increased overall since 2001. In 2006, more multifamily than single-family permits were issued in the East Bay and San Jose regions, indicating more infill development of condominiums and apartment complexes in East Bay cities. San Francisco, however, has seen year-over-year decreases in both multi-family and single-family construction following the peak years of 2003 and 2004, indicating a longer-term construction slowdown in this market.
In the years since 2000, the construction of new homes in the East Bay, and particularly in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County, has been a major economic driver. Non-residential construction permits have begun to climb once again, showing a recovery from the economic downturn. Increasing population density, and the focus on affordable housing seen in many East Bay cities, is reflected in the growing number of multi-family construction permits issued.
NEW: Current month's construction permit analysis from EDA Monthly Economic Update
Residential Permit Values by East Bay City
Residential Permit Values by East Bay County
Non-Residential Permit Values by East Bay City
Non-Residential Permit Values by East Bay County
Value of Single- and Multi-Family Permits by East Bay City
Value of Single- and Multi-Family Permits by East Bay County
Value of Single- and Multi-Family Permits by Bay Area MSA
Number of Single- and Multi-Family Permits by East Bay City
Number of Single- and Multi Family Permits by East Bay County
Number of Single- and Multi-Family Permits by Bay Area MSA
Residential and Non-Residential Construction Permits by Bay Area MSA
Non-Residential Permit Values by Sector, East Bay Cities
Non-Residential Permit Values by Sector, East Bay Counties
Non-Residential Permit Values by Sector, Bay Area MSAs
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE
The East Bay’s land availability and its diverse communities offering everything from suburban waterfront homes along the delta and rural ranches surrounded by vineyards, to lofts in densely-developed urban neighborhoods and historic beachfront homes along the San Francisco Bay, has proven to be desirable to buyers, renters and developers alike. Housing construction has increased dramatically since the beginning of this decade, bringing with it population and employment growth. However, housing construction has been outpaced by the growth of the region’s workforce, driving more workers to purchase homes in outlying areas. The resulting extension in commute times places a strain on worker productivity, and creates traffic congestion and related air pollution.
Home ownership offers benefits to both the individual and to society as a whole, contributing to stronger, more stable communities. Though home sales have seen a downward trend since peaking in 2004, between July 2003 and July 2007, home sale values increased dramatically throughout the Bay Area (Figure 1). During this period median home sale values increased 45 percent in Alameda County, while home values in Contra Costa County increased 52 percent.
The San Francisco and San Jose regions both saw increases of 47 percent during this period. In July 2007 the average median home sale value in the East Bay was $602,000.When compared with a median of $799,000 in San Francisco County and $700,000 in Santa Clara County, housing in the East Bay region is relatively less expensive than the Bay Area’s other large metropolitan areas, however there are still large numbers of East Bay residents who cannot afford to purchase a home. Home sales have not continued to increase in the same fashion. In the years since the June 2004 peak, when 2,922 homes were sold in Alameda County and 2,772 were sold in Contra Costa County, home sales have decreased 85 percent and 109 percent in each county, respectively.1 Declines in the San Francisco and San Jose markets were less severe.
With housing affordability hovering around 20 percent, making home ownership attainable to only one in five persons, the Bay Area’s residential rental market should meet the needs of those who cannot afford to purchase a home. Since 2003, apartment occupancy rates have increased throughout the Bay Area, leaving less available units, and driving up rents.3 In the second quarter of 2007 apartments in the East Bay counties of Contra Costa and Alameda were more affordable than those found in other dense Bay Area counties (Figure 4).The average rent in Alameda County was $1,324 in Alameda County and $1,238 in Contra Costa County, compared with $2,084 in San Francisco County and $1,585 in Santa Clara County. As the rental market sees an infusion of renters who lost their homes to foreclosure, rents may rise significantly between 2007 and 2008.
NEW: Current month's Bay Area home sales analysis from EDA Monthly Update
Bay Area Notices of Default by County
Bay Area Median Home Sale Value by County
East Bay Median Single Family Home Price by City
Bay Area Median Single Family Home Price by County
Median Housing Prices Yr to Yr % Chg (City/County/MSA)
East Bay County & City Housing By Occupancy Type & Percent Vacancy
Bay Area Apartment Rental Rates by County
Bay Area Apartment Occupancy by County
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Today more than ever, sustainable and practical first time homebuyer assistance is needed. As home values continue to increase, and stricter lending standards are put in place in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, qualifying for a home mortgage will become increasingly difficult for buyers entering the market for the first time. According to the California Association of Realtors’ First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index (Figure 3), housing affordability continued to decrease throughout the Bay Area in the second quarter of 2007, when only 20 percent of first time buyers were able to afford a home in the East Bay (23 percent in Alameda County and 16 percent in Contra Costa County).Though more affordable than in the San Francisco and San Jose regions, where affordability indices were 15 and 21 percent, respectively, home ownership in the East Bay continues to be unattainable for a majority of first time buyers.
Over the past five years, the Workforce to Housing Ratio in the East Bay has been steadily declining from a high of 1.43 in 2000 to 1.33 in 2006 (Figure 8).The imbalance of job growth, population and housing supply creates a strain on people as many workers in search of more affordable housing choose to commute long distances from areas such as Solano, Napa and San Joaquin counties to reach places of employment in the East Bay. An adequate and diverse supply of housing ensures the workforce is able to maintain the same area of residence and employment, helping cut back on lost productivity as well as the traffic congestion and pollution that result from commuting.
East Bay Affordable Housing Production by City
FORECLOSURES
Rising interest rates on multiple sub-prime mortgages, flattening home values, and slower home sales have left many homeowners around the country with no choice but to allow their home loans to foreclose, creating a mortgage crisis which has become the most critical issue to face banking and real estate industries in many years.
The Bay Area’s historically strong housing market and high property values may prevent the East Bay and other Bay Area regions from seeing dramatic declines in home values, however, the national fallout of the sub-prime mortgage crisis includes tighter restrictions on lending for borrowers taking out large loans – resulting in a sharp fall in the sale of expensive homes in high-end markets such as those found in the Bay Area.
Although home values in the Bay Area have held steady for the most part, it remains to be seen if recent dips in home sales, and unprecedented increases in foreclosures, will result in a significant decline in home values. Real estate trends in similar markets throughout the country do not bode well for the Bay Area.
When lenders send notices of default to homeowners who are between four and six months behind on house payments, the first stage of the foreclosure process begins. In the second quarter of 2005, the largest numerical increase occured in notices of default sent to East Bay homeowners (Figure 2).
At the county level, Contra Costa County saw an increase of over 330 percent, while the increase in Alameda County was over 250 percent. The increase was largest in Solano County, where there were 402 percent more notices sent in 2007 than in 2005.
According to DataQuick, the rate of California homeowners who are able to avoid foreclosure by selling, refinancing or bringing their payments current, has decreased from 88.1 percent in the second quarter of 2006, to only 54.6 percent in the second quarter of 2007,2 indicating an annual increase of over 30 percent in the number of homes that will foreclose.