I lived in floor 30 of a “luxury” skyscraper in Seattle built after ~2015. We had an algorithm for pricing according to the landlord and the class action letter we received. Amazing water views and city views. Clearly desirable housing in a city flush with rich people and a massive housing shortage. I was the only occupant on the floor and the only tenant at the time ever to live in that unit. They tried to raise my rent like $1000/m when lease was up. We paid it since we had just gotten a raise. Next lease renewal was about $1000 again and we moved out because $2k extra was just too far above comparable units nearby. They literally offered us a Starbucks gift card to stay. We could see the other vacant units listed on the buildings website and they were always priced way above comparable units in neighboring buildings.
Oh and to directly answer your question, I’m guessing the building was never more than half full. The mail room was never full, and the parking garage had about 20/100 spots in use.
Thanks for the details! I'm asking because the overall rate is historically super low, and that kind of behavior from the landlords seems ... bananas - to use the terminus technicus. (But of course, maybe during ZIRP it was not a problem to try to experiment with various crazy - and inhumane - pricing schemes.)
The data you showed says there were 7 million units held off-market. My building had only a few hundred tops.
I wonder if there is more to the story though. I think that the building would be less desirable if it was full. Skyscrapers already have long lines for elevators, and common spaces get a lot of wear and tear from so many people in small areas. I wonder if they keep it below capacity while they can charge a “newness premium”, and once that fades they add extra units to the market to increase revenue.
those held off market usually means summer houses and the like.
and just natural turnover - people moving, outgrowing their home (or on the other end when someone leaves the home, or pass away) - leads to a vacancy of millions of homes. people usually harp about this a lot, and I also think it would be good to get people into homes, even if temporary, faster. but the effective solution is land value tax, and high density. everything else is just bad and worse trade-offs (like rent control and various machinations with 'affordable' units, and so on).
regarding highrises, I noticed that they mostly look the worst when they are new. everyone is moving in, elevators are full of scratches. there's a lot of ongoing construction (inevitably there will be someone from a hundred tenants, who wants to change something). and then eventually it settles into some steady state. ... so this forced cycling or whatever this management company did is just 120% WTF to me.
I lived in floor 30 of a “luxury” skyscraper in Seattle built after ~2015. We had an algorithm for pricing according to the landlord and the class action letter we received. Amazing water views and city views. Clearly desirable housing in a city flush with rich people and a massive housing shortage. I was the only occupant on the floor and the only tenant at the time ever to live in that unit. They tried to raise my rent like $1000/m when lease was up. We paid it since we had just gotten a raise. Next lease renewal was about $1000 again and we moved out because $2k extra was just too far above comparable units nearby. They literally offered us a Starbucks gift card to stay. We could see the other vacant units listed on the buildings website and they were always priced way above comparable units in neighboring buildings.
Oh and to directly answer your question, I’m guessing the building was never more than half full. The mail room was never full, and the parking garage had about 20/100 spots in use.