IBJNews

Homebuilders enjoy best year since 2007

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The central Indiana home-construction industry finished 2013 with a strong December, helping it post its best year since 2007.

Homebuilders filed 333 single-family building permits in the nine-county metro area in December, a 21-percent increase over the same month of 2012, the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis reported Wednesday.

December’s results pushed the total to 4,959 permits for all of 2013, a 19-percent increase over 2012.

It was the highest annual total for central Indiana since 2007, when 7,326 permits were filed.

December’s increase ended a two-month decline in permit filings. Numbers were down slightly in October and November following a streak of 15 straight months of year-over-year increases.

Hamilton County remained the area’s busiest for home starts in 2013, with 1,899 during the year, a 12-percent rise over 2012.

Permits were up 16 percent in Marion County in 2013, to 731.

Annual filings were up 15 percent in Hendricks County, to 695; 26 percent in Johnson County, to 623; 37 percent in Boone County, to 490; and 35 percent in Hancock County, to 264.

Filings were up significantly in Shelby and Madison counties, but both saw fewer than 100 home starts.

The only area county where activity decreased was Morgan, where filings dropped 10 percent, from 112 to 101.







 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • GOP Belief
    Hm? I wonder what the republicans contribute this to, George/Cheney flashback phenomenon?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT