2014 Trends Book

C O M M E R C I A L I N V E S T M E N T D I V I S I O N
OF THE GREATER BATON ROUGE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

T
H
E

G
R
E
A
T
E
R

B
A
T
O
N

R
O
U
G
E

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

R
E
A
L
T
O
R
S

T
R
E
N
D
S

2
0
1
4
20
14
S P O N S O R S T R E N D S
A N N U A L S E M I N A R 2 0 1 4
NMLS Co. ID 488639 | MEMBER FDIC
ADivision of Fidelity Homestead Savings Bank
Jerry del Rio
Real Estate, Inc.
P R E M I E R
S P O N S O R
2 0 1 4
SNAPPY JACOBS CCIM
REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC
Property Management
Leasing
Brokerage
Fee Based Counseling
- Highest and Best Use Studies
- Due Diligence for Acquisition
- Demographic Reports and Trade Area Analysis
- Real Estate Role in Estate Planning
- Hotel / Hospitality / Tax Credit Consulting
Sales Leasing Counseling Property Management
Baton Rouge (225) 381-0105
New Orleans (504) 525-0190
Full Service
Commercial Real Estate
in Baton Rouge
and New Orleans
WWW.SNAPPYJACOBS.COM
NewOrleans
Baton Rouge NewOrleans
Licensed Real Estate Broker in Louisiana
NewOrleans
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
NewOrleans
3
CONTENTS T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
RESIDENTIAL TRENDS Tom Cook, MAI 2
Cook, Moore, & Associates

PLATINUM SPONSOR
GULF COAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY
INDUSTRIAL TRENDS Scot Guidry, CCIM 18
Mike Falgoust & Associates
Commercial Real Estate
PLATINUM SPONSOR
THE AVIATION BUSINESS PARK
MULTIFAMILY TRENDS Ty Gose, CCIM 32
Latter & Blum Realtors
Craig Davenport 32
Cook, Moore, & Associates
RETAIL TRENDS Jonathan Walker, CCIM 46
Maestri-Murrell, Inc.
OFFICE TRENDS Branon Pesnell, CCIM, SIOR 60
Beau Box Commercial Real Estate
FINANCE TRENDS Brian S. Andrews, Assistant Director 72
LSUs E.J. Ourso College of Business
Real Estate Research Institute
Kenny Hodges, Managing Partner
Assurance Financial
Tommy Kehow, Executive VP & Chief
Eustis Commercial Mortgage

PLATINUM SPONSOR
COOK, MOORE & ASSOCIATES
CHAIRMAN TRENDS R. Deane Bryson 87
NAI Latter & Blum, Inc.
SPECIAL THANKS TRENDS 88

Copyrighted 2014 Commercial Investment Division of the Greater Baton Rouge Association of REALTORS
. No part may be reproduced or retransmitted without the express written permission of

the Commercial Investment Division of the Greater Baton Rouge Association of REALTORS
. All opinions expressed herein are those of the writers and should not be relied upon without consultation
with your own investment advisor, attorney, accountant or tax advisor. LREC Vendor #180-0001
1
3
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
20
14
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
R E S I DE NT I AL T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
2 3
Residential markets in most sectors showed increases in sales volume. Total sales volume
for the Greater Baton Rouge Multiple Listing area increased nearly 20% from 2012 to 2013,
after increasing over 15% the previous year. The 19.17% increase is the highest since post
Hurricane Katrina. The average sale price also increased by 3.36%, after increasing by 1.02%
the previous year. Total inventory decreased by 3.12% over the previous year and the total
month inventory decreased by over 15%, after a nearly 20% decrease in inventory the year
before. The same trend took place in East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston Parishes.
Another interesting trend was found in the new home market. New homes that ranged in
price from $225,000 to $300,000 increased in total sales volume by 33.03%, after increasing
by 24.22% the year before. New homes in the $100,000 to $225,000 price range showed an
increase in sales volume of 11.29%, after rising the year before by only 0.97%. The largest
increase in volume was in the new home market in Ascension Parish in those homes priced
between $300,000 and $400,000 which rose by
204.88%, after increasing by only 4.93% last year.
Increases is average sale prices and decreases in the
inventory were experienced in almost all market
segments, indicating an overall healthy residential
market.
Market Overview
The data studied includes all sales reported to the
Greater Baton Rouge Multiple Listing Service which
includes East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge,
Livingston, Ascension, Iberville, Pointe Coupee,
East Feliciana and West Feliciana Parishes. Last year
there were over 1.76 billion sales reported to the
Greater Baton Rouge Multiple Listing Service by a
membership of over 2,600 agents. This study applies
to market data analyzed from March 16th, 2004 to
February 16th, 2014. All data was analyzed on a
12-month basis from March 16th to February 16th.
Therefore, when the year 2013 is referenced below,
it means March 16th, 2013 to February 16th, 2014.
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
20
14
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An analysis of data taken from the Greater Baton Rouge Multiple Listing Service from 2013 to 2014
indicated that from March of 2013 to February of 2014, there were a total of 8,870 sales. This was
up from 7,693 sales in the previous year, but down from the high of 11,826 sales in 2005. Total sales
volume rose to about $1.768 billion from about $1.48 billion the previous year. This represents a gain
of 15.30% in total sales, and a rise of 19.17% in the total sales volume. However, average list prices
rose from $198,997 in 2012 to $205,164 in 2013. This represents an increase in list prices of 3.01%
from 2012 to 2013. Average sale prices rose from $192,862 in 2012 to $199,343 during the same
time period. The increase in sale price represents 3.36%. The average days on market (DOM) fell from
123 in 2012 to 86 in 2013, or 30.08%. The months of inventory decreased to 5.76 in 2013 vs 6.85 in
2012, representing a 15.91% decrease. In summary, the entire market experienced an increase in
volume both in number of sales and total dollar volume. There were also increases in sale prices, and
decreases in the time it took to sell a home, along with a decreasing inventory.
The grid that follows demonstrates changes from 2004 to 2014.
Total Number % Total Sales % Average % Average % Average % Current % Months %
Year Of Sales Change $ Volume Change List Price Change Sale Price Change DOM Change Inventory Change Inventory Change
3/2004 to 2/2005 8,829 $1,290,699,582 $149,288 $146,188 84 3,770 5.12
3/2005 to 2/2006 11,826 33.94% $1,969,387,901 52.58% $169,545 13.57% $166,530 13.91% 77 -8.33% 4,067 7.88% 4.12 -19.53%
3/2006 to 2/2007 10,761 -9.01% $2,033,258,350 3.24% $192,408 13.48% $188,946 13.46% 65 -15.58% 3,669 -9.79% 4.09 -0.73%
3/2007 to 2/2008 9,316 -13.43% $1,836,278,393 -9.69% $201,627 4.79% $197,110 4.32% 145 123.08% 4,925 34.23% 6.34 55.01%
3/2008 to 2/2009 7,093 -23.86% $1,430,661,986 -22.09% $207,434 2.88% $201,700 2.33% 95 -34.48% 4,928 0.06% 8.33 31.39%
3/2009 to 2/2010 6,878 -3.03% $1,313,225,284 -8.21% $196,876 -5.09% $190,931 -5.34% 94 -1.05% 4,275 -13.25% 7.45 -10.56%
3/2010 to 2/2011 6,341 -7.81% $1,235,680,205 -5.90% $201,364 2.28% $194,871 2.06% 90 -4.26% 4,772 11.63% 9.03 21.21%
3/2011 to 2/2012 6,742 6.32% $1,284,029,425 3.91% $196,980 -2.18% $190,452 -2.27% 104 15.56% 4,809 0.78% 8.55 -5.32%
3/2012 to 2/2013 7,693 14.11% $1,483,695,016 15.55% $198,997 1.02% $192,862 1.27% 123 18.27% 4,397 -8.57% 6.85 -19.88%
3/2013 to 2/2014 8,870 15.30% $1,768,174544 19.17% $205,164 3.10% $199,343 3.36% 86 -30.08% 4,260 -3.12% 5.76 -15.91%
Total MLS
Greater Baton Rouge Market Data from 2004 to 2014
2014 RESIDENTIAL
TRENDS COMMITTEE
TOM COOK, MAI
Committee Chair , TRENDS
Speaker
DAVID WADE
MARIE WADE
DON STERN
2)03%0) !4*&5*)
4
EAST BATON ROUGE
East Baton Rouge Parish experienced similar trends as compared to the total Greater Baton
Rouge Market. The total number of sales rose by 12.50% over last year. The previous year
increase for East Baton Rouge Parish was 16.98%. In 2012, 4,264 sales took place, and in 2013
there were 4,797. List prices rose by 3.14%, from $209,438 in 2012 to $216,018 in 2013. Sale
prices also rose from $202,169 to $209,173 during the same period, representing a one year
increase of 3.46%. When the time it took to sell a home in East Baton Rouge Parish was analyzed,
the market refected a decrease from 97 days in 2012 to 87 days in 2013, representing a decrease
of 10.31% in marketing time. Current inventory decreased from 2,513 in 2012 to 2,371 in 2013,
representing a decrease of 5.65%. The current monthly inventory decreased 16.12%.
The grid below refects market data for East Baton Rouge Parish from March of 2004 to February of
2014.
MAJOR MARKET SEGMENTS:
The Greater Baton Rouge market is dominated by three parishes: East Baton Rouge,
Livingston, and Ascension. Over 90% of the sales reported to MLS take place in these three
parishes. Each market segment was analyzed separately.
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
3/2004 to 2/2005 5,498 $817,363,785 $152,113 $148,665 77 1,987 4.33
3/2005 to 2/2006 7,121 29.52% $1,208,001,107 47.79% $172,938 13.69% $169,639 14.11% 70 -9.09% 2,221 11.78% 3.74 -13.63%
3/2006 to 2/2007 6,404 -10.07% $1,210,603,571 0.22% $192,874 11.53% $189,038 11.44% 62 -11.43% 2,132 -4.01% 4 6.95%
3/2007 to 2/2008 5,547 -13.38% $1,106,992,598 -8.56% $204,532 6.04% $199,566 5.57% 70 12.90% 2,731 28.10% 5.91 47.75%
3/2008 to 2/2009 4,299 -22.50% $905,193,107 -18.23% $216,757 5.98% $210,558 5.51% 89 27.14% 2,762 1.14% 7.71 30.46%
3/2009 to 2/2010 3,928 -8.63% $775,286,555 -14.35% $204,409 -5.70% $197,374 -6.26% 93 4.49% 2,385 -13.65% 7.28 -5.58%
3/2010 to 2/2011 3,514 -10.54% $717,630,533 -7.44% $211,855 3.64% $204,220 3.47% 85 -8.60% 2,594 8.76% 8.85 21.57%
3/2011 to 2/2012 3,645 3.73% $735,068,059 2.43% $209,336 -1.19% $201,664 -1.25% 104 22.35% 2,705 4.28% 8.9 0.56%
3/2012 to 2/2013 4,24 16.98% $862,050,249 17.27% $209,438 0.05% $202,169 0.25% 97 -6.73% 2,513 -7.10% 7.07 -20.56%
3/2013 to 2/2014 4,797 12.50% $1,003,405,592 16.40% $216,018 3.14% $209,173 3.46% 87 -10.31% 2,371 -5.65% 5.93 -16.12%
EBR
East Baton Rouge Market Data from 3/2004 to 2/2014
Currently ofering all programs including conventional, FHA, VA,
USDA, FHA 203K, First Time Homebuyer, Jumbo, Investment
Property and One-Time Close Construction Loans. Please contact
a lender today to discuss your options.
Cade Nichols
Perkins Branch
Mortgage Originator
(225) 757-4416
NMLS# 120522
CadeNichols@gulfbank.com
Robert J Bo Kiebach
Perkins Branch
Mortgage Originator
(225) 231-1814
NMLS# 854592
BoKiebach@gulfbank.com
Chris Hughes
Old Goodwood Branch
Mortgage Originator
(225) 757-4449
NMLS# 684760
ChrisHughes@gulfbank.com
Lisa Cooper
Old Goodwood Branch
Mortgage Originator
(225) 757-4453
NMLS# 466113
LisaCooper@gulfbank.com
GULFBANK.COM
LOCAL DECISIONS, LOCAL LENDERS
BATON ROUGE MORTGAGE TEAM
Barbee Pipes, CPA
Perkins Branch
Mortgage Originator
(225) 270-4992
NMLS# 494644
BarbeePipes@gulfbank.com
6
ASCENSION
The Parish of Ascension also experienced a rise in total number of sales and in dollar
volume. Both categories increased by 19.34% and 26.02%, respectively, after increasing
by 8.27% and 8.75% the previous year. List prices and sale prices also increased by over
5% in both categories. Days on market decreased by 25.26% in 2013 to 71, from 95 the
year before. Current inventory fell by 12.01% from 616 homes available for sale in 2012
to 542 in 2013.
It is also interesting to note that in 2006, after Hurricane Katrina, there were 2,017 sales,
so the drop in sales volume from 2006 to 2012 was 33%. Prior to the storm, in 2004 there
were 1,478 homes sold in Ascension Parish, and in 2013 there were 1,734 homes sold, so
the sales volume has surpassed pre-Katrina levels.
The grid below refects market data for Ascension Parish from March of 2004 to February of
2014.
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
3/2004 to 2/2005 1,478 $243,736,913 $166,564 $164,909 93 760 6.17
3/2005 to 2/2006 2,173 47.02% $406,712,030 66.87% $188,750 13.32% $187,166 13.50% 83 -10.75% 715 -5.92% 3.95 -35.98%
3/2006 to 2/2007 2,017 -7.18% $433,309,000 6.54% $216,927 14.93% $214,828 14.78% 64 -22.89% 646 -9.65% 3.84 -2.78%
3/2007 to 2/2008 1,582 -21.57% $355,204,922 -18.03% $227,549 4.90% $224,529 4.52% 84 31.25% 858 32.82% 6.54 70.31%
3/2008 to 2/2009 1,208 -23.64% $257,911,924 -27.39% $218,626 -3.92% $213,503 -4.91% 96 14.29% 899 4.78% 8.99 37.46%
3/2009 to 2/2010 1,291 6.87% $261,866,502 1.53% $207,339 -5.16% $202,840 -4.99% 95 -1.04% 738 -17.91% 6.85 -23.80%
3/2010 to 2/2011 1,225 -5.11% $248,666,451 -5.04% $207,636 0.14% $202,993 0.08% 89 -6.32% 802 8.67% 7.85 14.60%
3/2011 to 2/2012 1,342 9.55% $268,271,085 7.88% $204,595 -1.46% $199,903 -1.52% 98 10.11% 756 -5.74% 6.76 -13.89%
3/2012 to 2/2013 1,453 8.27% $291,753,619 8.75% $204,748 0.07% $200,793 0.45% 95 -3.06% 616 -18.52% 5.08 -24.85%
3/2013 to 2/2014 1,734 19.34% $367,675,371 26.02% $215,364 5.18% $212,038 5.60% 71 -25.26% 542 -12.01% 3.75 -26.18%
Ascension
Ascension Parish Market Data from 3/2004 to 2/2014
cresent_ad_TRENDS.pdf 1 2/3/14 2:08 PM
8
LIVINGSTON
Livingston Parish typically has been the parish where more afordable housing exist. The average
sale price in Livingston Parish in 2013 was $164,225, as compared to the average sale price in
East Baton Rouge Parish of $209,173, and Ascension Parish of $212,038.
Livingston Parish exhibited some of the slowest market conditions within the Greater Baton
Rouge area from 2007 to 2008, but seems to have rebounded somewhat from 2008 to 2009.
In 2008, there were 1,134 sales that took place. By 2009, that number had increased to 1,241,
an increase of 9.44% after falling by 26.46 % the year before, but market conditions slowed
again in 2010. Total sales dropped from 1,241 in 2009 to 1,092 in 2010, or about 12%. In 2013,
the number of sales had increased to 1,511, and was up 20.59% over 2012. Dollar volume rose
by 28.56% in 2013 after rising by 11.82% in 2012, while list prices and sale prices both rose in
2013 over 6.5%. The average days on market went from 100 in 2012 to 89 in 2013, a decrease
of 11.00%. Inventory increased by only 1.49% from 737 homes available for sale in 2012 to 748
homes available in 2013. The total month inventory decreased by 15.74% over the same period.
Livingston Parish has now shown 3 years of continuous increases in the total number of sales.
The Parish has surpassed its pre-Katrina sales volume of 1,346 with total sales in 2013 of 1,511.
The grid below refects market data for Livingston Parish from March of 2004 to February of 2014.
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
3/2004 to 2/2005 1,346 $165,382,884 $124,601 $122,869 87 648 5.78
3/2005 to 2/2006 1,826 35.66% $254,330,556 53.78% $141,432 13.51% $139,282 13.36% 88 1.15% 686 5.86% 4.51 -21.97%
3/2006 to 2/2007 1,624 -11.06% $261,130,630 2.67% $163,292 15.46% $160,794 15.44% 67 -23.86% 509 -25.80% 3.77 -16.41%
3/2007 to 2/2008 1,542 -5.05% $253,910,318 -2.77% $167,582 2.63% $164,662 2.41% 68 1.49% 834 63.85% 6.51 72.68%
3/2008 to 2/2009 1,134 -26.46% $188,309,494 -25.84% $170,020 1.45% $166,057 0.85% 106 55.88% 820 -1.68% 8.72 33.95%
3/2009 to 2/2010 1,241 9.44% $200,250,427 6.34% $164,612 -3.18% $161,362 -2.83% 89 -16.04% 770 -6.10% 7.44 -14.68%
3/2010 to 2/2011 1,092 -12.01% $174,313,810 -12.95% $163,339 -0.77% $159,628 -1.07% 100 12.36% 879 14.16% 9.65 29.70%
3/2011 to 2/2012 1,141 4.49% $172,614,557 -0.97% $155,868 -4.57% $151,283 -5.23% 102 2.00% 824 -6.26% 8.66 -10.26%
3/2012 to 2/2013 1,253 9.82% $193,015,398 11.82% $157,925 1.32% $154,042 1.82% 100 -1.96% 737 -10.56% 7.05 -18.59%
3/2013 to 2/2014 1,511 20.59% $248,144,508 28.56% $168,465 6.67% $164,225 6.61% 89 -11.00% 748 1.49% 5.94 -15.74%
Livingston
Livingston Parish Market Data from 3/2004 to 2/2014
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Ad Design - Parker Place Estates.pdf 1 3/5/2014 1:57:40 PM
3
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
10 11
New Home Sales - $225,000 to $300,000
Greater Baton Rouge MLS Area
New homes, in the mid price range, in the greater Baton Rouge MLS area rose signifcantly over last
year. In 2012, there were 284 sales in this price range and that number rose in 2013 to 378, represent-
ing a rise of 33.03%. Dollar volume rose 33.03% also. Prices in this category were stable, decreasing less
than 1%. Inventory dropped by over 11% in 2011, but rose by 13.95% in 2012. Inventory was stable in
2013, decreasing by 2.04%. In 2012, there were 147 homes available for sale and in 2013 there were 144
homes available, so the inventory appears to be somewhat stable. The current inventory in 2010 was
145 homes, and in 2011 that number had fallen to 129. The months inventory decreased by 26.41%. It
appears that even with increased volume, sales prices are holding and the inventory is stable.
A grid representing changes from March of 2004 to February of 2014 in the $225,000 to $300,000 price range
follows:
NEW HOME SALES
Also analyzed were new home sales in the Greater Baton Rouge market. New home sales were
analyzed based upon sale prices. The new home market was subdivided into homes ranging in
price from; $100,000 to $225,000, $225,000 to $300,000, $300,000 to $400,000, and $400,000
and up. Homes above $225,000 in price showed the greatest increases.
New Home Sales - $100,000 to $225,000
The lower price range, or starter home, market showed increases in volume and price from 2012
to 2013. There were 1,068 sales that took place from $100,000 to $225,000 in 2012. In 2013, that
number had risen to 1,161, or about 8.71%. The increase was fat from 2011 to 2012 at -0.74%.
List prices and sale prices were mostly fat with both increasing at 1.81% and 1.73%, respectively.
In 2012, the average list price for a home in this category was $174,742, while the average list
price in 2013 was $177,910, an increase of 1.81%. Sale prices rose in this category by 1.73%. The
average days on market showed a decrease to 91 from 110 the year before. Current inventory
decreased to 386 from 434, or about 11.06%. Months of inventory fell to 3.98 from 4.87, or about
18.28%.
A grid representing changes from March of 2004 to February of 2014 in the $100,000 to $225,000
price range follows:
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
3/2004 to 2/2005 1,567 $241,321,829 $153,828 $154,002 97 724 5.54
3/2005 to 2/2006 2,219 41.61% $359,290,086 48.88% $161,581 5.04% $161,915 5.14% 103 6.19% 872 20.44% 4.71 -14.98%
3/2006 to 2/2007 2,060 -7.17% $351,065,021 -2.29% $170,480 5.51% $170,419 5.25% 94 -8.74% 849 -2.64% 4.94 4.88%
3/2007 to 2/2008 1,410 -31.55% $244,929,451 -30.23% $174,118 2.13% $173,708 1.93% 99 5.32% 1,026 20.85% 8.73 76.72%
3/2008 to 2/2009 879 -37.66% $153,085,337 -37.50% $176,147 1.17% $174,158 0.26% 144 45.45% 758 -26.12% 10.34 18.44%
3/2009 to 2/2010 1,071 21.84% $180,634,221 18.00% $169,493 -3.78% $168,659 -3.16% 119 -17.36% 528 -30.34% 5.91 -42.84%
3/2010 to 2/2011 1,110 3.64% $185,569,011 2.73% $167,637 -1.10% $167,179 -0.88% 91 -23.53% 586 10.98% 6.33 7.11%
3/2011 to 2/2012 1,076 -3.06% $184,493,569 -0.58% $172,350 2.81% $171,462 2.56% 110 20.88% 539 -8.02% 6.01 -5.06%
3/2012 to 2/2013 1,068 -0.74% $186,287,439 0.97% $174,742 1.39% $174,426 1.73% 110 0.00% 434 -19.48% 4.87 -18.97%
3/2013 to 2/2014 1,161 8.71% $207,323,965 11.29% $177,910 1.81% $177,435 1.73% 91 -17.27% 386 -11.06% 3.98 -18.28%
MLS 100 to 225
New Home Sales $100,000 to $225,000
3/2004 to 2/2014
3/2004 to 2/2005 332 $85,773,558 $258,213 $258,354 132 173 6.25
3/2005 to 2/2006 456 37.35% $118,067,991 37.65% $258,816 0.23% $258,921 0.22% 107 -18.94% 187 8.09% 4.92 -21.28%
3/2006 to 2/2007 616 35.09% $157,614,821 33.49% $255,518 -1.27% $255,868 -1.18% 85 -20.56% 298 59.36% 5.8 17.89%
3/2007 to 2/2008 555 -9.90% $142,818,326 -9.39% $259,950 1.73% $257,330 0.57% 128 50.59% 430 44.30% 9.29 60.17%
3/2008 to 2/2009 365 -34.23% $94,158,944 -34.07% $260,610 0.25% $257,969 0.25% 161 25.78% 414 -3.72% 13.61 46.50%
3/2009 to 2/2010 348 -4.66% $89,520,779 -4.93% $257,243 -1.29% $254,672 -1.28% 151 -6.21% 226 -45.41% 7.79 -42.76%
3/2010 to 2/2011 215 -38.22% $55,594,769 -37.90% $260,660 1.33% $258,580 1.53% 133 -11.92% 145 -35.84% 8.09 3.85%
3/2011 to 2/2012 231 7.44% $58,698,672 5.58% $254,684 -2.29% $254,106 -1.73% 138 3.76% 129 -11.03% 6.7 -17.18%
3/2012 to 2/2013 284 22.94% $72,917,701 24.22% $257,746 1.20% $256,752 1.04% 126 -8.70% 147 13.95% 6.21 -7.31%
3/2013 to 2/2014 378 33.10% $97,002,350 33.03% $256,823 -0.36% $254,663 -0.81% 103 -18.25% 144 -2.04% 4.57 -26.41%
MLS
New 225 to 300
3/2004 to 2/2014
12
3/2004 to 2/2005 94 $32,073,968 $339,783 $341,212 117 57 7.27
3/2005 to 2/2006 205 118.09% $69,223,193 115.82% $338,348 -0.42% $337,674 -1.04% 120 2.56% 127 122.81% 7.43 2.20%
3/2006 to 2/2007 316 54.15% $108,119,310 56.19% $342,077 1.10% $342,149 1.33% 108 -10.00% 184 44.88% 6.98 -6.06%
3/2007 to 2/2008 252 -20.25% $86,132,747 -20.34% $344,073 0.58% $341,796 -0.10% 147 36.11% 248 34.78% 11.8 69.05%
3/2008 to 2/2009 158 -37.30% $54,802,832 -36.37% $351,115 2.05% $346,853 1.48% 175 19.05% 181 -27.02% 13.74 16.44%
3/2009 to 2/2010 90 -43.04% $30,763,182 -43.87% $349,730 -0.39% $341,813 -1.45% 141 -19.43% 122 -32.60% 16.26 18.34%
3/2010 to 2/2011 64 -28.89% $21,978,309 -28.56% $349,572 -0.05% $343,411 0.47% 155 9.93% 79 -35.25% 14.81 -8.92%
3/2011 to 2/2012 73 14.06% $24,683,359 12.31% $340,678 -2.54% $338,128 -1.54% 134 -13.55% 76 -3.80% 12.49 -15.67%
3/2012 to 2/2013 100 36.99% $34,145,394 38.33% $343,029 0.69% $341,453 0.98% 136 1.49% 71 -6.58% 8.52 -31.79%
3/2013 to 2/2014 137 37.00% $46,813,287 37.10% $341,967 -0.31% $341,702 0.07% 94 -30.88% 74 4.23% 6.48 -23.94%
MLS
New 300 to 400
New Home Sales - $300,000 to $400,000
In the $300,000 to $400,000 price range, sales volume dropped by 43.04% in 2009 after dropping
by 37.30% in 2008. The total number of sales in this price range fell in 2010 by 28.89%. During
the time period studied, from 2004 to 2010, the highest volume of sales took place in 2006, the
year following Hurricane Katrina with 316 sales. The total number of sales rose by 36.99% in
2012, and then rose again in 2013 by 37%, the largest increase in new home volume was in this
category. Total sales dollar volume rose over last year by 37.10%. Post- Katrina, there were 316
sales in this category, but prior to the storm there were 94 sales. In 2013, there were 137 sales,
so this category is back to pre-Katrina volume, but it is still 56.65% below the high point post-
Katrina. Average sale prices are stable with less than a 1% change in this category. Inventory
increased by 4.23%. Months inventory declined by nearly 24%.
A grid representing changes from March of 2004 to February of 2014 in the $300,000 to $400,000
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
3/2004 to 2/2014
www.preservebr.com
10 homes move-in ready from 5
of Baton Rouges finest builders.
!"##$% '(#) *+)%(#+$ #,%* '-##(
,-.*$ '#( +*,.(.--%-%/ -010*2 0* .
3(+-4 +*05+% ,-.**%/ 6#))+*0347
Cathy Cusimano, 8%.-3#(
225- 413- 9801
15-ACRE PARK | COMMUNITY CENTER | POOL | OUTDOOR COOKING PAVILION | MILES OF TRAILS | HOMES FROM THE MID-300s
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
MECH_harveston_trends_ad.pdf 1 3/6/14 9:31 PM
14
New Home Sales - $400,000 and Above
The luxury home market consisting of those homes $400,000 and above, sufered more than
most categories in 2009 and 2010. The total number of sales decreased in 2009 by 62.44%, and
total sales volume decreased by 62.47% in 2009. In 2010, the total number of sales fell by 40%,
and dollar volume fell by nearly 35% in 2010. The decrease had slowed to 6.25% in 2011. The
total number of sales in 2013 increased to 87 from 56 in 2012, or over 55%. The average days
on market indicator rose in 2012 by 10.16% and fell last year by 7.8%. Current inventory in 2013
was fat only decreasing by 1.54% in 2013. The average days on market in 2013 was 130, and was
down by 7.80% over last year. Months inventory fell to 8.82, or a fall of about 36.64% over last
year.
A grid representing changes from March of 2004 to February of 2014 in the $400,000 and Above
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
3/2004 to 2/2005 53 $28,887,317 $542,385 $545,043 138 55 12.45
3/2005 to 2/2006 115 116.98% $68,086,016 135.70% $595,572 9.81% $592,052 8.62% 142 2.90% 84 52.73% 8.76 -29.64%
3/2006 to 2/2007 119 3.48% $70,765,574 3.94% $595,855 0.05% $594,668 0.44% 123 -13.38% 138 64.29% 13.91 58.79%
3/2007 to 2/2008 156 31.09% $92,870,730 31.24% $597,691 0.31% $595,325 0.11% 149 21.14% 286 107.25% 22 58.16%
3/2008 to 2/2009 213 36.54% $123,759,396 33.26% $590,107 -1.27% $581,030 -2.40% 170 14.09% 260 -9.09% 14.64 -33.45%
3/2009 to 2/2010 80 -62.44% $46,446,627 -62.47% $617,938 4.72% $580,582 -0.08% 222 30.59% 184 -29.23% 27.6 88.52%
3/2010 to 2/2011 48 -40.00% $30,261,118 -34.85% $654,063 5.85% $630,439 8.59% 217 -2.25% 91 -50.54% 22.75 -17.57%
3/2011 to 2/2012 45 -6.25% $27,737,662 -8.34% $636,949 -2.62% $616,392 -2.23% 128 -41.01% 62 -31.87% 16.53 -27.34%
3/2012 to 3/2013 56 24.44% $31,239,450 12.62% $568,295 -10.78% $557,847 -9.50% 141 10.16% 65 4.84% 13.92 -15.79%
3/2013 to 2/2014 87 55.36% $46,029,649 47.34% $532,653 -6.27% $489,900 -12.18% 130 -7.80% 64 -1.54% 8.82 -36.64%
New Home Sales $400,000 and Above
3/2004 to 2/2014
EASY TO SELL!
easy to love
Americana is one of the most exciting real estate
developments in Louisiana. Great location, great
neighbors, great value and located in the #1 school
district in Louisiana for the last 9 years. Here you
can relax on your front porch, spend an afternoon
shopping, have lunch at a caf and enjoy an
invigorating workout at the Americana YMCA.
T O L E A R N MO R E , V I S I T A ME R I C A N A zachary. C O M
Contact Heather Kleinpeter at
225-654-6544 to learn more about
special realtor promotions.
With all this and more, Americana will
quickly become your Go-To neighborhood.
92 homesites remaining to choose
from in Phase 1
26 flexible build-to-suit plans
Homes starting from the $275s
Great homebuilders on-site
Custom homebuilders welcome
Special events at The Pointe New retail and commercial Stay t at the YMCA 92 homesites to choose from
3
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
16
3/2004 to 2/2005 685 $71,343,730 $105,657 $104,151 80 407 7.12
3/2005 to 2/2006 1,248 82.19% $149,391,417 109.40% $121,314 14.82% $119,704 14.93% 93 16.25% 625 53.56% 6 -15.73%
3/2006 to 2/2007 1,330 6.57% $187,447,775 25.47% $142,696 17.63% $140,938 17.74% 94 1.08% 832 33.12% 7.5 25.00%
3/2007 to 2/2008 1,245 -6.39% $191,185,387 1.99% $155,739 9.14% $153,562 8.96% 88 -6.38% 1,112 33.65% 10.71 42.80%
3/2008 to 2/2009 872 -29.96% $171,279,382 -10.41% $199,414 28.04% $196,421 27.91% 117 32.95% 964 -13.31% 13.26 23.81%
3/2009 to 2/2010 650 -25.46% $95,542,250 -44.22% $151,631 -23.96% $146,988 -25.17% 149 27.35% 770 -20.12% 14.21 7.16%
3/2010 to 2/2011 503 -22.62% $75,054,738 -21.44% $154,973 2.20% $149,214 1.51% 106 -28.86% 678 -11.95% 16.17 13.79%
3/2011 to 2/2012 487 -3.18% $68,374,521 -8.90% $146,888 -5.22% $140,399 -5.91% 150 41.51% 643 -5.16% 15.84 -2.04%
3/2012 to 2/2013 583 19.71% $87,908,404 28.57% $157,525 7.24% $150,786 7.40% 171 14.00% 579 -9.95% 11.91 -24.81%
3/2013 to 2/2014 574 -1.54% $88,197,638 0.33% $160,134 1.66% $153,654 1.90% 137 -19.88% 589 1.73% 12.31 3.36%
Attached
A grid representing changes from March of 2004 to February of 2014 in the Attached Residential housing
market follows:
Conclusions
The residential market appears to have increased rather substantially in 2013. Volume is up by 15% and
prices are increasing. Prices are not increasing signifcantly in any one category, but are not decreasing
with the increasing sales volume. Inventories are decreasing in most categories, as is the required time
to sell a home. Low interest rates have fueled the stabilization, and lenders appear to have a greater
appetite for new loans. Market conditions appear to be stabilizing and should continue into 2014.
17
Condominium / Townhouse Market
Also studied was the condominium and townhouse market. These are defned by the Greater
Baton Rouge Multiple Listing Service as any residential structure with an attached wall. These
type housing units were studied from the same time period, March of 2004 to February 2014.
The study included only those sales reported to the Greater Baton Rouge Multiple Listing
Service and includes the entire market area. In 2013, there were 574 sales reported to MLS and
it represents a signifcant sample. However, this type housing is often sold by the developer
directly, and those sales are not reported to MLS.
Several things of interest are worthy of pointing out. In 2004, the average sale price for an
attached residence was $104,151, by 2008 that fgure had risen to $196,421. It fell in 2012
to $150,786, but rose in 2013 to $153,654, or about 1.90%. The average price of an attached
residence fell by 25.17% from 2008 to 2009. The average price remained stable from 2009 to
2010, rising only 1.51%. In 2011, it had dropped 5.91%, but as noted above, increased by 7.40%
in 2012 and 1.90% in 2013. Total sales dropped by 22.62% from 2009 to 2011 from 650 to 503,
after falling by 25.46% from 2008 to 2009 (872 to 650). Sales fell only 3.18% from 2010 to 2011,
and then rose in 2012 by 19.71%. Last year, sales volume dropped by only 1.54% from 583 in
2012 to 574 sales in 2013. The average days on market decreased from 171 to 137, or a decrease
in marketing time of about 19.88%. Current inventory was increased by only 1.73% in 2013, after
falling 9.95% in 2012. The average total month inventory increased by 3.36% from 11.91 months
to 12.31 months.
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
New Home Sales $400,000 and Above
3/2004 to 2/2014
! " # $ & ' ' ( ( " ) * & + ) " , ) # , ! " +( -
225-266-4564 j i l l boss@eatel . net
ADS
LOGOS
BROCHURES
SIGNS
!"##
S OL U T I ONS , L L C
3
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
20
14
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
I NDUS T R I AL T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
18 19

HISTORICAL VACANCY AND NET ABSORPTION

MEMO VACANCY RATE
NET ABSORPTION
(SF)
2009
ECON RECESSION
14.13% 102,359
2010
ECON RECESSION
15.03% (62,748)
2011
ECON RECESSION
14.36% 220,945
2012
IMPROVING MKT
11.60% 867,959
2013
STABILIZING MKT
9.30% 671,127


(500,000)
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
S
q
u
a
r
e

F
e
e
t
Vacancy Net Absorption
Katrina Effect
Econ. Recession Effect
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RACE TO THE RIVER
The demand for industrial properties within
the Greater Baton Rouge region has grown for
three consecutive years. The noticeable shift
from oversupply to an increase in occupancy
began toward the end of 2011 with vacancy
rates consistently dropping, from yearend rates
of 14.36% in 2011, to 11.60% in 2012, to 9.30%
in 2013.
Net absorption, the net change in occupied
inventory from one year to the next, rounded
out at 671,000 square feet, yearend 2013. The
9.30% vacancy rate represents a return to a
stabilized market which is considered healthy
when vacancy rates range between 7 to 9
percent.
The local region is trending much like the
industrial market is nationally, which absorbed
approximately 77 million square feet, a 11.3%
vacancy rate, a return to new construction with
37 million square feet added, and increasing
rental rates averaging $5.74 per square foot
(CBRE, Inc. 2014).
2014 INDUSTRIAL
TRENDS COMMITTEE
SCOT GUIDRY, CCIM
MIKE FALGOUST & ASSOCIATES
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Co-Chairman
MATHEW LABORDE , CCIM
BEAU BOX COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
Co-Chairman

TODD PEVEY, MPA
MIE PROPERTIES
BRANDON BARKER, CCIM, CPM
NAI LATTER & BLUM
BRENT GARRETT, CCIM, SIOR
RYAN GREENE, CCIM
NAI LATTER & BLUM
WALT KETCHINGS
NAI LATTER & BLUM
DAVID LAKVOLD, MAI , SRA
THE LAKVOLD GROUP
MIKE MOORING, MAI
THE LAKVOLD GROUP
Special Contributor
RANDY PETERSON
CHEMPLANT COMPANY
CHEMPLANTS.COM
2)03%0) !4*&5*)
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
20
Cause and Efect
Heavy industry, the large industrial chemical manufacturers, are in a race to the Mississippi River
to locate and build new manufacturing plants or simply increase their existing footprint. Land
purchases to accommodate these greenfeld sites and plant expansions range from 50 to over
1,000 acres, and the generally reported number for large industrial projects combined is around
$60 billion. The continued availability of low cost natural gas used as a feed stock to the petro-
chemical manufacturers has been the number one reason for the industrial boom occurring
today. Other contributing factors are the availability to tie into existing pipeline systems which
allow plants to trade products for their respective manufacturing purposes, the proximity of rail
and highway/interstate roadways, labor and local/state economic incentives.
It is important to note that the data within this report accounts for industrial buildings measuring
5,000 square feet and above and land sales, and are not inclusive of any transactions made by
heavy industry as noted in the previous paragraph.

HISTORICAL VACANCY RATE

8.10%
10.08%
11.04%
6.48%
4.74%
8.66%
13.78%
14.13%
15.03%
14.36%
11.60%
9.30%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
YE'02 YE'03 YE'04 YE'05 YE'06 YE'07 YE'08 YE'09 YE'10 YE'11 YE'12 YE'13
Vacancy Rate
Katrina Effect


8.10%
10.08%
11.04%
6.48%
4.74%
8.66%
13.78%
14.13%
15.03%
14.36%
11.60%
9.30%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Vacancy Rate
Katrina Effect


8.10%
10.08%
11.04%
6.48%
4.74%
8.66%
13.78%
14.13%
15.03%
14.36%
11.60%
9.30%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Vacancy Rate
Katrina Effect
23
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
22
The result is an increased need of space for industrial supply and service companies expanding
and entering the market. This is especially true for material fow control companies within the
pipe and valve trades, steel and pipe fabricators, bulk material transporters and other industrial
engineered products. Bulk sorage facilities have been absorbed to accommodate packaged
industrial products and consumer goods. The increased demand for smaller ofce warehouse
space, 5,000 to 20,000 square feet, for companies operating outside of the heavy industrial arena
is consistent with the demand for industrial use. Construction/contractors related companies,
home and commercial service companies, and warehouse for retailers are all expanding or
requiring more space. The parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, West Baton Rouge and
portions of Iberville are the areas of highest demand.

INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY STATISTICS

MEMO YE 2012 (SF) YE 2013 (SF)
TOTAL
INVENTORY
25,422,265 25,517,103
VACANT SPACE 2,948,262 2,371,973
OCCUPIED SPACE 22,474,003 23,145,130
VACANCY RATE 11.60% 9.30%
NET ABSORPTION 867,959 671,127
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
120,546 456,905
2013 INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY STATISTICS

TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

158,283
281,554
456,905
July 2012 to Dec. 2012 Jan. 2013 to June 2013 July 2013 to Dec. 2013
Total Square Feet of New Industrial
Building Permits Pulled
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS

HISTORICAL INVENTORY TOTAL

15,000,000
17,000,000
19,000,000
21,000,000
23,000,000
25,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
Occupied Space Vacant Space TotaI Inventory
HISTORICAL INVENTORY TOTAL
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16 24

Product Type Size (SF)
Lease Rate
Range (/SF)
Lease Type
Flex Space
2
5,000 -15,000 $8.00 - $12.00 Net
Office Warehouse
Older
5,000-15,000 $3.50 - $4.50 Net
Office Warehouse New

5,000-15,000 $7.00 - $9.00 Net
Bulk Warehouse Older 20,000+ $3.00 - $4.50 Net
Bulk Warehouse New 20,000+ $5.50 - $7.00 Net

1
Excludes laydown yard area
2
Multi-tenant, tilt wall construction with a minimum office/warehouse ratio of
20/80
2013 INDUSTRIAL LEASE RATES
Sample Building Lease Data
1
Oil and Gas
There is renewed interest in the Tuscaloosa Shale play for oil exploration. Goodrich leads the
investment level, followed by Halcon Resources and a few others. New drilling is beginning
to occur, however the demand for industrial ofce warehousing or material lay-down storage
yards for the companies servicing this industry has not occurred. Labor force requirements will
increase as each drilling well requires approximately 30 workers.
Industrial Lease Rates
Industrial lease rates increased in all product types (see table). Depleted inventories are the
cause. New construction increased from 120,546 square feet in 2012 to 456,905 square feet in
2013 as companies expanded onsite or relocated to larger facilities. Speculative building was
limited resulting in limited available space in the growth areas. Older properties with functional
obsolescence have become more abundant and remain on the market vacant, some of which
year after year (see graphic).
Real Estate Strategies
Delivered
Shreveport | New Orleans | Dallas | Houston | San Antonio | Atlanta | Nashville
Full-Service Commercial
Real Estate
Investment
Development
Leasing
Management
Daniel P. Poulin,
CCIM, SIOR
!"#$%&'"()#'*+,-.
Jennifer A. Lee,
CCIM, SIOR
/'##01'23%&'"()#'*+,-.
Sealy & Company
150 James Drive East, Suite 140 St. Rose, LA 70087
504.463.5600 | www.SEALYNET.com
We leverage our experience and relationships
to bring maximum beneft to your
real estate transactions.
Sealy brokers, who hold signifcant experience in
industrial, ofce, retail, and land,
provide superior service and deliver results.
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
26
NOTE:
Each building vacant
at year end 2013 is
represented by a dot
on the map seen below.
The larger the dot, the
larger the building (in
terms of building area/
square feet). The dots
are further defned by
the time the building
has been vacant and on
the market. If at year
end 2013 the building
was vacant and on the
market for longer than
1 year the dot is blue;
less than 1 year the dot
is red.
MAP OF VACANT
BUILDINGS
AT YE 2013
(BATON ROUGE CLOSE UP)
(ENTIRE MSA)

Need
Space?
6473 Hwy 44, Suite 201 | Gonzales, Louisiana 70737 | 225.571.1002
www.mie-la.com
For high-quality and strategically-located flex, office, warehouse
or retail space, theres only one real estate developer to call:
MIE Properties. We develop and maintain properties for total
tenant satisfaction, with ve prime locations in Baton Rouge and
Gonzales. Our in-house property management team will keep
your space in peak operating condition!
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
28
Land Sales
Transactions for industrial land have increased signifcantly for the frst time since 2007. Price per
acre or square foot difers signifcantly depending on the parish in which the property is located
(see table). Southeast Baton Rouge and Ascension parishes have the strongest demand. This
is a direct result of the limited available inventory for sale or lease within these areas creating
build to suit and owner occupied new construction projects. Industrial lot pricing increased
signifcantly over a twelve month period due to the lack of available lots within light industrial
or heavy commercial parks in the high demand areas.

2013 INDUSTRIAL LAND PRICES

Sample Land Sale Data
1

East Baton
Rouge (/SF)
West Baton
Rouge (/SF)
Ascension (/SF)
PRIME $5.50 - $7.50 $2.00 - $3.00 $3.00 - $5.00
NON-PRIME $3.00 - $4.00 $0.75 - $2.00 $1.00 - $2.00

1
Based on land tracts consisting of 2 ! 10 Acres

1


1

East Baton
Rouge (/SF)
West Baton
Rouge (/SF)
Ascension (/SF)
PRIME $5.50 - $7.50 $2.00 - $3.00 $3.00 - $5.00
NON-PRIME $3.00 - $4.00 $0.75 - $2.00 $1.00 - $2.00

1
Based on land tracts consisting of 2 ! 10 Acres

2013 NOTICEABLE TRENDS
- The vacancy Pate decreased by 230 basls polnts ln 20l3. ll.6% vacancy Pate ln 20l2
compared to 9.3% in 2013 for buildings containing 5,000 square feet or more. Market stabilizing.
- Land values on the upward swlng.
- |ncreased rental rates for smaller omce-warehouses (l5,000 square feet and less)
in Ascension Parish and parts of East Baton Rouge Parish.
- |ncrease ln new constructlon from l20,546 SP ln 20l2 to 456,905 SP ln 20l3.
- |ncreased demand for omce-warehouslng wlth stablllzed materlal yards.
- Peglonal lndustrlal servlce centers contlnue to consolldate facllltles under "one roof.
- Natlonally the US Manufacturlng sector ls reboundlng whlch lncreases a demand
for the chemicals made locally.
- |ncreaslng demand ln general wlthln the lndustrlal market.
- |ncreased demand for bulk oll plpellne and oll storage capaclty.
- Contlnued use of US natural resources and less dependence on lmports.
- Natural gas prlces contlnue to be low and abundant.
- Penewed lnvestment ln Tuscaloosa Marlne Shale oll play.
Lefcre mck|ng lhe jump...
lurn lc lhe !"##$%!&'( %$'( $*+'+$ $,-$%+*
./"0($12$3 4%5*+3 6$*5(+*3
7/15*+%&'( Cffce 6$+'&( Lcnc
cur 8/"0($12$ cnc $,-$%+&*$
w||| he|p mcke ycur nexl L|g "*-('*9' w|lh ece.
:$ 5/1$%*+'/1 +9$ -%"!$**3
We cre mcv|ng ;525*+ <= >?<@, lc cur new |cccl|cn
<?>?> A$BB$%*"/ C0D3 E'+"/ 6"52$= F; G?H?I
10311 Jeffercn Hwy., Sle. -1 8clcn Pcuge, L 7080 225-778-5858 0003#B'!%$3!"#
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
30
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
31
2014 FORECAST
Expect the market to grow with vacancy running between 8 to 9%. New construction will continue
to meet owner occupant demand or build to suit projects. Speculative building will be limited to free
standing facilities 20,000 square feet or less. Larger distribution centers/bulk warehousing will be
built with tenants in place pre- construction. Some speculative space may be added to these projects.
Large industrial project announcements will continue to be announced but should be considered with
caution as international companies can withdraw or shelve projects with little or no notice.
This market will beneft from having all sides of the supply market from oil/gas pipelines and bulk
storage tanks, which are feed to our chemical manufacturers which produce products that are stored
and distributed from local warehouses, bulk carriers and outbound pipelines.
The volume of exports from our port facilities will continue to rise.
Labor force issues will become a serious deciding factor when companies plan to move forward or not
with large and small scale projects. This is a serious concern and can counter the positive factors that are
creating this industrial boom. Escalating labor, land and construction costs, if not placed under control,
may not dampen growth immediately, but may cause some projects or developments to be upside
down when the market reaches saturation within the coming years.
2013 NOTEWORTHY MAJOR PROJECTS
Estimated/Rounded
- Dow Chemlcal, $l.06 bllllon for 2 new polyolens plants and ethylene capaclty upgrade,
Plaquemine. Creating 71 new jobs.
- Methanex Corporatlon announcement to relocate a 2nd plant from Chlle to Gelsmar. $550
million. Construction of plant 1 is well underway.
- Shlntech, $500 mllllon. PvC productlon faclllty.
- Honeywell, $304 mllllon new auto-refrlgerant manufacturlng plant, Gelsmar.
Creating 70 new jobs.
- Port of 8aton Pouge expandlng graln faclllty, $l50 mllllon. 37 [obs
- 8ASP, $42.6 mllllon polyurethane blendlng plant, Gelsmar. Creatlng 22 new [obs.
- Lmerson Process Lqulpment breaks ground on new $l3 mllllon servlce center,
Gonzales
- ATD, $7 mllllon, new bulk tlre dlstrlbutlon faclllty. 8aton Pouge
- Setpolnt |ntegrated Solutlons, $ll.l mllllon servlce center, 8aton Pouge
- LuroChem announces plans to bulld a fertlllzer manufacturlng plant ln |bervllle or
St. John the Baptist. $1.5 billion creating 200 permanent jobs.
- 8loNltrogen Corp. announces plans to bulld a $2 mllllon blomass converslon to
fertilizer plant in Pointe Coupee Parish.
- Penewed drllllng lnterest & lease acqulsltlons from Comstock, Goodrlch and
Halcon Resources in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale
!"#$ &"'()*
HIY A GRAND 5LAMI
Advertise in Yrends 2015
Call jill 5ylvest
225-324-0404
32 33
20
14
M
U
L
T
I

F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
2014 Baton Rouge Apartment Market - Introduction & Summation
Data collected and analyzed each Sprlng & Pall
(most recently in Fall/Winter 2013-14) regarding
apartment rentals and vacancies by Cook,
Moore & Assoclates (CMA), the LSU Peal Lstate
Research Institute, the CID of GBRAR and the
Baton Rouge Apartment Association (BRAA)
suggests that apartment vacancies in the Baton
Rouge area have declined to a level slightly
lower than historical norms. Prior to Katrina,
the Baton Rouge Apartment Association was
reporting city-wide vacancies at 8%. A similar
gure (6%) was reported ln the LSU/CMA
Spring 2005 report (Pre- Katrina). For roughly 3
years following the arrival of Hurricane Katrina
(August 29, 2005), both survey sources were
reporting less than 1% vacancy market-wide.
Vacancies rose in 2008-10 (as a result of a post-
Katrina construction boom), but declined in
2012. The Fall/Winter 2013-14 LSU/CMA
report refects 5.68% vacancy market-wide
(154 complexes surveyed), down from 6.84%
vacancy reported in East Baton Rouge Parish
for Fall 2011-12.
We analyzed two sets of rental data (collected
in the Spring and/or Fall each year), which difer
by composition and number of properties
included. The larger matched dataset consists of
126 complexes, with a smaller matched sample
of 48 large (200+ unit) complexes also analyzed.
Rentals for the 126-complex matched
sample increased 2.94%from Fall 2012 to Fall
2013 (over a 12-month period). The reported
vacancy rate for the matched sample was 5.56%
(note that this fgure excludes consideration
of the newly-bullt & vacant unlts ln the new
complexes in lease-up). The matched sample of
units is a strong indicator of overall trends.
2014 MULTI-FAMILY
TRENDS COMMITTEE
CRAIG DAVENPORT
COOK, MOORE & ASSOCIATIES
Speaker, TRENDS
TY GOSE, CCIM
LATTER & BLUM REALTORS
Speaker, TRENDS

D. WESLEY MOORE, II, MAI, CCIM
Committee Chairman, TRENDS
SEAN MCDONALD, MAI
ABBY MCMASTERS
ALEXIS MARTIN
ELISE MOORE
LAURA WHITE
LATTER & BLUM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT
DEANE BRYSON
LATTER & BLUM REALTORS
MATT LABORDE, CCIM
2)03%0) !4*&5*)
MULTI - FAMI LY T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
A bulleted summary of our key considerations & expectations is provided:
- The dlmlnlshed avallablllty of mortgage nanclng for home purchases appears to have substantlally
slowed the transition of renters to home ownership, resulting in greater tenant retention. Tenants
lacking a strong credit rating, income history and/or assets for down payment now have much greater
difculty in securing mortgage fnancing and graduating to home ownership. This appears to have a
been a catalyst for absorption of the incoming units over the past 5+ years.
- The supply of rental unlts ln the 8aton Pouge MSA has lncreased substantlally (6,833 new apartment
unlts were completed from when Katrlna hlt on August 29, 2005 through the end of 20l3, l,743 unlts
are under constructlon for 20l4, and 986 unlts are proposed for constructlon by 20l5). The total new
rental supply for 2006-l5 could exceed 9,500 unlts, whlch would equate to roughly 950 unlts per
year over a 10-year span (if all of the planned units are completed by the end of 2015). Market-wide
vacancles have returned to a level of roughly 5.5%, wlth rental lncreases ln 20l3 conslstent wlth
historical norms (average rentals rose almost 3% in 2013). Economic rents and occupancies (net of
concessions, typically in the form of waived rentals, or free appliances) have moderated in many market
segments, as competitive pressures to lease the remaining inventory of new/vacant units appears to
have diminished.
- Net absorptlons for the new complexes, per dlscusslons wlth owners and managers, have
predominantly hovered in the range of 10 to 30 units per month. The historical norm for new complexes
locally has been 12 to 20 units per month.
- Conslderatlon should also be glven to the l,954 "for sale condo unlts bullt ln the 8aton Pouge MSA
during 2006-10. These have historically drawn primarily on the segment of the market oriented toward
owner- occupancy, but many have been acquired by investors, or have been converted back to rental
units by the original developers (who have had difculty attracting purchasers capable of securing
mortgage fnancing since 2008) and represent competition for traditional rental units. Absorption
of these units by investors has diminished greatly, as fnancing for these acquisitions has become
extremely difcult to secure. Virtually all proposed condo projects have been put on hold (except for a
few, small, student-orlented pro[ects near LSU).
- The baslc mechanlcs of houslng demand are as follows: the natlonal and local norm has hlstorlcally
been roughly 2.75 people per household, so, for each 1,000 people that have remained long-term in
Baton Rouge as a direct result of Katrina, we should need to have roughly 360 additional housing units to
satisfy the incremental demand created by such a population increase. As roughly 33% of the local units
have historically been renter- occupied, roughly 120 of these 360 units (per thousand residents) need to
be rental unlts. As the 8aton Pouge area's long-term populatlon lncreased by roughly 30,000 dlrectly
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
34
due to Katrina (as well as the normal population growth we would normally have generated),
the local market should have been able to absorb roughly 3,600 new rental apartment unlts
to satisfy the incremental long-term demand stirred by Katrina without producing materially
adverse impact on the existing rental housing stock. While the Post-Katrina additions to the
supply of rental units has exceeded this mark, the single-family residential mortgage market
"wlld card appears to have come lnto play (as the adverse lmpact on market occupancles such
an oversupplied state should produce has not been noted).
- A key lmpetus for the substantlal constructlon ln 2006-08 was the GO Zone Act, whlch
generated substantial short-term tax benefts for those investing in newly-built realty. To
take advantage of the GO Zone benets, however, new apartments ln the 8aton Pouge area
had to have a certifcate of occupancy in place prior to December 31, 2008. These federal tax
incentives prompted initiation of construction for certain apartment units that might otherwise
not have commenced. The 12/31/08 deadline (and the associated rush to complete units by
then) might have resulted in a ripple throughout the local apartment market, but for the other
considerations previously mentioned. The absence of this incentive should have slowed the
lnnux of new unlts, though there are stlll l,743 unlts under constructlon, and 986 more unlts
proposed/planned.
- |n Sprlng 2008, we expected the local apartment market to become hlghly concesslonary
by the end of 2008, particularly in the Class A submarket. While it took a while longer for the
rlpple to surface, by latter 2009 we began to see "free month and a free Tv (or other slmllarly
structured) concessions ofered at a number of the upscale properties. As the vast majority of
the incoming supply of units has been upscale, the Class A properties appear to have felt the
brunt of the competitive pressures from the incoming units. Their competitive adjustments in
2009-10 appear to have eventually forced rental adjustments by the Class B properties, who
then put pricing pressure on Class C properties. Nobody is bullet-proof. These competitive
conditions appear to have subsided in 2012-13, but should return in 2014-15 with the potential
delivery of over 2,000 new units.
- The crltlcal factors that wlll ultlmately drlve the long-term demand for, and absorptlon of,
additional housing units in the Baton Rouge area are the number of jobs that can be retained
locally (where the jobs go, the population will follow) and the ability of our infrastructure (roads,
schools, governing bodies) to accommodate this growth and maintain the character and
marketability of Baton Rouge as a place to live. Baton Rouge appears to have dodged the brunt
of the recession, and remains well positioned to prosper. With numerous recent announcements
of major industrial expansions and planned construction of multi-billion dollar facilities in the
Baton Rouge MSA, we expect further population expansion (and correspondingly positive
absorptions of new and existing apartment units).
Louisianas Leading Multi-Family
Development & Management Company
Vintage Realty Company began in 1988 to meet the demands of the expanding commercial real estate market in Shreveport,
Louisiana. In its 26 year existence, Vintage has established a strong foothold in 8 additional markets. Vintage specializes in
the brokerage, leasing, management, and development of ofce, industrial, medical, multi family and retail properties.
Full Service Commercial Real Estate Provider
SHREVEPORT
Champion Lake - 256 Units
River Walk - 208 Units
Village at Westlake - 208 Units
BOSSIER CITY
Stockwell Landing - 241 Units
ALEXANDRIA
Magnolia Trace - 304 Units
GONZALES
Village at Fountain Lake - 240 units
LAKE CHARLES
Nelson Pointe - 208 units
Country Club Pointe - 256 units
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
Grove at Pleasant Valley - 225 units
Baton Rouge
Shreveport
Bossier City
Alexandria
Lake Charles
Gonzales
Sulphur
Youngsville
Baton Rouge
BATON ROUGE
Park Rowe Village at Perkins Rowe Coming in 2014!
SULPHUR
Belle Savanne Coming in 2014!
YOUNGSVILLE
Waterview at Sugar Mill Pond Coming in 2014!
SHREVEPORT
RiverScape - 208 Units Opened in 2013!
Boulders on Fern - 222 Units Opening this May! N
E
W

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
S
established communities
318-222-2244 | VINTAGEREALTY.COM | 330 MARSHALL ST., STE. 200, SHREVEPORT, LA
Park Rowe Villae is Louisiana's most excitin
new multitamily development. Park Rowe teatures
a unique urban villae litestyle located in Perkins
Rowe and is within walkin distance to shoppin,
dinin, entertainment, a theater and rocery store. It
boasts desiner details, lushly landscaped courtyards
and enerous livin spaces. And, the community's
amenities rival those ot the tinest resorts includin
a stateottheart Fitness Center, Business Center,
Internet Cate, Clubhouse and $wimmin Pool.
PARK ROWE VILLAOE.!"#$%& (""%
!"#$ #&'( )*++",(
" # $ % & ' ( ) * & + , %
Trends 2014 new.indd 1 3/10/2014 11:07:25 AM
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
36
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
37
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
Graphs illustrating the recent trends in apartment rentals are provided in the following pages.
These will be followed by synopses of new multifamily residential (apartment and condo)
construction projects, and more detailed rental/vacancy charts. For more detailed discussions
and information, please call us (we provide professional consulting services) or go to
www.cookmoore.com or www.batonrougetrends.net.
New Apartment Construction
Baton Rouge experienced a recovery period in apartment construction from 1995 to 2005.
Durlng thls perlod, 36 apartment complexes contalnlng a total of 6,800 rental unlts (excludlng
"for salecondos) were bullt ln 8aton Pouge. very few of those new complexes onered standard,
mld-grade apartment unlts (l.e., vlrtually all were orlented toward "nlche markets, such as
students or lower-lncome households). The vast ma[orlty of the new supply over the past 20
years has been oriented toward either more afuent tenants, or lower-income households.
Poughly 6,833 new apartment unlts were completed from when Katrlna hlt on August 29,
2005 through the end of 20l3 (lncludlng the unlts llsted below bullt ln 20l3). Now, l,743 unlts
are under constructlon and 986 unlts are proposed for constructlon by 20l5. The total new
rental supply for 2006-l5 could exceed 9,500 unlts, whlch would equate to roughly 950 unlts
per year over a 10-year span (if all of the planned units are completed by the end of 2015). The
new apartment complexes built, underway and/or planned in Baton Rouge area are listed on
the following pages.
II. New Apartment Construction
Baton Rouge experienced a recovery period in apartment construction from 1995 to 2005. During this period,
36 apartment complexes containing a total of 6,800 rental units (excluding for sale condos) were built in Baton
Rouge. Very few of those new complexes offered standard, mid-grade apartment units (i.e., virtually all were oriented
toward "niche" markets, such as students or lower-income households). The vast majority of the new supply over the
past 20 years has been oriented toward either more affluent tenants, or lower-income households.
Roughly 6,833 new apartment units were completed from when Katrina hit on August 29, 2005 through the
end of 2013 (including the units listed below built in 2013). Now, 1,743 units are under construction and 986 units
are proposed for construction by 2015. The total new rental supply for 2006-15 could exceed 9,500 units, which would
equate to roughly 950 units per year over a 10-year span (if all of the planned units are completed by the end of 2015).
The new apartment complexes built, underway and/or planned in Baton Rouge area are listed on the following pages.
Apartment Complexes Completed in 2013
in the Baton Rouge MSA
Project Name,
Developer & Location
# of
Units Completion Date Comments
GCHP- Mid-City - Belt Line (Olinde) 32 2013 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
(Gulf Coast Housing Partners) financed under subsidy programs;
Construction Completed
The Elysian 100 2013 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
Spanish Town Road east of I-110 Construction Completed
The Corona (1854 North Street) 37 2013 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
Construction Completed
University Edge 158 2013 Upscale/Luxury Student-Oriented units
(Hallmark Campus Properties) financed conventionally;
West McKinley at Iowa Construction Completed
High Grove 192 2013 Upscale/Luxury Conventional units
(Domain Companies) financed via HUD 221d4;
Picardy Blvd off I-10 Construction Completed
Total for 2013 519
Cook, Moore & Associates
Apartment Complexes Under Construction in 2014
in the Baton Rouge MSA
Project Name,
# of Expected
The Onyx 28 2014 Upscale/Luxury Conventional Units
(Commercial Properties Dev Corp) financed conventionally;
Construction Underway
The District 312 2014 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate units
(Vintala Partners/Creekstone) financed conventionally;
Perkins Road near Pollard Construction Underway
Fairfield at Baton Rouge 304 2014 Upscale Luxury Student-Oriented Units
(Fairfield) Construction Underway
449 Ben Hur Road at Burbank Dr
Sterling University 235 2014 Upscale Luxury Student-Oriented Units
(Sterling University Housing/Dinerstein) Construction Underway
4194 Burbank at West Parker
The Standard 247 2014 Upscale/LuxuryStudent-Oriented Units
(Landmark Companies) financed conventionally;
West Chimes Street at LSU North Gates Construction has started
Cypress Springs Elderly 144 2013-14 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
(CDI) financed under subsidy programs;
Hooper Road east of Plank Road Construction Underway
Windsor Court Apartments 120 2014 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
(Iberville Partners) financed under subsidy programs;
LA Hwy 74 in St. Gabriel Construction Underway
Renaissance Gateway 208 2014 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
(CDI) Rehab of abandoned complex
650 North Ardenwood Construction has started
Gardens of Baton Rouge 50 2014 Affordable Housing (Tax Credit) units
(Gary Hinton) financed under subsidy programs;
Plank Road south of Hooper Road Construction has started
IBMTower 95 2015 Upscale Luxury Market-Rate Units
(Commercial Properties Dev Corp) Construction Underway
River Road at Main Street
Total for 2013 1,743
Not included in the following list may be additional properties (in the planning and/or financing stages) for
which the site has not been purchased, site plan approval has not been granted and/or plans have not been publicly
announced. As construction of new units cannot occur without site plan approval and the process of acquiring such
approval is highly political and speculative (as can be the site acquisition process), inclusion of such properties in a
traditional pipeline analysis would be inappropriate.
Not included in the following list may be additional properties (in the planning and/or fnancing stages) for
which the site has not been purchased, site plan approval has not been granted and/or plans have not been
publicly announced. As construction of new units cannot occur without site plan approval and the process of
acquiring such approval is highly political and speculative (as can be the site acquisition process), inclusion of
such properties in a traditional pipeline analysis would be inappropriate.
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
39
Condominium Construction
A source of houslng sometlmes overlooked ls "for sale condo constructlon. Numerous condo
developments were built and attracted reasonably rapid absorption through early 2007
(typically 5 to 10 units selling per month). Absorptions since mid-2007 have been notably slower,
as the reduced availability of mortgage fnancing for condo purchasers has adversely impacted
demand for condos. Fewer than 100 condo units have been built since 2008.
Additional developments are known to be in the works. With the weak recent absorptions
noted, lt ls unllkely an lnnux of unlts wlll occur. Untll mortgage nanclng becomes more readlly
available for condos, absorptions will likely remain relatively slow.
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
38
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
Apartment Complexes Proposed for 2014-2015
(Not Yet Under Construction) in the Baton Rouge MSA
Project Name,
# of Expected
Park Rowe 334 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate Units
(Vintage) to financed conventionally;
Adjoining Perkins Rowe Site acquired; Construction has not started
342 Lafayette 16 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate Units
(Dyke Nelson) to financed conventionally;
342 Lafayette Street (CBD) Site acquired; Construction has not started
Capital One Building 85 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate Units
(Dyke Nelson) to financed conventionally;
Third Street (CBD) Site acquired; Construction has not started
Commerce Building 92 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate units
(TJ Iarocci, New Orleans) to be financed via HUD 221d4;
333 Laurel Street Building acquired; conversion has not started
East Boyd Apartments 85 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate units
(Dantin &Bruce, Baton Rouge) to be financed conventionally;
East Boyd at Dodson Site acquired; construction has not started
River House 224 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate units
(Marc Blumberg) to be financed conventionally;
West McKinley at Iowa Site acquired; construction has not started
Audubon Apartment Homes 182 2014-15 Upscale/Luxury Market-Rate units
(Heritage Construction) to be financed via HUD 221d4;
LA 64 west of LA 964, Zachary Site acquired; construction has not started
Total Units Planned 986
III. Condominium Construction
A source of housing sometimes overlooked is for sale condo construction. Numerous condo developments
were built and attracted reasonably rapid absorption through early 2007 (typically 5 to 10 units selling per month).
Absorptions since mid-2007 have been notably slower, as the reduced availability of mortgage financing for condo
purchasers has adversely impacted demand for condos. Fewer than 100 condo units have been built since 2008.
Additional developments are known to be in the works. With the weak recent absorptions noted, it is unlikely
an influx of units will occur. Until mortgage financing becomes more readily available for condos, absorptions will
likely remain relatively slow.
C
o
o
k
,

M
o
o
r
e

&

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
Apartment Rent & Vacancy Statistics
On the followlng pages are presented tables summarlzlng the gures complled ln the LSU/CMA
apartment surveys performed in Fall/Winter 2013-14:
IV. Apartment Rent & Vacancy Statistics
On the following pages are presented tables summarizing the figures compiled in the LSU/CMA apartment
surveys performed in Fall/Winter 2013-14:
Area
Number of
Complexes 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Total 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Total
ALL 145 $548 $731 $869 $1,025 $1,531 $1.820 $1.031 $0.861 $0.832 $1.162 $0.916 8.82% 5.80% 5.57% 5.04% 7.81% 5.68%
1 40 $609 $761 $946 $1,259 $1,783 $1.257 $1.093 $0.978 $1.088 $1.383 $1.063 10.95% 5.34% 5.67% 6.36% 9.23% 5.97%
2 37 $597 $861 $990 $1,129 $1,029 $1.431 $1.170 $0.918 $0.920 $0.799 $0.992 10.00% 4.04% 3.69% 3.36% 0.00% 3.84%
3 33 $563 $743 $862 $923 $899 $1.155 $1.024 $0.835 $0.713 $0.569 $0.866 2.44% 4.72% 4.71% 5.79% 6.67% 4.86%
4 15 $525 $498 $593 $645 - $1.050 $0.761 $0.631 $0.537 - $0.655 0.00% 9.81% 9.93% 7.81% - 9.68%
5 20 $448 $519 $630 $719 $756 $0.980 $0.769 $0.680 $0.652 $0.604 $0.704 8.00% 10.58% 8.90% 2.76% 3.45% 8.32%
Table 1
Average Rent Average Rent per Sq. Ft. Vacancy Rate
Apartment Data by Area
(Fall 2013 Full Data Set)
Area
Number of
ALL 48 $582 $799 $939 $1,104 $1,557 $1.188 $1.091 $0.904 $0.854 $1.108 $0.960 7.30% 4.69% 4.70% 4.68% 4.95% 4.73%
1 14 $731 $825 $1,001 $1,281 $1,800 $1.450 $1.131 $1.001 $1.036 $1.343 $1.068 0.00% 3.88% 4.93% 4.86% 4.32% 4.44%
2 12 $645 $955 $1,125 $1,421 - $1.421 $1.263 $1.026 $1.028 - $1.107 6.12% 3.35% 3.05% 3.67% - 3.29%
3 17 - $774 $877 $903 $899 - $1.029 $0.845 $0.689 $0.569 $0.873 - 4.35% 4.24% 5.67% 6.67% 4.47%
4 2 $525 $553 $616 $764 - $1.050 $0.778 $0.597 $0.602 - $0.641 0.00% 7.48% 5.60% 3.17% - 5.86%
5 3 $367 $438 $591 $705 - $0.711 $0.615 $0.592 $0.621 - $0.607 15.91% 17.07% 11.92% 3.08% - 12.49%
Table 2
Apartment Data by Area for Large Complexes
Data Set
With 0 BR
Units
With 1 BR
Units
With 2 BR
Units
With 3 BR
Units
With 4 BR
Units
Total # of
Complexes
0 BR
Units
1 BR
Units
2 BR
Units
3 BR
Units
4 BR
Units
Total
Units
All Complexes 20 130 138 91 20 126 374 9,264 11,903 3,153 538 25,232
Large Complexes 7 47 48 34 7 43 137 5,666 6,590 1,623 222 14,238
Number of Units by Data Set Number of Complexes
Table 3
Fall 2013 Data Set Statistics
TABLE 1: APARTMENT DATA BY AREA
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
41
TABLE 2: APARTMENT DATA BY AREA FOR LARGE COMPLEXES
Vacancy
Zip
Code
Number of
Complexes
Number
of Units per Unit per Sq. Ft. Total
70802 4 632 $824 $1.151 9.02%
70805 5 718 $531 $0.729 8.36%
70806 22 2,903 $698 $0.767 8.23%
70808 15 2,336 $819 $0.982 3.90%
70809 23 4,629 $998 $1.005 3.87%
70810 8 1,611 $1,049 $1.031 3.79%
70814 3 481 $688 $0.774 3.53%
70815 16 2,444 $615 $0.666 7.86%
70816 24 5,886 $837 $0.889 5.42%
70817 4 605 $931 $0.860 4.46%
70820 16 2,283 $1,069 $1.158 7.75%
Average Rent
TABLE 4:
APARTMENT DATA
BY ZIP CODE
(Zip Codes w/ More Than 1
Complex)
Data Set
With 0 BR
Units
With 1 BR
Units
With 2 BR
Units
With 3 BR
Units
With 4 BR
Units
Total # of
Complexes
0 BR
Units
1 BR
Units
2 BR
Units
3 BR
Units
4 BR
Units
Total
Units
All Complexes 20 130 138 91 20 126 374 9,264 11,903 3,153 538 25,232
Large Complexes 7 47 48 34 7 43 137 5,666 6,590 1,623 222 14,238
Number of Units by Data Set Number of Complexes
TABLE 3: FALL 2013 DATA SET STATISTICS
Area
Number of
ALL 48 $582 $799 $939 $1,104 $1,557 $1.188 $1.091 $0.904 $0.854 $1.108 $0.960 7.30% 4.69% 4.70% 4.68% 4.95% 4.73%
1 14 $731 $825 $1,001 $1,281 $1,800 $1.450 $1.131 $1.001 $1.036 $1.343 $1.068 0.00% 3.88% 4.93% 4.86% 4.32% 4.44%
2 12 $645 $955 $1,125 $1,421 - $1.421 $1.263 $1.026 $1.028 - $1.107 6.12% 3.35% 3.05% 3.67% - 3.29%
3 17 - $774 $877 $903 $899 - $1.029 $0.845 $0.689 $0.569 $0.873 - 4.35% 4.24% 5.67% 6.67% 4.47%
4 2 $525 $553 $616 $764 - $1.050 $0.778 $0.597 $0.602 - $0.641 0.00% 7.48% 5.60% 3.17% - 5.86%
5 3 $367 $438 $591 $705 - $0.711 $0.615 $0.592 $0.621 - $0.607 15.91% 17.07% 11.92% 3.08% - 12.49%
Tundra Terrell Nunez
Project Manager
Gonzales, LA
(225) 382-4815
tterrel@entergy.com
A message from Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. and Entergy Louisiana, LLC 2014 Entergy Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
We know that when youre building a familys home, having the right tools for the job makes the job go much
smoother. You can apply online at entergylouisiana.com to turn on service for new residential construction and
to access standards information.
We are working hard to make it easier for you to do business.
Thats The Power of People. Entergy.
Building communities
one family at a time.
Dennis Smith
Project Manager
Baton Rouge, LA
(225) 339-3237
dsmit15@entergy.com
42
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
APARTMENT DATA
BY AREA -
Vacancy Rate
(Spring 2011 - Fall 2013
Matched Sample Data Set)
TABLE 5: APARTMENT DATA BY AREA - Avg. Rent & Avg. Rent per Sq. Ft.
(Spring 2011 - Fall 2013 Matched Sample Data Set)
Number of
Area Complexes Period 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Total
F 2013 $545 $744 $889 $1,094 $1,666 $1.179 $1.044 $0.879 $0.888 $1.301 $0.944
F 2012 $544 $723 $878 $1,079 $1,658 $1.177 $1.015 $0.868 $0.876 $1.294 $0.928
S 2012 $537 $708 $868 $1,081 $1,670 $1.161 $0.994 $0.859 $0.878 $1.303 $0.917
F 2011 $533 $708 $866 $1,074 $1,440 $1.153 $0.994 $0.856 $0.873 $1.124 $0.909
S 2011 $523 $703 $858 $1,065 $1,647 $1.130 $0.986 $0.848 $0.865 $1.286 $0.906
F 2013 $609 $769 $965 $1,358 $1,838 $1.257 $1.106 $0.994 $1.199 $1.442 $1.095
F 2012 $613 $746 $955 $1,338 $1,835 $1.265 $1.073 $0.984 $1.181 $1.440 $1.078
S 2012 $610 $741 $965 $1,366 $1,854 $1.259 $1.065 $0.994 $1.206 $1.454 $1.086
F 2011 $610 $740 $954 $1,366 $1,574 $1.259 $1.065 $0.983 $1.206 $1.235 $1.061
S 2011 $607 $722 $936 $1,350 $1,828 $1.253 $1.038 $0.964 $1.192 $1.434 $1.059
F 2013 $597 $879 $984 $1,247 $1,029 $1.431 $1.180 $0.914 $0.932 $0.799 $0.983
F 2012 $596 $852 $985 $1,226 $937 $1.428 $1.144 $0.914 $0.916 $0.728 $0.953
S 2012 $583 $819 $957 $1,204 $895 $1.397 $1.100 $0.888 $0.899 $0.695 $0.955
F 2011 $582 $821 $964 $1,191 $895 $1.394 $1.102 $0.895 $0.889 $0.695 $0.949
S 2011 $546 $826 $952 $1,176 $879 $1.310 $1.110 $0.883 $0.879 $0.682 $0.949
F 2013 $540 $742 $873 $977 $896 $1.096 $1.026 $0.848 $0.755 $0.572 $0.888
F 2012 $535 $718 $854 $971 $896 $1.085 $0.994 $0.830 $0.751 $0.572 $0.867
S 2012 $535 $703 $849 $974 $878 $1.085 $0.972 $0.825 $0.753 $0.560 $0.859
F 2011 $510 $707 $843 $969 $883 $1.036 $0.978 $0.819 $0.749 $0.564 $0.856
S 2011 $506 $701 $840 $968 $884 $1.026 $0.971 $0.816 $0.748 $0.564 $0.852
F 2013 $525 $523 $619 $686 - $1.050 $0.780 $0.662 $0.534 - $0.679
F 2012 $510 $506 $589 $682 - $1.020 $0.756 $0.630 $0.531 - $0.653
S 2012 - $502 $573 $686 - - $0.749 $0.613 $0.834 - $0.642
F 2011 $450 $496 $581 $674 - $0.900 $0.740 $0.622 $0.524 - $0.643
S 2011 $450 $499 $585 $636 - $0.900 $0.744 $0.627 $0.495 - $0.642
F 2013 $448 $520 $631 $720 $756 $0.980 $0.769 $0.675 $0.661 $0.607 $0.710
F 2012 $442 $523 $620 $709 $756 $0.967 $0.774 $0.664 $0.651 $0.607 $0.704
S 2012 $436 $517 $598 $707 $756 $0.954 $0.765 $0.640 $0.649 $0.607 $0.691
F 2011 $427 $506 $594 $696 $756 $0.935 $0.749 $0.635 $0.639 $0.607 $0.981
S 2011 $421 $504 $606 $699 $756 $0.921 $0.747 $0.648 $0.641 $0.607 $0.686
Number of
Area Complexes Period 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Total
F 2013 8.94% 5.65% 5.42% 4.88% 8.30% 5.56%
F 2012 6.15% 5.06% 5.27% 6.18% 7.40% 5.35%
S 2012 8.10% 6.27% 6.50% 6.22% 14.13% 6.57%
F 2011 10.34% 6.22% 7.06% 7.04% 3.81% 6.73%
S 2011 9.50% 6.37% 6.71% 6.91% 12.78% 6.78%
F 2013 10.95% 5.47% 5.97% 6.88% 9.56% 6.22%
F 2012 5.11% 4.34% 4.86% 8.13% 8.20% 5.24%
S 2012 13.14% 7.69% 8.66% 7.66% 16.39% 8.78%
F 2011 19.71% 7.78% 8.47% 7.50% 3.28% 8.06%
S 2011 17.52% 9.43% 8.40% 7.19% 13.93% 9.18%
F 2013 10.00% 3.86% 3.73% 3.52% 0.00% 3.81%
F 2012 5.71% 3.53% 4.13% 5.97% 0.00% 4.12%
S 2012 4.29% 5.08% 4.50% 7.20% 3.33% 5.03%
F 2011 4.29% 4.10% 4.87% 4.59% 3.33% 4.53%
S 2011 2.86% 5.65% 5.98% 6.13% 6.67% 5.83%
F 2013 0.00% 4.79% 4.45% 4.83% 0.00% 4.60%
F 2012 4.00% 4.92% 4.52% 3.47% 16.67% 4.58%
S 2012 0.00% 5.63% 5.61% 6.49% 0.00% 5.68%
F 2011 8.00% 6.75% 7.68% 7.84% 8.33% 7.34%
S 2011 4.00% 5.09% 5.54% 6.03% 0.00% 7.40%
F 2013 0.00% 7.22% 7.21% 6.78% - 7.17%
F 2012 0.00% 8.10% 7.05% 3.39% - 7.08%
S 2012 - 4.60% 5.57% 3.39% - 4.97%
F 2011 0.00% 5.25% 5.25% 2.54% - 4.97%
S 2011 0.00% 7.44% 7.70% 5.93% - 7.42%
F 2013 8.00% 10.89% 10.46% 3.38% 5.26% 9.38%
F 2012 8.00% 8.60% 10.77% 8.83% 2.63% 9.34%
S 2012 6.40% 8.02% 9.44% 2.60% 5.26% 7.63%
F 2011 4.00% 6.59% 8.41% 10.39% 7.89% 7.74%
S 2011 5.60% 4.11% 7.08% 9.61% 10.53% 6.23%
2 33
3
Vacancy Rate
ALL 126
1 37
28
4 10
33
5 18
ALL 126
1 37
2
Average Rent Average Rent per Sq. Ft.
5 18
3 28
4 10
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
Number of
F 2013 $545 $744 $889 $1,094 $1,666 $1.179 $1.044 $0.879 $0.888 $1.301 $0.944
F 2012 $544 $723 $878 $1,079 $1,658 $1.177 $1.015 $0.868 $0.876 $1.294 $0.928
S 2012 $537 $708 $868 $1,081 $1,670 $1.161 $0.994 $0.859 $0.878 $1.303 $0.917
F 2011 $533 $708 $866 $1,074 $1,440 $1.153 $0.994 $0.856 $0.873 $1.124 $0.909
S 2011 $523 $703 $858 $1,065 $1,647 $1.130 $0.986 $0.848 $0.865 $1.286 $0.906
F 2013 $609 $769 $965 $1,358 $1,838 $1.257 $1.106 $0.994 $1.199 $1.442 $1.095
F 2012 $613 $746 $955 $1,338 $1,835 $1.265 $1.073 $0.984 $1.181 $1.440 $1.078
S 2012 $610 $741 $965 $1,366 $1,854 $1.259 $1.065 $0.994 $1.206 $1.454 $1.086
F 2011 $610 $740 $954 $1,366 $1,574 $1.259 $1.065 $0.983 $1.206 $1.235 $1.061
S 2011 $607 $722 $936 $1,350 $1,828 $1.253 $1.038 $0.964 $1.192 $1.434 $1.059
F 2013 $597 $879 $984 $1,247 $1,029 $1.431 $1.180 $0.914 $0.932 $0.799 $0.983
F 2012 $596 $852 $985 $1,226 $937 $1.428 $1.144 $0.914 $0.916 $0.728 $0.953
S 2012 $583 $819 $957 $1,204 $895 $1.397 $1.100 $0.888 $0.899 $0.695 $0.955
F 2011 $582 $821 $964 $1,191 $895 $1.394 $1.102 $0.895 $0.889 $0.695 $0.949
S 2011 $546 $826 $952 $1,176 $879 $1.310 $1.110 $0.883 $0.879 $0.682 $0.949
F 2013 $540 $742 $873 $977 $896 $1.096 $1.026 $0.848 $0.755 $0.572 $0.888
F 2012 $535 $718 $854 $971 $896 $1.085 $0.994 $0.830 $0.751 $0.572 $0.867
S 2012 $535 $703 $849 $974 $878 $1.085 $0.972 $0.825 $0.753 $0.560 $0.859
F 2011 $510 $707 $843 $969 $883 $1.036 $0.978 $0.819 $0.749 $0.564 $0.856
S 2011 $506 $701 $840 $968 $884 $1.026 $0.971 $0.816 $0.748 $0.564 $0.852
F 2013 $525 $523 $619 $686 - $1.050 $0.780 $0.662 $0.534 - $0.679
F 2012 $510 $506 $589 $682 - $1.020 $0.756 $0.630 $0.531 - $0.653
S 2012 - $502 $573 $686 - - $0.749 $0.613 $0.834 - $0.642
F 2011 $450 $496 $581 $674 - $0.900 $0.740 $0.622 $0.524 - $0.643
S 2011 $450 $499 $585 $636 - $0.900 $0.744 $0.627 $0.495 - $0.642
F 2013 $448 $520 $631 $720 $756 $0.980 $0.769 $0.675 $0.661 $0.607 $0.710
F 2012 $442 $523 $620 $709 $756 $0.967 $0.774 $0.664 $0.651 $0.607 $0.704
S 2012 $436 $517 $598 $707 $756 $0.954 $0.765 $0.640 $0.649 $0.607 $0.691
F 2011 $427 $506 $594 $696 $756 $0.935 $0.749 $0.635 $0.639 $0.607 $0.981
S 2011 $421 $504 $606 $699 $756 $0.921 $0.747 $0.648 $0.641 $0.607 $0.686
Number of
F 2013 8.94% 5.65% 5.42% 4.88% 8.30% 5.56%
F 2012 6.15% 5.06% 5.27% 6.18% 7.40% 5.35%
S 2012 8.10% 6.27% 6.50% 6.22% 14.13% 6.57%
F 2011 10.34% 6.22% 7.06% 7.04% 3.81% 6.73%
S 2011 9.50% 6.37% 6.71% 6.91% 12.78% 6.78%
F 2013 10.95% 5.47% 5.97% 6.88% 9.56% 6.22%
F 2012 5.11% 4.34% 4.86% 8.13% 8.20% 5.24%
S 2012 13.14% 7.69% 8.66% 7.66% 16.39% 8.78%
F 2011 19.71% 7.78% 8.47% 7.50% 3.28% 8.06%
S 2011 17.52% 9.43% 8.40% 7.19% 13.93% 9.18%
F 2013 10.00% 3.86% 3.73% 3.52% 0.00% 3.81%
F 2012 5.71% 3.53% 4.13% 5.97% 0.00% 4.12%
S 2012 4.29% 5.08% 4.50% 7.20% 3.33% 5.03%
F 2011 4.29% 4.10% 4.87% 4.59% 3.33% 4.53%
S 2011 2.86% 5.65% 5.98% 6.13% 6.67% 5.83%
F 2013 0.00% 4.79% 4.45% 4.83% 0.00% 4.60%
F 2012 4.00% 4.92% 4.52% 3.47% 16.67% 4.58%
S 2012 0.00% 5.63% 5.61% 6.49% 0.00% 5.68%
F 2011 8.00% 6.75% 7.68% 7.84% 8.33% 7.34%
S 2011 4.00% 5.09% 5.54% 6.03% 0.00% 7.40%
F 2013 0.00% 7.22% 7.21% 6.78% - 7.17%
F 2012 0.00% 8.10% 7.05% 3.39% - 7.08%
S 2012 - 4.60% 5.57% 3.39% - 4.97%
F 2011 0.00% 5.25% 5.25% 2.54% - 4.97%
S 2011 0.00% 7.44% 7.70% 5.93% - 7.42%
F 2013 8.00% 10.89% 10.46% 3.38% 5.26% 9.38%
F 2012 8.00% 8.60% 10.77% 8.83% 2.63% 9.34%
S 2012 6.40% 8.02% 9.44% 2.60% 5.26% 7.63%
F 2011 4.00% 6.59% 8.41% 10.39% 7.89% 7.74%
S 2011 5.60% 4.11% 7.08% 9.61% 10.53% 6.23%
2 33
3
Vacancy Rate
ALL 126
1 37
28
4 10
33
5 18
ALL 126
1 37
2
5 18
3 28
4 10
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y

T
R
E
N
D
S
44
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
45
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
TABLE 7:
APARTMENT
DATA BY
ZIP CODE
Matched Sample
Data Set)
(Zip Codes with More Than
1 Complex)
Number of
F 2013 $582 $810 $963 $1,249 $1,867 $1.188 $1.106 $0.929 $0.963 $1.402 $1.002
F 2012 $585 $785 $949 $1,208 $1,855 $1.193 $1.072 $0.915 $0.932 $1.393 $0.980
S 2012 $577 $766 $943 $1,221 $1,900 $1.178 $1.046 $0.909 $0.942 $1.427 $0.970
F 2011 $579 $765 $935 $1,218 $1,261 $1.181 $1.045 $0.902 $0.939 $0.947 $0.957
S 2011 $561 $760 $924 $1,207 $1,897 $1.144 $1.038 $0.891 $0.931 $1.425 $0.956
F 2013 $731 $833 $1,021 $1,453 $1,951 $1.450 $1.143 $1.021 $1.196 $1.488 $1.109
F 2012 $740 $808 $997 $1,384 $1,938 $1.468 $1.141 $0.998 $1.138 $1.478 $1.079
S 2012 $751 $802 $1,014 $1,443 $1,989 $1.490 $1.100 $1.015 $1.187 $1.517 $1.092
F 2011 $751 $800 $1,000 $1,458 $1,293 $1.490 $1.098 $1.001 $1.199 $0.987 $1.057
S 2011 $751 $778 $985 $1,451 $1,986 $1.490 $1.067 $0.986 $1.194 $1.514 $1.068
F 2013 $645 $955 $1,108 $1,421 - $1.421 $1.163 $1.019 $1.028 - $1.108
F 2012 $645 $927 $1,115 $1,356 - $1.142 $1.225 $1.025 $0.981 - $1.090
S 2012 $625 $887 $1,076 $1,342 - $1.377 $1.173 $0.989 $0.971 - $1.052
F 2011 $625 $885 $1,085 $1,325 - $1.337 $1.169 $0.998 $0.959 - $1.053
S 2011 $575 $894 $1,064 $1,302 - $1.267 $1.181 $0.978 $0.942 - $1.044
F 2013 - $738 $887 $986 $896 - $1.027 $0.857 $0.748 $0.572 $0.901
F 2012 - $711 $867 $995 $896 - $0.990 $0.838 $0.855 $0.572 $0.879
S 2012 - $695 $863 $998 $878 - $0.968 $0.833 $0.758 $0.560 $0.869
F 2011 - $696 $851 $992 $884 - $0.969 $0.822 $0.753 $0.056 $0.867
S 2011 - $699 $856 $975 $884 - $0.968 $0.818 $0.751 $0.564 $0.863
F 2013 $525 $580 $645 $750 - $1.050 $0.806 $0.679 $0.615 - $0.687
F 2012 $510 $570 $635 $740 - $1.020 $0.792 $0.668 $0.607 - $0.677
S 2012 - $570 $635 $740 - - $0.792 $0.668 $0.607 - $0.674
F 2011 $450 $560 $625 $730 - $0.900 $0.788 $0.658 $0.598 - $0.666
S 2011 $450 $565 $625 $730 - $0.900 $0.785 $0.658 $0.598 - $0.667
F 2013 $367 $434 $559 $645 - $0.711 $0.603 $0.518 $0.643 - $0.567
F 2012 $367 $437 $535 $645 - $0.711 $0.607 $0.495 $0.643 - $0.557
S 2012 $367 $437 $535 $645 - $0.711 $0.607 $0.495 $0.643 - $0.557
F 2011 $362 $419 $484 $645 - $0.701 $0.582 $0.448 $0.643 - $0.523
S 2011 $362 $417 $483 $645 - $0.701 $0.579 $0.447 $0.643 - $0.522
Number of
F 2013 7.30% 4.60% 4.51% 3.82% 4.00% 4.51%
F 2012 6.57% 4.02% 4.62% 5.55% 10.67% 4.55%
S 2012 4.38% 5.71% 5.98% 7.64% 3.33% 5.98%
F 2011 5.84% 5.72% 6.56% 6.28% 6.00% 6.16%
S 2011 8.03% 6.19% 6.33% 6.19% 4.00% 6.25%
F 2013 0.00% 3.80% 4.86% 4.49% 4.35% 4.32%
F 2012 0.00% 3.80% 4.02% 6.09% 10.14% 4.29%
S 2012 4.65% 6.78% 8.64% 8.65% 3.62% 7.65%
F 2011 9.30% 6.65% 8.04% 8.01% 5.80% 7.40%
S 2011 18.60% 8.55% 7.86% 7.05% 4.35% 8.06%
F 2013 6.12% 3.35% 2.89% 3.67% - 3.32%
F 2012 8.16% 3.42% 4.77% 8.40% - 4.65%
S 2012 4.08% 4.88% 3.54% 8.92% - 4.77%
F 2011 4.08% 3.56% 3.76% 4.20% - 3.73%
S 2011 4.08% 6.00% 6.50% 6.56% - 6.25%
F 2013 - 4.40% 3.76% 3.41% 0.00% 4.00%
F 2012 - 4.51% 4.91% 2.79% 16.67% 4.61%
S 2012 - 5.59% 5.68% 6.81% 0.00% 5.71%
F 2011 - 5.27% 5.83% 5.88% 0.00% 7.40%
S 2011 - 5.25% 5.88% 5.79% 0.00% 5.57%
F 2013 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% - 0.77%
F 2012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - 0.00%
S 2012 - 1.56% 1.40% 0.00% - 1.16%
F 2011 0.00% 1.56% 1.40% 0.00% - 1.16%
S 2011 0.00% 1.56% 2.10% 1.96% - 1.93%
F 2013 15.91% 18.82% 20.43% 9.38% - 18.72%
F 2012 11.36% 6.27% 8.26% 3.13% - 7.31%
S 2012 4.55% 6.67% 6.96% 3.13% - 6.42%
F 2011 4.55% 5.10% 5.22% 6.25% - 5.17%
S 2011 2.27% 1.57% 1.30% 3.13% - 1.60%
5 2
Vacancy Rate
3 14
4 2
1 13
2 12
5 2
ALL 43
3 14
4 2
1 13
2 12
ALL 43
TABLE 6: APARTMENT DATA BY AREA FOR LARGE COMPLEXES
Avg. Rent & Avg. Rent per Sq. Ft. (Spring 2011 - Fall 2013 Matched Sample Data Set)
Number of
F 2013 $582 $810 $963 $1,249 $1,867 $1.188 $1.106 $0.929 $0.963 $1.402 $1.002
F 2012 $585 $785 $949 $1,208 $1,855 $1.193 $1.072 $0.915 $0.932 $1.393 $0.980
S 2012 $577 $766 $943 $1,221 $1,900 $1.178 $1.046 $0.909 $0.942 $1.427 $0.970
F 2011 $579 $765 $935 $1,218 $1,261 $1.181 $1.045 $0.902 $0.939 $0.947 $0.957
S 2011 $561 $760 $924 $1,207 $1,897 $1.144 $1.038 $0.891 $0.931 $1.425 $0.956
F 2013 $731 $833 $1,021 $1,453 $1,951 $1.450 $1.143 $1.021 $1.196 $1.488 $1.109
F 2012 $740 $808 $997 $1,384 $1,938 $1.468 $1.141 $0.998 $1.138 $1.478 $1.079
S 2012 $751 $802 $1,014 $1,443 $1,989 $1.490 $1.100 $1.015 $1.187 $1.517 $1.092
F 2011 $751 $800 $1,000 $1,458 $1,293 $1.490 $1.098 $1.001 $1.199 $0.987 $1.057
S 2011 $751 $778 $985 $1,451 $1,986 $1.490 $1.067 $0.986 $1.194 $1.514 $1.068
F 2013 $645 $955 $1,108 $1,421 - $1.421 $1.163 $1.019 $1.028 - $1.108
F 2012 $645 $927 $1,115 $1,356 - $1.142 $1.225 $1.025 $0.981 - $1.090
S 2012 $625 $887 $1,076 $1,342 - $1.377 $1.173 $0.989 $0.971 - $1.052
F 2011 $625 $885 $1,085 $1,325 - $1.337 $1.169 $0.998 $0.959 - $1.053
S 2011 $575 $894 $1,064 $1,302 - $1.267 $1.181 $0.978 $0.942 - $1.044
F 2013 - $738 $887 $986 $896 - $1.027 $0.857 $0.748 $0.572 $0.901
F 2012 - $711 $867 $995 $896 - $0.990 $0.838 $0.855 $0.572 $0.879
S 2012 - $695 $863 $998 $878 - $0.968 $0.833 $0.758 $0.560 $0.869
F 2011 - $696 $851 $992 $884 - $0.969 $0.822 $0.753 $0.056 $0.867
S 2011 - $699 $856 $975 $884 - $0.968 $0.818 $0.751 $0.564 $0.863
F 2013 $525 $580 $645 $750 - $1.050 $0.806 $0.679 $0.615 - $0.687
F 2012 $510 $570 $635 $740 - $1.020 $0.792 $0.668 $0.607 - $0.677
S 2012 - $570 $635 $740 - - $0.792 $0.668 $0.607 - $0.674
F 2011 $450 $560 $625 $730 - $0.900 $0.788 $0.658 $0.598 - $0.666
S 2011 $450 $565 $625 $730 - $0.900 $0.785 $0.658 $0.598 - $0.667
F 2013 $367 $434 $559 $645 - $0.711 $0.603 $0.518 $0.643 - $0.567
F 2012 $367 $437 $535 $645 - $0.711 $0.607 $0.495 $0.643 - $0.557
S 2012 $367 $437 $535 $645 - $0.711 $0.607 $0.495 $0.643 - $0.557
F 2011 $362 $419 $484 $645 - $0.701 $0.582 $0.448 $0.643 - $0.523
S 2011 $362 $417 $483 $645 - $0.701 $0.579 $0.447 $0.643 - $0.522
Number of
F 2013 7.30% 4.60% 4.51% 3.82% 4.00% 4.51%
F 2012 6.57% 4.02% 4.62% 5.55% 10.67% 4.55%
S 2012 4.38% 5.71% 5.98% 7.64% 3.33% 5.98%
F 2011 5.84% 5.72% 6.56% 6.28% 6.00% 6.16%
S 2011 8.03% 6.19% 6.33% 6.19% 4.00% 6.25%
F 2013 0.00% 3.80% 4.86% 4.49% 4.35% 4.32%
F 2012 0.00% 3.80% 4.02% 6.09% 10.14% 4.29%
S 2012 4.65% 6.78% 8.64% 8.65% 3.62% 7.65%
F 2011 9.30% 6.65% 8.04% 8.01% 5.80% 7.40%
S 2011 18.60% 8.55% 7.86% 7.05% 4.35% 8.06%
F 2013 6.12% 3.35% 2.89% 3.67% - 3.32%
F 2012 8.16% 3.42% 4.77% 8.40% - 4.65%
S 2012 4.08% 4.88% 3.54% 8.92% - 4.77%
F 2011 4.08% 3.56% 3.76% 4.20% - 3.73%
S 2011 4.08% 6.00% 6.50% 6.56% - 6.25%
F 2013 - 4.40% 3.76% 3.41% 0.00% 4.00%
F 2012 - 4.51% 4.91% 2.79% 16.67% 4.61%
S 2012 - 5.59% 5.68% 6.81% 0.00% 5.71%
F 2011 - 5.27% 5.83% 5.88% 0.00% 7.40%
S 2011 - 5.25% 5.88% 5.79% 0.00% 5.57%
F 2013 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% - 0.77%
F 2012 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - 0.00%
S 2012 - 1.56% 1.40% 0.00% - 1.16%
F 2011 0.00% 1.56% 1.40% 0.00% - 1.16%
S 2011 0.00% 1.56% 2.10% 1.96% - 1.93%
F 2013 15.91% 18.82% 20.43% 9.38% - 18.72%
F 2012 11.36% 6.27% 8.26% 3.13% - 7.31%
S 2012 4.55% 6.67% 6.96% 3.13% - 6.42%
F 2011 4.55% 5.10% 5.22% 6.25% - 5.17%
S 2011 2.27% 1.57% 1.30% 3.13% - 1.60%
5 2
Vacancy Rate
3 14
4 2
1 13
2 12
5 2
ALL 43
3 14
4 2
1 13
2 12
ALL 43
APARTMENT DATA
BY AREA FOR
LARGE COMPLEXES
Vacancy Rate
Matched Sample Data Set)
47
R E TAI L T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
46
20
14
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
2014 RETAIL COMMITTEE
JONATHAN WALKER, CCIM
Speaker, TRENDS
MAESTRI-MURRELL, INC.
CHARLIE COLVIN , CCIM
WADE GREENE
MAESTRI-MURRELL, INC.
AUSTIN EARHART
JUSTIN LANGLOIS, CCIM
MIKE FALGOUST & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SEAN MCDONALD, MAI
COOK, MOORE, & ASSOCIATES
EVAN SCROGGS
NAI LATTER & BLUM
COLIN SMITH
KURZ AND HEBERT
DOTTIE TARLETON, CCIM
STIRLING PROPERTIES
2)03%0) !4*&5*)
A Survey of Shopping Centers in Baton Rouge: Spring 2014
This report was prepared from data collected
from e-mail and telephone surveys of shopping
center managers, leasing agents, and owners
conducted by members of the Baton Rouge
TRENDS in Real Estate Retail Committee.
Surveys were conducted in February and March
2014. Extensive independent verifcation was
not provided, however quoted rents and/
or vacancies that appeared anomalous were
checked.
Description of the Analysis
Once again our survey included breaking
down data for anchored and non-anchored
spaces. We believe this is the best indicator of
what "small shop space ls actually leaslng for.
Previous surveys refected rental rates collected
on a high-low basis, with an average rental rate
for each property calculated based on the high-
low indicators. This caused anchored centers
(with typically lower rentals for the large spaces)
to signifcantly skew the rental fgures. This is
now the fourth year of breaking out the anchor
spaces in the rental survey and we now feel we
are able to track an accurate "trend ln the rental
rates.
The shopping center survey analysis is
structured as follows:
- Sultes over l5,000 square feet are consldered
to be anchor spaces.
- Pental rates for non-anchor spaces are
collected on a high-low basis, with an
average rental rate for each property
calculated based on the high-low indicators.
- The rentals lndlcated are renectlve of varylng lease terms, wlth some shopplng centers requlrlng
expense reimbursements from tenants in addition to base rentals and some shopping centers
requiring no additional reimbursements. To arrive at consistent rentals, any additional
reimbursements paid by tenants (generally for common area maintenance(CAM), taxes and
insurance) are added to each shopping centers calculated average rental to arrive at a total average
rental.
- Attempts to survey each shopplng center are made each year, however, due to turnover ln
management and/or ownership, results for each shopping center are not available every year.
Comparison of the total surveyed leasable space and number of shopping centers indicated in each
time period should not be taken as an indication of new construction and/or demolition, but as an
indication of properties for which data was provided.
- The vacancy Pate gures presented should not be vlewed as a matched sample, as the gures for
each time period refect the results for each individual survey. They are, however, considered to be
indicative of general market conditions.
- Only shopplng centers of over l5,000 square feet of leasable space are lncluded ln the survey.
Numerous small strip centers throughout the Baton Rouge area are excluded from the analysis due
to the minimal size requirement for the survey.
- 8aton Pouge's two enclosed shopplng malls, the Mall of Loulslana and Cortana Mall, are excluded
from the survey. Due to the large size of these centers and signifcantly higher rentals collected
for mall spaces compared to standard multi-tenant retail spaces, these properties have
historically caused signifcant skewing of the vacancy and average rental results when included in
past reports. They were eliminated from the survey in 2007, with results from earlier surveys revised
to exclude these centers.
- 8aton Pouge's 3 completed llfestyle centers - Perklns Powe, The 8oulevard at the Mall of Loulslana
and Towne Center - were surveyed for the rst tlme ln 2008. As wlth the shopplng malls, these
centers collect signifcantly higher rentals, inclusion of which would likely signifcantly skew the
data. These three centers are generally excluded from the fgures presented, and specifc
information will be given on these centers during the actual presentation.
- Analyses are performed by vacancy Pate (Table 1 page 55), Size/Type (Table 2 page 56),
Age (Table 3 page 57), Location (Table 4 page 58) and both Location and Type (Table 5 page 59).
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
48
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)

Summary of Spring 2014 Retail Survey
- Attempts were made to contact l33 shopplng centers ln Last 8aton Pouge, Ascenslon and
Livingston Parishes, with responses obtained from 124 shopping centers.
- Acadlan vlllage was demollshed ln 2008 but has now been redeveloped. Thls property ls over 95%
occupied, and has been included in this years survey.
- Lxcludlng the llfestyle centers, a total of 8,480,05l square feet of leasable space was surveyed, wlth
900,116 square feet (10.61%) reported to be vacant. This vacancy rate is only slightly higher than
the 9.86% reported in the 2013 survey, and the 9.23% vacancy rate reported in the 2012 survey,
however much lower than the 12.55% vacancy rate in the 2010 survey.
- Average Total Collectlons (rent and expense relmbursements) for non-anchor space were $l6.85/
square foot, which refects a slight increase in rental rates from the 2013 survey ($16.21).
Analysis by Vacancy Rate
Table 1 (see page 55) contains the analysis by vacancy rate. The overall vacancy rate has increased
slightly to 10.61% from 9.86% in Spring 2013, and 9.23% in Spring 2012, 10.33% in Spring 2011 but
lower than the 12.55% in Spring 2010 and 12.05% in Spring 2009. Only 56% of surveyed centers in
Spring 2010, 58% of surveyed centers in Spring 2011, 65% of surveyed centers in Spring 2012, 64% of
surveyed centers in Spring 2013 and 61% of surveyed centers in Spring 2014 reported vacancy rates
of 10% or less.. Only 5% of centers reported vacancies over 50% in Spring 2014 (up from 4% in Spring
2013). 20% of the surveyed centers reported vacancies of 10.01% to 25% (up from 17% in Spring 2013,
(16% in Spring 2012, 25% in Spring 2011 and 21% in Spring 2010), while 15% reported vacancies of
25.01% to 50% (down from 16% in Spring 2013).
Analysis by Size/Type
Table 2 (see page 56) contains the analysis by shopping center size/type. The surveyed shopping
centers are categorized based on discussions with local leasing agents in cooperation with
C|D and the Greater 8aton Pouge Assoclatlon of PLALTOPS and denltlons used by the Urban
Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers. The shopping center types are as
follows:
- Convenlence Centers (under 30,000 square feet) typlcally provlde for the sale of convenlence
goods and personal services without having a standard anchor space.
Commercial Sales & Leasing Residential Sales & Leasing Property Management
YOUR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS TEAM
BRIDGING THE GAP
IN THE CAPITAL REGION
For over 20 years, our team of real estate professionals has focused on making your real estate sales,
leasing and management choices easy, so you can focus on running your business. We simplify the
transaction process by providing personal attention when you need it most. Tats why
Maestri-Murrell is always available, day or night, to service your commercial real estate needs.
We are committed to bridging the gap
between your real estate needs and your business success.
9018 Jeferson Hwy (225) 298-1250 WWW.MMCRE.COM (225) 298-1300 for Virtual Ofce Info.
Issue Date: Book of Lists Ad proof #3
|lease rescr1 l e-rail cr a\ Will ctr arcal cr rircr reisicrs.
A1 Will rtr as is trless arcal cr lral reisicrs are receie1 l lle clcse c ltsiress lc1a.
A11ilicral reisicrs rtsl le retesle1 ar1 ra le stljecl lc rc1tclicr ees.
Oaretll clec| llis a1 cr: 00kk0T A00k88 00kk0T Fh0h hM8k AhY TYF08
!lis a1 1esir lctisiara Btsiress, lrc. ZJlJ. All rills resere1. |lcre ZZ5-9Z&-l!JJ la\ ZZ5-9Zc-lJZ9
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
50
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
- Nelghborhood Centers (30,00l to l00,000 square feet) typlcally provlde for the sale of
convenience goods and personal services with a grocery anchor space.
- Communlty Centers (l00,00l to 250,000 square feet) typlcally provlde clothlng, hardware,
and appliances, in addition to convenience goods and personal services. Typically, these are
built around a small department, variety, or discount store.
- Peglonal Centers (over 250,000 square feet) typlcally provlde general merchandlse, furnlture
and home furnishings, as well as services and recreational facilities.

