IBJNews

Area sees June dip in residential building permits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Residential construction activity in central Indiana is ahead of last year’s pace through the first six months of the year, but month-to-month volatility continues to show the inconsistency in the new-home market.

Builders in the nine-county area filed 428 single-family construction permits in June, a 1-percent decline from the same month last year, according to the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis. That followed a strong May, in which permits outpaced the number filed in May 2011 by 20 percent.

Through June this year, building permits in the nine-county area totaled 2,023, an 8-percent increase from the same time last year. But home builders so far this year have yet to string together more than two consecutive months of positive building-permit activity.

Permit filings dropped this year in January and April, but were up strongly in February and March.

In Marion County last month, builders filed 72 permits, or 15 percent fewer than in June 2011.

Activity also fell in Hamilton County, where builders filed 147 permits in June, an 8-percent drop from the same month last year.

Hendricks County saw 66 permits filed last month, a 2-percent increase from June 2011. The most notable improvement was in Johnson County, where builders filed 62 permits, a 32-percent increase.

While home building is up in 2012, activity is far behind the pace set before the recession. Almost twice as many permits were filed in the first six months of 2007 compared with the same period this year.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT