Institutional investors will not be abandoning real estate as an asset class in 2010. Instead, they will be retrenching, rethinking, and carefully dipping their toes back into the water.
The future looks a lot more female for residential developments that correlate with income and educational attainment.
A focus on affordable living considers both housing costs and commuting costs, an element the federal government now says it is serious about using as a benchmark.
Along with the increased volume of distressed properties going into receivership come changes in the scope of work receivers perform.
The first meeting between lender and borrower is critical. This is an opportunity not only for the two parties to get to know one another, but also for the borrower to demonstrate competence and the ability to identify and manage any difficulties facing the building. The borrower’s goal is for the lender to walk away from the meeting with an understanding of the problems and the knowledge that the owner recognizes those issues and want to works with the lender to resolve them favorably for the benefit of both parties.
Owners facing the numerous problems in the commercial real estate market have several exit strategies for cash-flow problems before foreclosure or bankruptcy.
The Directory of Real Estate Development and Related Education Programs, 11th Edition, published by the Urban Land Institute, describes the main features of real estate education programs at 54 universities, all but nine located in the United States. Another 56 university programs, including those of 11 foreign institutions, are listed but not described. (Not listed are the numerous private institutions—some universities sponsor training programs
that do not confer degrees—that provide courses needed for realestate sales and other licenses and certificates.)
All 45 U.S. programs described in the ULI directory award university degrees; several offer undergraduate degrees in business and other disciplines that include concentrations in real estate. Some undergraduate real estate programs are robust: in 2007, for example, the University of Northern Iowa had 220
full-time undergraduate students, and Florida State University had 425 full-time undergraduate students in real estate curriculums.
Most common, however, are programs that offer graduate degrees in real estate or in disciplines such as business that include a concentration in real estate development. In addition, eight universities offer doctor of philosophy degrees in disciplines allied with real estate development, the most common being business administration and finance.
The graduate programs tend to fall into two groups: those at schools such as Columbia University, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and the University of Colorado that offer real estate as one of several specialty tracks in obtaining a master of business administration (MBA) degree; and other university centers specializing in real estate, such as the University of Southern California (USC) Lusk Center for Real Estate and New York University’s
Schack Institute, that offer a master of science in real estate (MSRE) degree.
Diversity reigns, however. For example, Harvard University confers master’s degrees in design with real estate development as a concentration, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers a real estate specialization within its master of city and regional planning curriculum. While most programs share similarities in requirements and course content, there is a wide variety of approaches to obtaining degrees in real estate development.
University programs also differ in their proportion of full- or part-time students. For example, all the graduate degree programs cited above, except the one at New York University, attract mostly full-time students. A large proportion of programs in many other universities, such as Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, several universities in Washington, D.C., and Roosevelt University in Chicago, primarily serve part-time students seeking a degree while continuing to work.
Many university programs also offer special lectures and workshops, opportunities for summer tours, and discussion sessions with local developers. Some schools are following the lead of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in Philadelphia by offering “executive” MBA degrees that lure business executives back to catch up on the latest trends. In addition, a few are contemplating expansion of their research agendas, especially for local real estate studies.
Graduate degrees in the programs, especially at the premier schools, are not inexpensive: for 2009–2010, the Wharton MBA program tuition is $51,773, and the University of Southern California set full-time tuition for an MBA at $50,179. However, comparable yearly tuitions for in-state students are $14,882 at the University of Texas at Austin and $10,000 at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Even doubling of these tuitions for out-of-state students leaves them well below the Wharton and USC levels.
Prospects for maintaining U.S. real estate education programs appear to be weathering the crisis in real estate finance.
As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, it’s clear that the land use industry globalization so prevalent during the past ten years will become even more expansive in the years ahead.
Yields are stabilizing in certain european office markets, but investor caution continues, particularly in eastern europe.