These larger centers are often built around one or two full-line department stores that are
generally larger than 100,000 square feet.
41% of the surveyed centers are considered to be Convenience Centers, though only 11%
(963,978 square feet) of the surveyed leasable space is located in these centers. 39% of the
surveyed centers are considered to be Neighborhood Centers, which contain 32% (2,685,455
square feet) of the surveyed leasable space. 17% of the surveyed centers and 35% of the
surveyed leasable space (2,955,735 square feet) are considered to be Community Centers, while
3% of the surveyed centers and 22% of the surveyed leasable space (1,874,893 square feet) are
considered to be Regional Centers.
Since the Spring 2013 survey, vacancy rates have increased in every shopping center type.
The highest vacancies are noted in the unanchored Community Centers (13.62%), while
Regional Centers continue to have a low vacancy rate (1.61%). Convenience Centers have a
vacancy rate of 12.85%, while Neighborhood Centers have a vacancy rate of 12.79%.
45% of the reported vacant space is located in Community Centers, while only 3% is located in
Regional Centers. 14% is located in Convenience Centers and 38% is located in Neighborhood
Centers.
Analysis by Age
Table 3 (see page 57) contains the analysis by age, with the shopping centers categorized
based on the year of their construction.
Last year we began looking at newer centers that were built in 2006 or later. Consisting of
863,889 square feet, they not only have the lowest vacancy rate at 2.94%, but have the highest
rental rate at $26.06/square foot.
The second set of shopping centers consists of 27 properties that have been constructed from 2000 -
2005. There were 11 more recently-built centers included in Spring 2010 than in Spring 2009, primarily
due to the surveying of Livingston and Ascension Parishes (which have experienced substantial retail
growth in the past decade) for the second time. Also added were a few newer strip centers in Central.
These newer centers report a Spring 2014 vacancy rate of 6.27%, compared to the Spring 2013 vacancy
rate of 4.29%. 32.84% of the space is anchor space and average total collections for non-anchor space
are $21.40/square foot.
The next set of shopping centers consists of 11 centers constructed between 1995 and 1999. These
centers report a Spring 2014 vacancy rate of 2.73%, which is slightly better than the Spring 2013 vacancy
rate of 3.39% and Spring 2012 vacancy of 4.08%. 64.67% of the space is anchor space and average total
collections for non-anchor space are $20.75/square foot.
20 surveyed shopping centers were constructed between 1985 and 1995. These centers report a Spring
2014 vacancy of 5.76%, which is up from the Spring 2013 vacancy rate of 4.70% and down from the
Spring 2012 vacancy rate of 8.05%. 41.08% of the space is anchor space and average total collections
for non-anchor space are $17.27 per square foot.
See Melissa or Connie for your
personal real estate or commercial
needs. Stop by 5302 Corporate
Boulevard in Baton Rouge today.
5302 Corporate Blvd. / Baton Rouge, LA
225-389-6555 / www.home24bank.com
APPROVED
ITS WHAT WE SAY
EVERY DAY
ITS WHAT WE SAY
EVERY DAY
MELISSA REYNOLDS / Mortgage Lender, Baton Rouge CONNIE BOLEN / Commercial Lender, Baton Rouge
Approval subject to Home Bank credit and other qualications.
Find a branch
nearest you.
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
52
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
The highest collections for non-anchor space were noted in Regional Centers ($22.41/square
foot). The lowest average collections were noted in Neighborhood Centers ($13.71/square foot).
15 surveyed shopping centers were constructed between 1980 and 1984. These centers report
a Spring 2014 vacancy rate of 25.09% which is slightly down from the Spring 2013 vacancy rate
of 25.31% and up from the Spring 2012 vacancy rate of 15.47%. 42.06% of the space is anchor
space and average total collections for non-anchor space are $11.99/square foot.
34 surveyed shopping centers (representing 33% of the surveyed leasable space and 45% of the
vacant space) were constructed before 1980. These centers report a Spring 2014 vacancy rate
of 14.77%, up from the Spring 2013 vacancy rate of 13.58% and the Spring 2012 vacancy rate of
12.51%. 25.42% of the space is anchor space and average total collections for non-anchor space
are $13.08/square foot.
The lowest rentals and highest vacancy are noted in the shopping centers built before 1985.
These centers represent 41% of the surveyed shopping centers, 46% of the surveyed leasable
space and 75% of the total vacant space.
Analysis by Geographic Area
Table 4 (see page 58) contains the Analysis by Geographic Area. The Geographic Areas used in
this survey for shopping centers in Baton Rouge are long-standing and are defned as follows:
- Area 1 - South of |nterstates l0 and l2 and west of Alrllne Hlghway
- Area 2 - North of |nterstates l0 and l2 and south and west of Alrllne Hlghway - also lncludes
shopping centers along Plank Road between Airline Highway and Hooper Road.
- Area 3 - North of Choctaw Drlve and Alrllne Hlghway, excludlng Zachary and Plank Poad
shopping centers between Airline Highway and Hooper Road
- Area 4 - South of Choctaw Drlve and east of Alrllne Hlghway - also lncludes shopplng centers
along Airline Highway between Interstate 12 and Florida Boulevard
- Area 5 - Zachary (surveyed beglnnlng ln 2008)
- Area 6 - Ascenslon Parlsh (surveyed beglnnlng ln 20l0)
- Area 7 - Llvlngston Parlsh (surveyed beglnnlng ln 20l0)
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
54 3 55
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
The highest average non-anchor collections ($23.03/square foot) are noted in Area 1 and the
lowest vacancy rate (3.66%) is noted in Area 1, while Area 3 reports the lowest total non-anchor
collections ($11.03/square foot) and Area 3 reports the highest vacancy rate (21.46%). Area 7
is Livingston Parish and includes only 2 responding centers (both non-anchored), while Area
1 contains many of the newer retail corridors in Baton Rouge (along Bluebonnet Boulevard,
Siegen Lane, and Perkins Road).
Analysis by Geographic Area and Type
Table 5 (see page 59) presents a breakdown of responses from anchored and unanchored
centers in each of the geographic areas. The lowest vacancies in anchored centers are noted in
Area 1 (2.28%) and Area 6 (1.65%), while the highest is noted in Area 5 (23.35%, which is based
on a single anchor vacancy).
The highest collections for anchored centers are noted in Area 1 ($20.80/square foot) and the
lowest collections are noted in Area 5 ($8.40/square foot).
The lowest vacancies in unanchored centers are noted in Area 2 (6.55%), while the highest
vacancies are noted in Area 6 (15.92%). The highest collections for unanchored centers are
noted in Area 1 ($25.15/square foot) and the lowest collections are noted in Area 4 ($11.71/
square foot).
Summary
Of the 8.48 million square feet of leasable space represented in our sample (not including
lifestyle centers), 10.61% is reported as vacant. This represents a slight increase in vacancy from
the Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 surveys which landed near 9.5%. It should be noted that these
fgures do not represent a matched sample of shopping centers, but only refect the results of
each survey. Regional centers, those over 250,000 sq/ft, continue to have low vacancy rates
and demand higher rental rates. Our market vacancy over the past three years averaged 9.90%,
which is very near the 9% national average.
T
A
B
L
E

1
S
H
O
P
P
I
N
G

C
E
N
T
E
R
S

B
Y

V
A
C
A
N
C
Y

R
A
T
E

(
E
x
c
l
u
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
t
y
l
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

L
e
a
s
a
b
l
e

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

A
n
c
h
o
r

S
p
a
c
e
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
4
7
4
6
1
%
-
5
5
,
8
1
7
,
7
3
0
6
9
%
-
3
3
6
,
0
8
7
1
1
8
,
7
3
5
1
3
%
1
0
,
2
7
4
4
1
.
9
6
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
3
7
9
6
4
%
-
1
6
,
1
5
3
,
8
1
7
7
1
%
-
2
1
,
9
0
3
1
0
8
,
4
6
1
1
3
%
-
3
0
,
6
9
2
4
0
.
4
6
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
2
8
0
6
5
%
1
5
6
,
1
7
5
,
7
2
0
7
2
%
6
4
4
,
8
4
2
1
3
9
,
1
5
3
1
8
%
7
7
4
5
.
0
8
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
1
6
5
5
8
%
5
5
,
5
3
0
,
8
7
8
6
9
%
5
9
6
,
5
4
4
1
3
9
,
0
7
6
1
7
%
1
2
,
8
3
2
4
7
.
7
1
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
0
6
0
5
6
%
4
,
9
3
4
,
3
3
4
6
6
%
1
2
6
,
2
4
4
1
3
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
4
2
4
2
0
%
3
1
,
0
4
2
,
4
8
4
1
2
%
1
4
5
,
4
1
8
1
5
1
,
6
0
1
1
7
%
2
0
,
0
3
1
1
7
.
6
0
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
3
2
1
1
7
%
1
8
9
7
,
0
6
6
1
0
%
-
1
9
7
,
2
5
2
1
3
1
,
5
7
0
1
5
%
-
4
2
,
7
9
7
2
3
.
0
2
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
2
2
0
1
6
%
-
8
1
,
0
9
4
,
3
1
8
1
3
%
-
1
0
6
,
3
7
6
1
7
4
,
3
6
7
2
2
%
1
,
3
7
1
2
0
.
2
6
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
1
2
8
2
5
%
5
1
,
2
0
0
,
6
9
4
1
5
%
1
6
8
,
2
7
8
1
7
2
,
9
9
6
2
1
%
2
0
,
0
7
8
1
8
.
4
3
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
0
2
3
2
1
%
1
,
0
3
2
,
4
1
6
1
4
%
1
5
2
,
9
1
8
1
6
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
4
1
8
1
5
%
-
2
1
,
2
2
8
,
8
6
6
1
4
%
-
2
8
,
8
4
9
3
9
7
,
0
7
0
4
4
%
-
2
1
,
8
9
8
3
0
.
6
7
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
3
2
0
1
6
%
1
1
,
2
5
7
,
7
1
5
1
5
%
1
1
4
,
4
2
9
4
1
8
,
9
6
8
4
9
%
3
2
,
6
5
8
2
9
.
9
1
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
2
1
9
1
5
%
5
1
,
1
4
3
,
2
8
6
1
3
%
1
1
2
,
6
6
3
3
8
6
,
3
1
0
4
9
%
4
2
,
2
2
7
2
6
.
8
5
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
1
1
4
1
3
%
-
5
1
,
0
3
0
,
6
2
3
1
3
%
-
1
3
4
,
7
2
9
3
4
4
,
0
8
3
4
1
%
-
5
8
,
5
8
7
3
5
.
7
4
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
0
1
9
1
8
%
1
,
1
6
5
,
3
5
2
1
5
%
4
0
2
,
6
7
0
4
3
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
4
6
5
%
1
3
9
0
,
9
7
1
5
%
8
0
,
8
9
3
2
3
2
,
7
1
0
2
6
%
4
1
,
0
8
0
4
2
.
7
5
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
3
5
4
%
1
3
1
0
,
0
7
8
4
%
1
7
0
,
2
4
3
1
9
1
,
6
3
0
2
3
%
1
0
1
,
8
9
8
7
1
.
1
8
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
2
4
3
%
-
1
1
3
9
,
8
3
5
2
%
-
1
3
6
,
3
5
0
8
9
,
7
3
2
1
1
%
-
8
4
,
6
4
2
0
.
0
0
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
1
5
4
%
-
1
2
7
6
,
1
8
5
3
%
-
1
1
9
,
3
7
1
1
7
4
,
3
7
4
2
1
%
-
8
8
,
6
8
1
4
4
.
1
7
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
0
6
6
%
3
9
5
,
5
5
6
5
%
2
6
3
,
0
5
5
2
8
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
4
1
2
2
-
2
8
,
4
8
0
,
0
5
1
-
1
3
6
,
6
2
5
9
0
0
,
1
1
6
5
0
,
6
8
7
3
7
.
3
7
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
3
1
2
4
1
8
,
6
1
6
,
6
7
6
6
3
,
5
1
7
8
4
9
,
4
2
9
5
9
,
8
6
7
3
7
.
3
5
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
8
,
5
5
3
,
1
5
9
5
1
4
,
7
7
9
7
8
9
,
5
6
2
-
4
0
,
9
6
7
3
8
.
7
3
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
1
1
1
2
4
8
,
0
3
8
,
3
8
0
5
1
0
,
7
2
2
8
3
0
,
5
2
9
-
1
1
4
,
3
5
8
4
1
.
6
8
%
S
p
r
i
n
g

2
0
1
0
1
0
8
7
,
5
2
7
,
6
5
8
9
4
4
,
8
8
7
T
o
t
a
l
1
0
%

o
r

L
e
s
s
1
0
.
0
1
%

t
o

2
5
%
2
5
.
0
1
%

t
o

5
0
%
O
v
e
r

5
0
%
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
56 3 57
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
T
A
B
L
E

2
S
H
O
P
P
I
N
G

C
E
N
T
E
R
S

B
Y

S
I
Z
E

/

T
Y
P
E

(
E
x
c
l
u
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
t
y
l
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
T
A
B
L
E

3
S
H
O
P
P
I
N
G

C
E
N
T
E
R
S

B
Y

A
G
E

(
E
x
c
l
u
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
t
y
l
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
S
h
o
p
p
in
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
y
p
e
P
e
r
io
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
T
o
t
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

L
e
a
s
a
b
le

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t
S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
S
iz
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

A
n
c
h
o
r

S
p
a
c
e
N
o
n
-
A
n
c
h
o
r
C
o
lle
c
t
io
n
s
(
R
e
n
t
+
R
e
im
b
.)
in
$
/S
F
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
5
0
4
1
%
0
9
6
3
,9
7
8
1
1
%
-
1
6
,3
4
3
1
2
3
,8
8
0
1
4
%
1
3
,3
6
3
1
2
.8
5
%
1
.5
8
%
1
9
,2
8
0
-
3
2
6
0
.0
0
%
$
1
7
.4
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
5
0
4
0
%
-
1
9
8
0
,3
2
1
1
1
%
-
4
2
,9
6
2
1
1
0
,5
1
7
1
3
%
-
2
1
,5
1
0
1
1
.2
7
%
-
1
.6
3
%
1
9
,6
0
6
-
4
5
8
0
.0
0
%
$
1
7
.5
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
5
1
4
1
%
6
1
,0
2
3
,2
8
3
1
2
%
1
2
9
,0
8
4
1
3
2
,0
2
7
1
7
%
-
1
6
,9
8
4
1
2
.9
0
%
-
3
.7
6
%
2
0
,0
6
4
1
9
3
1
.4
2
%
$
1
7
.3
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
4
5
4
0
%
0
8
9
4
,1
9
9
1
1
%
2
1
2
,6
2
1
1
4
9
,0
1
1
1
8
%
5
5
,1
2
3
1
6
.6
6
%
2
.8
8
%
1
9
,8
7
1
1
,4
5
0
0
.0
0
%
$
1
8
.2
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
4
5
4
2
%
6
8
1
,5
7
8
9
%
9
3
,8
8
8
1
0
%
1
3
.7
8
%
1
8
,4
2
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
4
7
3
9
%
-
2
2
,6
8
5
,4
4
5
3
2
%
-
8
6
,0
1
0
3
4
3
,4
5
9
3
8
%
1
4
,0
6
6
1
2
.7
9
%
0
.9
0
%
5
7
,1
3
7
5
7
7
2
7
.1
3
%
$
1
3
.7
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
4
9
4
0
%
2
2
,7
7
1
,4
5
5
3
2
%
1
0
6
,4
7
9
3
2
9
,3
9
3
3
9
%
3
8
,9
0
3
1
1
.8
9
%
0
.9
9
%
5
6
,5
6
0
-
1
4
2
2
6
.2
1
%
$
1
3
.7
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
4
7
3
8
%
2
2
,6
6
4
,9
7
6
3
1
%
3
8
,2
5
1
2
9
0
,4
9
0
3
7
%
2
0
,4
1
6
1
0
.9
0
%
0
.6
2
%
5
6
,7
0
2
-
1
,6
7
0
2
5
.7
0
%
$
1
3
.9
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
4
5
4
0
%
2
2
,6
2
6
,7
2
5
3
3
%
1
1
5
,0
4
4
2
7
0
,0
7
4
3
3
%
-
7
6
,3
6
5
1
0
.2
8
%
-
3
.5
1
%
5
8
,3
7
2
-
3
9
2
9
.2
3
%
$
1
4
.9
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
4
3
4
0
%
2
,5
1
1
,6
8
1
3
3
%
3
4
6
,4
3
9
3
7
%
1
3
.7
9
%
5
8
,4
1
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
2
1
1
7
%
0
2
,9
5
5
,7
3
5
3
5
%
-
3
4
,2
7
2
4
0
2
,5
3
7
4
5
%
1
4
,5
0
1
1
3
.6
2
%
0
.6
4
%
1
4
0
,7
4
9
-
1
,6
3
2
4
0
.9
6
%
$
1
8
.0
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
2
1
1
7
%
0
2
,9
9
0
,0
0
7
3
5
%
0
3
8
8
,0
3
6
4
6
%
4
8
,2
8
1
1
2
.9
8
%
1
.6
2
%
1
4
2
,3
8
1
0
3
8
.8
6
%
$
1
6
.1
2
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
2
1
1
7
%
3
2
,9
9
0
,0
0
7
3
5
%
3
6
5
,4
5
7
3
3
9
,7
5
5
4
3
%
-
5
5
,8
0
2
1
1
.3
6
%
-
3
.7
1
%
1
4
2
,3
8
1
-
3
,4
2
7
3
8
.8
6
%
$
1
5
.5
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
8
1
6
%
2
2
,6
2
4
,5
5
0
3
3
%
3
7
5
,8
0
8
3
9
5
,5
5
7
4
8
%
-
1
8
,4
1
3
1
5
.0
7
%
-
3
.3
4
%
1
4
5
,8
0
8
5
,2
6
2
4
3
.1
2
%
$
1
3
.7
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
6
1
5
%
2
,2
4
8
,7
4
2
3
0
%
4
1
3
,9
7
0
4
4
%
1
8
.4
1
%
1
4
0
,5
4
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
4
3
%
0
1
,8
7
4
,8
9
3
2
2
%
0
3
0
,2
4
0
3
%
8
,7
5
7
1
.6
1
%
0
.4
6
%
4
6
8
,7
2
3
0
6
5
.5
7
%
$
2
2
.4
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
4
3
%
0
1
,8
7
4
,8
9
3
2
2
%
0
2
1
,4
8
3
3
%
-
5
,8
0
7
1
.1
5
%
-
0
.3
1
%
4
6
8
,7
2
3
0
7
0
.9
1
%
$
2
0
.5
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
4
3
%
0
1
,8
7
4
,8
9
3
2
2
%
-
3
3
,2
2
9
2
7
,2
9
0
3
%
-
1
2
,3
5
5
1
.4
6
%
-
0
.6
2
%
4
6
8
,7
2
3
-
8
,3
0
8
7
7
.3
9
%
$
1
9
.8
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
4
4
%
0
1
,9
0
8
,1
2
2
2
4
%
3
5
,0
8
6
3
9
,6
4
5
5
%
4
,1
7
8
2
.0
8
%
0
.1
9
%
4
7
7
,0
3
1
8
,7
7
2
7
6
.0
4
%
$
2
3
.2
3
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
4
4
%
1
,8
7
3
,0
3
6
2
5
%
3
5
,4
6
7
4
%
1
.8
9
%
4
6
8
,2
5
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
1
2
2
-
2
8
,4
8
0
,0
5
1
-
1
3
6
,6
2
5
9
0
0
,1
1
6
5
0
,6
8
7
1
0
.6
1
%
0
.7
5
%
6
9
,5
0
9
2
0
3
7
.3
7
%
$
1
6
.8
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
1
2
4
1
8
,6
1
6
,6
7
6
6
3
,5
1
7
8
4
9
,4
2
9
5
9
,8
6
7
9
.8
6
%
0
.6
3
%
6
9
,4
8
9
-
4
9
3
7
.3
5
%
$
1
5
.9
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
8
,5
5
3
,1
5
9
5
1
4
,7
7
9
7
8
9
,5
6
2
-
4
0
,9
6
7
9
.2
3
%
-
1
.1
0
%
6
9
,5
3
8
-
1
6
3
3
8
.7
3
%
$
1
5
.6
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
4
8
,0
3
8
,3
8
0
5
1
0
,7
2
2
8
3
0
,5
2
9
-
1
1
4
,3
5
8
1
0
.3
3
%
-
2
.2
2
%
6
9
,7
0
1
0
4
1
.6
8
%
$
1
6
.0
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
0
8
1
0
8
7
,5
2
7
,6
5
8
7
,5
2
7
,6
5
8
9
4
4
,8
8
7
9
4
4
,8
8
7
1
2
.5
5
%
1
2
.5
5
%
6
9
,7
0
1
6
9
,7
0
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
2
-
1
8
1
5
,1
2
2
7
7
,2
5
4
9
,2
1
3
9
.4
8
%
2
.5
1
%
4
0
7
,5
6
1
8
2
,3
7
6
5
.6
4
%
$
4
1
.3
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
3
1
9
7
5
,5
5
5
6
8
,0
4
1
6
5
,0
4
1
6
.9
7
%
6
.4
8
%
3
2
5
,1
8
5
2
0
,1
8
5
4
.7
2
%
$
4
2
.3
1
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
2
0
6
1
0
,0
0
0
3
,0
0
0
-
7
,3
4
3
0
.4
9
%
-
1
.2
1
%
3
0
5
,0
0
0
0
7
.5
4
%
$
3
7
.7
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
2
2
6
1
0
,0
0
0
1
0
,3
4
3
1
.7
0
%
3
0
5
,0
0
0
7
.8
3
%
$
3
6
.1
9
T
o
ta
l
(
E
x
c
lu
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
ty
le
C
e
n
te
r
s
)
L
if
e
s
ty
le
C
e
n
te
r
s
R
e
g
io
n
a
l
C
e
n
te
r
(
O
v
e
r
2
5
0
,0
0
0
S
F
)
C
o
n
v
e
n
ie
n
c
e
C
e
n
te
r
(
3
0
,0
0
0
S
F
&
U
n
d
e
r
)
N
e
ig
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
te
r
(
3
0
,0
0
1
to
1
0
0
,0
0
0
S
F
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
ity
C
e
n
te
r
(
1
0
0
,0
0
1
to
2
5
0
,0
0
0
S
F
)
Y
e
a
r
o
f

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
io
n

o
r
R
e
h
a
b
P
e
r
io
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
T
o
t
a
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

L
e
a
s
a
b
le

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
S
iz
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
io
u
s

P
e
r
io
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

A
n
c
h
o
r

S
p
a
c
e
N
o
n
-
A
n
c
h
o
r
C
o
lle
c
t
io
n
s
(
R
e
n
t
+

R
e
im
b
.)
in
$
/S
F
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
1
4
1
1
%
-
3
8
6
3
,8
8
9
1
0
%
-
2
2
,6
5
7
2
5
,4
1
3
3
%
-
1
1
,2
1
0
2
.9
4
%
-
1
.1
9
%
6
1
,7
0
6
9
,5
5
6
3
8
.7
8
%
$
2
6
.0
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
1
7
1
4
%
8
8
6
,5
4
6
1
0
%
3
6
,6
2
3
4
%
4
.1
3
%
5
2
,1
5
0
3
7
.7
9
%
$
2
2
.4
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
2
7
2
2
%
0
1
,3
8
1
,1
7
3
1
6
%
0
8
6
,6
0
5
1
0
%
2
7
,3
8
7
6
.2
7
%
1
.9
8
%
5
1
,1
5
5
0
3
2
.8
4
%
$
2
1
.4
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
2
7
2
2
%
1
,3
8
1
,1
7
3
1
6
%
5
9
,2
1
8
7
%
4
.2
9
%
5
1
,1
5
5
4
0
.0
8
%
$
1
9
.7
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
4
1
3
4
%
-
3
2
,2
4
5
,0
6
2
2
6
%
-
2
2
,6
5
7
1
1
2
,0
1
8
1
2
%
1
6
,1
7
4
4
.9
9
%
0
.7
6
%
5
4
,7
5
8
3
,2
1
9
3
5
.1
3
%
$
2
3
.0
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
4
4
3
6
%
1
2
,2
6
7
,7
1
9
2
7
%
5
7
,5
4
8
9
5
,8
4
4
1
1
%
-
2
3
,6
8
9
4
.2
3
%
-
1
.1
8
%
5
1
,5
3
9
1
4
0
3
9
.1
9
%
$
2
0
.8
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
4
3
3
5
%
2
2
,2
1
0
,1
7
1
2
6
%
4
9
,8
0
0
1
1
9
,5
3
3
1
3
%
8
,3
5
5
5
.4
1
%
0
.2
6
%
5
1
,3
9
9
-
1
,2
9
3
4
0
.8
6
%
$
2
0
.6
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
4
1
3
3
%
5
2
,1
6
0
,3
7
1
2
5
%
4
3
4
,2
8
4
1
1
1
,1
7
8
1
3
%
-
1
8
,2
2
6
5
.1
5
%
-
2
.3
5
%
5
2
,6
9
2
4
,7
4
5
4
3
.5
0
%
$
2
1
.0
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
3
6
2
9
%
1
,7
2
6
,0
8
7
2
0
%
1
2
9
,4
0
4
1
6
%
7
.5
0
%
4
7
,9
4
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
1
1
9
%
0
1
,0
2
3
,2
6
5
1
2
%
-
6
,3
2
0
2
7
,9
3
4
3
%
-
6
,9
5
5
2
.7
3
%
-
0
.6
6
%
9
3
,0
2
4
-
5
7
5
6
4
.6
7
%
$
2
0
.7
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
1
1
9
%
-
1
1
,0
2
9
,5
8
5
1
2
%
-
1
5
,0
0
0
3
4
,8
8
9
4
%
-
7
,7
2
6
3
.3
9
%
-
0
.6
9
%
9
3
,5
9
9
6
,5
5
0
6
4
.2
7
%
$
2
0
.2
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
1
2
1
0
%
1
1
,0
4
4
,5
8
5
1
2
%
6
4
,9
1
4
4
2
,6
1
5
5
%
1
,3
4
3
4
.0
8
%
-
0
.1
3
%
8
7
,0
4
9
-
2
,0
1
2
6
3
.3
5
%
$
1
9
.5
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
1
9
%
-
1
9
7
9
,6
7
1
1
1
%
1
9
,1
5
9
4
1
,2
7
2
5
%
1
0
,8
5
8
4
.2
1
%
1
.0
4
%
8
9
,0
6
1
9
,0
1
8
6
7
.5
5
%
$
2
0
.3
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
%
9
6
0
,5
1
2
1
1
%
3
0
,4
1
4
4
%
3
.1
7
%
8
0
,0
4
3
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
6
%
0
1
,3
5
5
,5
3
1
1
6
%
-
1
2
7
,6
4
8
7
8
,0
5
7
9
%
8
,2
8
3
5
.7
6
%
1
.0
6
%
6
7
,7
7
7
-
6
,3
8
2
4
1
.0
8
%
$
1
7
.2
7
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
6
%
1
1
,4
8
3
,1
7
9
1
7
%
-
5
,0
0
0
6
9
,7
7
4
8
%
-
5
0
,0
1
3
4
.7
0
%
-
3
.3
5
%
7
4
,1
5
9
-
4
,1
6
6
3
4
.2
0
%
$
1
6
.5
3
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
1
9
1
6
%
1
1
,4
8
8
,1
7
9
1
8
%
7
,8
5
7
1
1
9
,7
8
7
1
3
%
-
4
,1
9
8
8
.0
5
%
-
0
.3
3
%
7
8
,3
2
5
-
3
,9
1
5
4
1
.5
1
%
$
1
5
.7
8
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
8
1
5
%
-
1
1
,4
8
0
,3
2
2
1
7
%
-
5
5
,5
0
0
1
2
3
,9
8
5
1
5
%
-
3
1
,6
5
8
8
.3
8
%
-
1
.7
5
%
8
2
,2
4
0
1
,4
0
7
4
1
.5
4
%
$
1
7
.0
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
9
1
5
%
1
,5
3
5
,8
2
2
1
8
%
1
5
5
,6
4
3
2
0
%
1
0
.1
3
%
8
0
,8
3
3
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
1
5
1
2
%
0
1
,0
8
9
,8
5
4
1
3
%
0
2
7
3
,4
7
8
3
0
%
-
2
,3
6
4
2
5
.0
9
%
-
0
.2
2
%
7
2
,6
5
7
0
4
2
.0
6
%
$
1
1
.9
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
1
5
1
2
%
2
1
,0
8
9
,8
5
4
1
3
%
3
9
,5
7
6
2
7
5
,8
4
2
3
1
%
1
1
3
,3
6
4
2
5
.3
1
%
9
.8
4
%
7
2
,6
5
7
-
8
,1
3
4
4
2
.0
6
%
$
1
2
.0
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
1
3
1
1
%
-
1
1
,0
5
0
,2
7
8
1
2
%
4
,3
8
2
1
6
2
,4
7
8
1
8
%
-
7
2
,7
2
4
1
5
.4
7
%
-
7
.0
2
%
8
0
,7
9
1
6
,0
8
4
3
6
.1
7
%
$
1
1
.6
8
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
4
1
1
%
1
1
,0
4
5
,8
9
6
1
2
%
8
5
,5
3
2
2
3
5
,2
0
2
2
8
%
4
0
,7
4
9
2
2
.4
9
%
2
.2
4
%
7
4
,7
0
7
8
3
3
4
3
.0
9
%
$
1
2
.3
9
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
%
9
6
0
,3
6
4
1
1
%
1
9
4
,4
5
3
2
5
%
2
0
.2
5
%
7
3
,8
7
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
3
5
2
9
%
1
2
,7
6
6
,3
3
9
3
3
%
2
0
,0
0
0
4
0
8
,6
2
9
4
5
%
3
5
,5
4
9
1
4
.7
7
%
1
.1
9
%
7
9
,0
3
8
-
1
,7
3
7
2
5
.4
2
%
$
1
3
.0
8
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
3
4
2
8
%
-
2
2
,7
4
6
,3
3
9
3
2
%
-
1
3
,6
0
7
3
7
3
,0
8
0
4
1
%
2
7
,9
3
1
1
3
.5
8
%
1
.0
7
%
8
0
,7
7
5
4
,1
1
0
2
5
.5
6
%
$
1
2
.8
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
3
6
3
0
%
8
2
,7
5
9
,9
4
6
3
3
%
3
8
7
,8
2
6
3
4
5
,1
4
9
3
8
%
2
6
,2
5
7
1
2
.5
1
%
-
0
.9
3
%
7
6
,6
6
5
-
8
,0
5
4
2
7
.1
8
%
$
1
2
.9
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
2
8
2
3
%
0
2
,3
7
2
,1
2
0
2
8
%
2
7
,2
4
7
3
1
8
,8
9
2
3
8
%
-
1
1
6
,0
8
1
1
3
.4
4
%
-
5
.1
1
%
8
4
,7
1
9
9
7
4
2
8
.8
1
%
$
1
2
.2
4
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
2
8
2
3
%
2
,3
4
4
,8
7
3
2
7
%
4
3
4
,9
7
3
5
5
%
1
8
.5
5
%
8
3
,7
4
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
4
1
2
2
-
2
8
,4
8
0
,0
5
1
-
1
3
6
,6
2
5
9
0
0
,1
1
6
5
0
,6
8
7
1
0
.6
1
%
0
.7
5
%
6
9
,5
0
9
2
0
3
7
.3
7
%
$
1
6
.8
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
3
1
2
4
1
8
,6
1
6
,6
7
6
6
3
,5
1
7
8
4
9
,4
2
9
5
9
,8
6
7
9
.8
6
%
0
.6
3
%
6
9
,4
8
9
-
4
9
3
7
.3
5
%
$
1
5
.9
5
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
8
,5
5
3
,1
5
9
5
1
4
,7
7
9
7
8
9
,5
6
2
-
4
0
,9
6
7
9
.2
3
%
-
1
.1
0
%
6
9
,5
3
8
-
1
6
3
3
8
.7
3
%
$
1
5
.6
6
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
4
8
,0
3
8
,3
8
0
5
1
0
,7
2
2
8
3
0
,5
2
9
-
1
1
4
,3
5
8
1
0
.3
3
%
-
2
.2
2
%
6
9
,7
0
1
0
4
1
.6
8
%
$
1
6
.0
0
S
p
r
in
g
2
0
1
0
1
0
8
7
,5
2
7
,6
5
8
9
4
4
,8
8
7
1
2
.5
5
%
6
9
,7
0
1
1
9
9
5
-
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
o
r
L
a
te
r
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
o
r
L
a
te
r
T
o
ta
l
B
e
f
o
r
e
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
5
-
1
9
9
4
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
R
E
T
A
I
L

T
R
E
N
D
S
58 3 59
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

A
r
e
a
P
e
r
i
o
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

L
e
a
s
a
b
l
e

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
S
i
z
e
C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

P
e
r
i
o
d
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

A
n
c
h
o
r

S
p
a
c
e
N
o
n
-
A
n
c
h
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
R
e
n
t
+

R
e
i
m
b
.)
i
n
$
/
S
F
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
3
3
2
7
%
-
1
3
,0
6
1
,8
2
5
3
6
%
3
5
,9
4
0
9
2
,7
8
3
1
0
%
1
7
,5
0
7
3
.6
6
%
1
.1
7
%
9
2
,7
8
3
3
,7
8
6
4
8
.3
7
%
$
2
3
.0
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
3
4
2
8
%
1
3
,0
2
5
,8
8
5
3
6
%
3
9
,9
4
8
7
5
,2
7
6
8
%
1
,1
1
3
2
.4
9
%
0
.0
1
%
8
8
,9
9
7
-
1
,4
8
6
5
2
.2
5
%
$
2
1
.0
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
3
3
2
7
%
1
2
,9
8
5
,9
3
7
3
5
%
1
2
5
,8
9
6
7
4
,1
6
3
8
%
-
2
1
,8
5
7
2
.4
8
%
-
0
.8
8
%
9
0
,4
8
3
1
,1
0
7
5
2
.8
0
%
$
2
0
.1
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
3
2
2
6
%
5
2
,8
6
0
,0
4
1
3
3
%
5
2
3
,0
8
6
9
6
,0
2
0
1
1
%
1
0
,2
5
4
3
.3
6
%
-
0
.3
1
%
8
9
,3
7
6
2
,8
3
2
5
7
.0
7
%
$
2
0
.9
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
2
7
2
2
%
2
,3
3
6
,9
5
5
2
7
%
8
5
,7
6
6
1
1
%
3
.6
7
%
8
6
,5
4
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
2
1
1
7
%
-
1
1
,2
5
9
,1
8
4
1
5
%
-
3
1
,5
0
0
1
8
2
,4
3
2
2
0
%
1
4
,6
8
0
1
4
.4
9
%
-
0
.2
4
%
5
9
,9
6
1
1
,2
9
4
1
5
.0
3
%
$
1
4
.7
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
2
2
1
8
%
0
1
,2
9
0
,6
8
4
1
5
%
0
1
6
7
,7
5
2
1
9
%
-
2
7
,0
4
7
1
4
.7
3
%
-
0
.3
6
%
5
8
,6
6
7
0
1
4
.7
3
%
$
1
4
.4
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
2
2
1
8
%
4
1
,2
9
0
,6
8
4
1
5
%
1
0
1
,7
2
6
1
9
4
,7
9
9
2
2
%
2
8
,0
3
7
1
5
.0
9
%
1
.0
6
%
5
8
,6
6
7
-
7
,3
8
6
1
4
.5
7
%
$
1
4
.7
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
1
8
1
5
%
0
1
,1
8
8
,9
5
8
1
4
%
8
3
,3
2
0
1
6
6
,7
6
2
2
0
%
-
1
2
,9
7
8
1
4
.0
3
%
-
2
.2
3
%
6
6
,0
5
3
4
,6
2
9
1
8
.5
1
%
$
1
3
.5
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
1
8
1
5
%
1
,1
0
5
,6
3
8
1
3
%
1
7
9
,7
4
0
2
3
%
1
6
.2
6
%
6
1
,4
2
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
1
4
1
1
%
1
8
9
0
,7
6
4
1
1
%
2
0
,0
0
0
1
9
1
,1
8
5
2
1
%
6
,0
5
5
2
1
.4
6
%
0
.2
0
%
6
3
,6
2
6
-
3
,3
5
6
3
0
.5
6
%
$
1
1
.0
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
1
3
1
1
%
0
8
7
0
,7
6
4
1
0
%
8
2
,5
7
6
1
8
5
,1
3
0
2
1
%
9
2
,1
6
9
2
1
.2
6
%
9
.4
7
%
6
6
,9
8
2
6
,3
5
2
3
1
.2
6
%
$
1
0
.6
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
1
3
1
1
%
2
7
8
8
,1
8
8
9
%
8
5
,0
0
0
9
2
,9
6
1
1
0
%
-
1
9
,4
3
9
1
1
.7
9
%
-
4
.1
9
%
6
0
,6
3
0
-
3
,2
9
6
3
1
.3
4
%
$
1
1
.1
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
1
1
9
%
2
7
0
3
,1
8
8
8
%
8
6
,1
1
6
1
1
2
,4
0
0
1
3
%
5
2
,5
8
4
1
5
.9
8
%
6
.2
7
%
6
3
,9
2
6
-
4
,6
3
8
3
7
.3
8
%
$
1
2
.3
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
9
7
%
6
1
7
,0
7
2
7
%
5
9
,8
1
6
8
%
9
.7
1
%
6
8
,5
6
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
3
1
2
5
%
1
2
,3
1
9
,5
9
8
2
7
%
-
1
1
2
,6
4
8
3
1
0
,9
9
1
3
5
%
-
8
,9
3
7
1
3
.4
1
%
0
.2
6
%
7
4
,8
2
6
-
6
,2
4
9
4
0
.7
4
%
$
1
4
.1
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
3
0
2
5
%
0
2
,4
3
2
,2
4
6
2
9
%
-
5
9
,0
0
7
3
1
9
,9
2
8
3
6
%
-
3
,6
5
8
1
3
.1
5
%
0
.1
6
%
8
1
,0
7
5
-
1
,9
6
7
4
0
.3
9
%
$
1
4
.2
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
3
0
2
5
%
3
2
,4
9
1
,2
5
3
2
9
%
1
8
3
,8
5
7
3
2
3
,5
8
6
3
6
%
-
4
,3
2
9
1
2
.9
9
%
-
1
.2
2
%
8
3
,0
4
2
-
2
,4
1
7
4
3
.9
2
%
$
1
3
.5
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
2
7
2
2
%
-
2
2
,3
0
7
,3
9
6
2
7
%
-
1
6
3
,5
0
0
3
2
7
,9
1
5
3
9
%
-
1
4
2
,1
2
6
1
4
.2
1
%
-
4
.8
1
%
8
5
,4
5
9
2
5
6
4
6
.5
1
%
$
1
4
.6
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
2
9
2
4
%
2
,4
7
0
,8
9
6
2
9
%
4
7
0
,0
4
1
6
0
%
1
9
.0
2
%
8
5
,2
0
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
8
7
%
0
2
9
6
,2
3
6
3
%
0
5
5
,3
5
4
6
%
-
1
2
,0
7
7
1
8
.6
9
%
-
4
.0
7
%
3
7
,0
3
0
0
2
7
.6
8
%
$
1
3
.9
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
8
7
%
0
2
9
6
,2
3
6
3
%
0
6
7
,4
3
1
7
%
9
1
3
2
2
.7
6
%
0
.3
1
%
3
7
,0
3
0
0
2
7
.0
1
%
$
1
4
.0
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
8
7
%
1
2
9
6
,2
3
6
3
%
1
8
,3
0
0
6
6
,5
1
8
7
%
5
,6
6
8
2
2
.4
5
%
0
.5
6
%
3
7
,0
3
0
-
2
,6
7
5
2
7
.0
1
%
$
1
3
.9
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
7
6
%
-
1
2
7
7
,9
3
6
3
%
-
1
8
,3
0
0
6
0
,8
5
0
7
%
-
1
1
,4
0
7
2
1
.8
9
%
-
2
.5
0
%
3
9
,7
0
5
2
,6
7
5
1
7
.9
9
%
$
1
3
.4
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
8
6
%
2
9
6
,2
3
6
3
%
7
2
,2
5
7
9
%
2
4
.3
9
%
3
7
,0
3
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
1
3
1
1
%
-
2
5
7
7
,9
1
3
7
%
-
4
8
,4
1
7
4
3
,7
0
7
5
%
1
2
,9
4
5
7
.5
6
%
2
.6
5
%
4
4
,4
5
5
2
,7
0
0
3
4
.4
7
%
$
1
7
.1
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
1
5
1
2
%
0
6
2
6
,3
3
0
7
%
0
3
0
,7
6
2
3
%
-
4
,0
4
4
4
.9
1
%
-
0
.6
5
%
4
1
,7
5
5
0
1
7
.9
1
%
$
1
5
.6
4
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
1
5
1
2
%
0
6
2
6
,3
3
0
7
%
0
3
4
,8
0
6
4
%
-
2
8
,6
2
6
5
.5
6
%
-
4
.5
7
%
4
1
,7
5
5
0
2
0
.2
3
%
$
1
5
.6
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
1
5
1
2
%
0
6
2
6
,3
3
0
7
%
0
6
3
,4
3
2
7
%
-
7
1
1
1
0
.1
3
%
-
0
.1
1
%
4
1
,7
5
5
0
1
7
.9
1
%
$
1
5
.5
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
1
5
1
2
%
6
2
6
,3
3
0
7
%
6
4
,1
4
3
8
%
1
0
.2
4
%
4
1
,7
5
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
2
2
%
0
7
4
,5
3
1
1
%
0
4
,3
5
0
0
%
1
,2
0
0
5
.8
4
%
1
.6
1
%
3
7
,2
6
6
0
0
.0
0
%
$
2
1
.2
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
2
2
%
0
7
4
,5
3
1
1
%
0
3
,1
5
0
0
%
4
2
1
4
.2
3
%
0
.5
7
%
3
7
,2
6
6
0
0
.0
0
%
$
2
0
.7
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
2
2
%
0
7
4
,5
3
1
1
%
0
2
,7
2
9
0
%
-
4
2
1
3
.6
6
%
-
0
.5
7
%
3
7
,2
6
6
0
0
.0
0
%
$
2
1
.5
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
2
2
%
0
7
4
,5
3
1
1
%
0
3
,1
5
0
0
%
-
9
,8
9
4
4
.2
3
%
-
1
3
.2
7
%
3
7
,2
6
6
0
0
.0
0
%
$
2
1
.5
3
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
2
2
%
7
4
,5
3
1
1
%
1
3
,0
4
4
2
%
1
7
.5
0
%
3
7
,2
6
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
1
2
2
-
2
8
,4
8
0
,0
5
1
-
1
3
6
,6
2
5
9
0
0
,1
1
6
5
0
,6
8
7
1
0
.6
1
%
0
.7
5
%
6
9
,5
0
9
2
0
3
7
.3
7
%
$
1
6
.8
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
1
2
4
1
8
,6
1
6
,6
7
6
6
3
,5
1
7
8
4
9
,4
2
9
5
9
,8
6
7
9
.8
6
%
0
.6
3
%
6
9
,4
8
9
-
4
9
3
7
.3
5
%
$
1
5
.9
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
8
,5
5
3
,1
5
9
5
1
4
,7
7
9
7
8
9
,5
6
2
-
4
0
,9
6
7
9
.2
3
%
-
1
.1
0
%
6
9
,5
3
8
-
1
6
3
3
8
.7
3
%
$
1
5
.6
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
4
8
,0
3
8
,3
8
0
5
1
0
,7
2
2
8
3
0
,5
2
9
-
1
1
4
,3
5
8
1
0
.3
3
%
-
2
.2
2
%
6
9
,7
0
1
0
4
1
.6
8
%
$
1
6
.0
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
0
1
0
8
7
,5
2
7
,6
5
8
9
4
4
,8
8
7
1
2
.5
5
%
6
9
,7
0
1
N
o
t
e
: A
i
r
l
i
n
e
H
w
y
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
1
2
a
n
d
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
B
l
v
d
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
r
e
a
4
, P
l
a
n
k
R
d
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
H
o
o
p
e
r
R
d
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
r
e
a
2
A
r
e
a
4
(
S
o
u
t
h
o
f

C
h
o
c
t
a
w
&
E
a
s
t

o
f
A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
A
r
e
a
3
(
N
o
r
t
h
o
f

C
h
o
c
t
a
w
&

N
o
r
t
h
/E
a
s
t
o
f

A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
A
r
e
a
2
(
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
I
-
1
0
&

S
o
u
t
h
/W
e
s
t
o
f

A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
A
r
e
a
1
(
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
I
-
1
0
&

W
e
s
t
o
f
A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
T
o
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
7
(
L
i
v
i
n
g
s
t
o
n

P
a
r
i
s
h
)
A
r
e
a
6
(
A
s
c
e
n
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
i
s
h
)
A
r
e
a
5
(
Z
a
c
h
a
r
y
)
T
A
B
L
E

4
S
H
O
P
P
I
N
G

C
E
N
T
E
R
S

B
Y

G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

A
R
E
A

(
E
x
c
l
u
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
t
y
l
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
T
A
B
L
E

5
S
H
O
P
P
I
N
G

C
E
N
T
E
R
S

B
Y

G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C

A
R
E
A

A
N
D

T
Y
P
E

(
S
P
R
I
N
G
2
0
1
4
-
E
x
c
l
u
d
in
g
L
if
e
s
t
y
l
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

A
r
e
a
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
y
p
e
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
(
I
n

A
r
e
a
)
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

L
e
a
s
a
b
l
e

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
(
I
n

A
r
e
a
)
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t

S
p
a
c
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
(
I
n

A
r
e
a
)
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
S
i
z
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

A
n
c
h
o
r

S
p
a
c
e
N
o
n
-
A
n
c
h
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
R
e
n
t

+

R
e
i
m
b
.
)
i
n

$
/
S
F
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
1
2
3
6
%
2
,
2
5
2
,
9
0
5
7
4
%
5
1
,
3
4
0
5
5
%
2
.
2
8
%
1
8
7
,
7
4
2
6
5
.
7
4
%
$
2
0
.
8
0
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
2
1
6
4
%
8
0
8
,
9
2
0
2
6
%
6
0
,
7
5
7
6
5
%
7
.
5
1
%
3
8
,
5
2
0
0
.
0
0
%
$
2
5
.
1
5
T
o
t
a
l
3
3
3
,
0
6
1
,
8
2
5
9
2
,
7
8
3
3
.
6
6
%
9
2
,
7
8
3
4
8
.
3
7
%
$
2
3
.
0
3
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
7
3
3
%
6
4
9
,
1
3
7
5
2
%
1
4
2
,
4
6
6
7
8
%
2
1
.
9
5
%
9
2
,
7
3
4
2
9
.
1
5
%
$
1
7
.
3
1
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
1
4
6
7
%
6
1
0
,
0
4
7
4
8
%
3
9
,
9
6
6
2
2
%
6
.
5
5
%
4
3
,
5
7
5
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
2
.
8
4
T
o
t
a
l
2
1
1
,
2
5
9
,
1
8
4
1
8
2
,
4
3
2
1
4
.
4
9
%
5
9
,
9
6
1
1
5
.
0
3
%
$
1
4
.
7
6
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
6
4
3
%
5
9
5
,
3
3
0
6
7
%
1
4
6
,
9
9
7
7
7
%
2
4
.
6
9
%
9
9
,
2
2
2
4
5
.
7
2
%
$
1
0
.
2
6
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
8
5
7
%
2
9
5
,
4
3
4
3
3
%
4
4
,
1
8
8
2
3
%
1
4
.
9
6
%
3
6
,
9
2
9
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
1
.
8
7
T
o
t
a
l
1
4
8
9
0
,
7
6
4
1
9
1
,
1
8
5
2
1
.
4
6
%
6
3
,
6
2
6
3
0
.
5
6
%
$
1
1
.
0
3
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
1
3
4
2
%
1
,
7
7
9
,
6
9
5
7
7
%
2
4
4
,
5
6
9
7
9
%
1
3
.
7
4
%
1
3
6
,
9
0
0
5
3
.
1
0
%
$
1
5
.
7
0
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
1
8
5
8
%
5
3
9
,
9
0
3
2
3
%
6
6
,
4
2
2
2
1
%
1
2
.
3
0
%
2
9
,
9
9
5
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
1
.
7
1
T
o
t
a
l
3
1
2
,
3
1
9
,
5
9
8
3
1
0
,
9
9
1
1
3
.
4
1
%
7
4
,
8
2
6
4
0
.
7
4
%
$
1
4
.
1
3
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
2
2
5
%
1
7
8
,
7
5
0
6
0
%
4
1
,
7
3
5
7
5
%
2
3
.
3
5
%
8
9
,
3
7
5
4
5
.
8
7
%
$
8
.
4
0
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
6
7
5
%
1
1
7
,
4
8
6
4
0
%
1
3
,
6
1
9
2
5
%
1
1
.
5
9
%
1
9
,
5
8
1
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
8
.
4
7
T
o
t
a
l
8
2
9
6
,
2
3
6
5
5
,
3
5
4
1
8
.
6
9
%
3
7
,
0
3
0
2
7
.
6
8
%
$
1
3
.
9
3
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
3
2
3
%
3
3
8
,
5
4
7
5
9
%
5
,
6
0
0
1
3
%
1
.
6
5
%
1
1
2
,
8
4
9
5
8
.
8
4
%
$
1
4
.
5
9
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
1
0
7
7
%
2
3
9
,
3
6
6
4
1
%
3
8
,
1
0
7
8
7
%
1
5
.
9
2
%
2
3
,
9
3
7
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
8
.
5
6
T
o
t
a
l
1
3
5
7
7
,
9
1
3
4
3
,
7
0
7
7
.
5
6
%
4
4
,
4
5
5
3
4
.
4
7
%
$
1
7
.
1
0
A
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
4
3
3
5
%
5
,
7
9
4
,
3
9
4
6
8
%
6
3
2
,
7
0
7
7
0
%
1
0
.
9
2
%
1
3
4
,
7
5
3
5
4
.
6
9
%
$
1
6
.
4
8
U
n
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
7
9
6
5
%
2
,
6
8
5
,
6
8
7
3
2
%
2
6
7
,
4
0
9
3
0
%
9
.
9
6
%
3
3
,
9
9
6
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
7
.
2
0
T
o
t
a
l
1
2
2
8
,
4
8
0
,
0
5
1
9
0
0
,
1
1
6
1
0
.
6
1
%
6
9
,
5
0
9
3
7
.
3
7
%
$
1
6
.
8
5
N
o
t
e
:

A
i
r
l
i
n
e

H
w
y

S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

I
-
1
2

a
n
d

F
l
o
r
i
d
a

B
l
v
d

I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

a
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

A
r
e
a

4
,

P
l
a
n
k

R
d

S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
e
r
s

s
o
u
t
h

o
f

H
o
o
p
e
r

R
d

a
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

A
r
e
a

2

B
o
t
h

L
i
v
i
n
g
s
t
o
n

P
a
r
i
s
h

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

c
e
n
t
e
r
s

a
r
e

u
n
-
a
n
c
h
o
r
e
d
A
r
e
a

1
(
S
o
u
t
h

o
f

I
-
1
0

&

W
e
s
t

o
f

A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
A
r
e
a

2
(
N
o
r
t
h

o
f

I
-
1
0

&

S
o
u
t
h
/
W
e
s
t

o
f

A
r
e
a

3
(
N
o
r
t
h

o
f

C
h
o
c
t
a
w

&

N
o
r
t
h
/
E
a
s
t

o
f

A
r
e
a

4
(
S
o
u
t
h

o
f

C
h
o
c
t
a
w

&

E
a
s
t

o
f

A
i
r
l
i
n
e
)
A
r
e
a

5
(
Z
a
c
h
a
r
y
)
A
r
e
a

6
(
A
s
c
e
n
s
i
o
n

P
a
r
i
s
h
)
T
o
t
a
l
2 3
20
14
O
F
F
I
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
OF F I C E T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
60 3 61
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
The Baton Rouge ofce market continued to show
improvement in 2013 with a resurgence of growth in the
engineering sector and numerous ofce building sales.
Landlords are becoming more confdent as vacancy
rates continue to fall. Tenant concessions have dried up
and we are seeing a return to a landlords market. There
has been a steady fow of new tenants entering the area
along with several local expansions, especially in trades
associated with engineering, construction, technology,
and business services. Most brokers and landlords agree
that the overall health of the market is good and will
continue to improve throughout 2014.

As building occupancy has improved over the last 12
months, tenants are fnding fewer options, especially
for large block spaces of 10,000 square feet or more.
Tenants with national representation are still seeking
aggressive rental rates, large concessions, free rent, and
abundant tenant improvement allowances. However, as
these tenants explore the market they are fnding few
options, making their negotiations difcult.

Demand continues for efcient, open space with large parking ratios, which has been difcult
to locate. Several national and regional tenants have had to look in other markets due to the
lack of options in the Baton Rouge area. The tight market has created some demand for a few of
the older buildings that in the past have been rejected due to functional obsolescence or poor
location.

Sales activity was heavy in 2013 with several large buildings trading and the sale of one ofce
portfolio, which included seven buildings. The investment market has been improving and
several institutional buyers and REITs have been actively seeking opportunities in our area.
New construction has begun a slow return with the announcement of several major projects.
Positive activity has continued in early 2014, and all indications are pointing towards more
growth going forward for the remainder of the year. Proposed activity in the industrial sector
should continue to drive demand for ofce space, especially in felds related to engineering and
construction.
2014 OFFICE COMMITTEE
BRANON W. PESNELL, CCIM, SIOR
Speaker, TRENDS
JONANN STUTZMAN
NAI LATTER & BLUM
GARY BLACK
WAMPOLD COMPANIES
DREW PEARSON, CCIM
WATERS & PETTIT COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
JOEY CANELLA, CCIM
2)03%0) !4*&5*)

!""#$% '%()#*+ ,$-#.#-/

The perception Irom national brokers remains that Baton Rouge is a small market with
tremendous potential Ior negotiating aggressive deals Ior their tenants. Most have quickly Iound
that our continued market growth and low vacancy rates have shiIted negotiations to the
landlord`s Iavor. Options have been limited Ior large block spaces, leaving tenants with less
leverage in the Class Amarket.

Smaller suburban spaces have been a bit easier to locate. Years oI new construction in the
garden oIIice sector added a tremendous amount oI inventory to the market Irom 2007-2010.
These buildings have become more aIIordable in recent years and have pulled a large number oI
tenants Irom older properties in the Sherwood, Bluebonnet, JeIIerson, College, and Perkins Road
areas. Landlords associated with these older Class B & C buildings will need to be slightly
more aggressive in their negotiations to procure tenants due to competing garden oIIice buildings
and the option oI owner occupancy. However, as reIerenced in past reports, the Baton Rouge
oIIice market has never been very 'concession laden, with most deals being decided on rent and
tenant improvement allowance. With the overall improved market, local landlords have
remained Iirm on rental rates and kept tenant improvement allowances around $1.00 - $2.00 per
square Ioot per year.

Leasing activity has been most prevalent in requests Ior space oI 10,000 square Ieet or less, with
a Iew larger transactions. The amount oI sublease space in the Baton Rouge market did increase
slightly, but it has not aIIected rates or demand Ior landlord direct space. Occupancy rates in
Baton Rouge increased to 88.29, up Irom 86.42 in 2013 and 82.99 in 2012. Average
rental rates Ior both Class Aand Class B properties increased slightly over the past twelve
months.

AIew notable lease transactions occurred over the past year. AIter their acquisition oI the Shaw
Group, CB&I leased approximately 66,000 square Ieet in the Iormer State Farm Building at
85.4
96.27
94.51
90.45
87.79
85.39
84.84
82.83
82.99
86.44
88.29
75
80
85
90
95
100
2005 Post
Katrina
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y

%

Year
Baton Rouge Office Market Occupancy
OFFICE LEASING ACTIVITY
The perception from national brokers remains that Baton Rouge is a small market with tremendous
potential for negotiating aggressive deals for their tenants. Most have quickly found that our continued
market growth and low vacancy rates have shifted negotiations to the landlords favor. Options have
been limited for large block spaces, leaving tenants with less leverage in the Class A market.
Smaller suburban spaces have been a bit easier to locate. Years of new construction in the garden ofce
sector added a tremendous amount of inventory to the market from 2007-2010. These buildings have
become more afordable in recent years and have pulled a large number of tenants from older properties
in the Sherwood, Bluebonnet, Jeferson, College, and Perkins Road areas. Landlords associated with
these older Class 8 & C bulldlngs wlll need to be sllghtly more aggresslve ln thelr negotlatlons to procure
tenants due to competing garden ofce buildings and the option of owner occupancy. However, as
referenced ln past reports, the 8aton Pouge omce market has never been very "concesslon laden, wlth
most deals being decided on rent and tenant improvement allowance. With the overall improved
market, local landlords have remained frm on rental rates and kept tenant improvement allowances
around $1.00 - $2.00 per square foot per year.

Leasing activity has been most prevalent in requests for space of 10,000 square feet or less, with a few
larger transactions. The amount of sublease space in the Baton Rouge market did increase slightly, but
it has not afected rates or demand for landlord direct space. Occupancy rates in Baton Rouge increased
to 88.29%, up from 86.42% in 2013 and 82.99% in 2012. Average rental rates for both Class A and Class
B properties increased slightly over the past twelve months.

A few notable lease transactions occurred over the past year. After their acquisition of the Shaw Group,
C8&| leased approxlmately 66,000 square feet ln the former State Parm 8ulldlng at Towne Center.
Additionally, IBM took occupancy of a large block of space in Essen Centre as they await completion
of their new building downtown. Engineering frms Hargrove and Willbros both leased large blocks of
space in 2013 showing continued growth in the engineering sector. Additionally, a new technology
O
F
F
I
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
16 2 62
start up, Ameritas, took a whole foor in the Chase South Tower, and Morgan Stanley consolidated
its ofces to II City Plaza, leasing most of the last full foor available.
Sales activity was heavy in 2013 with several large buildings trading and the sale of one ofce
portfolio, which included seven buildings. The investment market has been improving and
several institutional buyers and REITs have been actively seeking opportunities in our area. New
construction has begun a slow return with the announcement of several major projects.
OFFICE SALES ACTIVITY
Sales activity in the ofce sector was busy in 2013. There were several notable transactions.
Songy Highroads purchased the former JTS Ofce Portfolio, which consisted of seven buildings,
from Kimco REIT in October 2013 for $52.7 million. The portfolio totaled approximately 519,000
square feet and included Acadian Centre, Citiplace I, Citiplace II, Sherwood Oaks Ofce Park,
Corporate Atrium, Corporate II, and Latter Center West in Metairie, LA.
Songy Highroads, soon thereafter, sold of Corporate II to Stonetrust Commercial Insurance Co.
for $4.6 Million. The building totaled 56,884 square feet and was 70% leased upon sale and closed
in January 2014.
An lnvestment group headed by Stlrllng Propertles purchased the Unlted Plaza v||| bulldlng
through a loan assumption in December 2013. The building totaled 52,606 square feet and was
91% occupied at the time of sale.
Mid-City Tower, LLC purchased the 14 story Dean Tower building from Dean Building Holdings in
June 2013. The property sold for $1.2 million and is 86,000 square feet.
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
!" $%&' $() *%&+ ,-"&"%. ('/
-'00%-- -"%1- 2/(1 3&/"4%/-563-
7'6+" (4 "/'-" &48 9&+'%:
;% 0(4"64'% "( </(= ('/ /%&+
%-"&"% 7'-64%-- 7> 0(4-"&4"+>
%)3&4864< ('/ ?4(=+%8<% (2 +(0&+.
/%<6(4&+ &48 4&"6(4&+ 1&/?%"-:
@'/ 0+6%4"- &/% ('/ "(3 3/6(/6"> &48
('/ 0(4-6-"%4" 0(116"1%4" "( >('
6- "( &+=&>- 5&9% >('/ 7%-"
64"%/%-"- 64 1648:
CommerciaI Proerty Management ResidentiaI
Baton Rouge IaIayette Nev OrIeans
!"#$ &'( )(* +,(-
Beau Box ReaI Estate
!!"" $%&'()*+ ,-(&.(/ 8uton Rouge, LA ,c8c8
zz.z,. | www.beuubox.com
RENTAL RATES
CLASS AAND B BUILDINGS
8/2005 - 3/2006
Acadian/
College
Downtown
Sherwood
Forest
Essen/
Bluebonnet
2010 $22.14 $22.58 $18.65 $21.58
2011 $21.06 $22.08 $18.50 $20.21
2012 $21.19 $21.67 $18.50 $20.04
2013 $21.83 $21.75 $18.65 $19.96
2014 $22.39 $21.75 $20.46 $20.63
$-
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
P
r
ic
e

p
e
r

S
F

Class A office average rental rate per SF 2010-2013
O
F
F
I
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
16 64
The frst foor of the Court Plaza condominium ofce building, located on Coursey Boulevard sold
in October 2013. The frst foor was sold by Investar Bank to Court Plaza Investments, LLC for $1.5
million and totaled nearly 21,000 square feet. Investar Bank had purchased both the frst and
third foors of the building in July 2013.
The Perkins Rowe development was sold at auction to the lender, Key Bank, in August of 2013
for $69.3 million. Although it is not an arms-length transaction, the sale represented the end
to a long legal battle and brings some stability to the project. Stirling Properties has recently
taken over as manager of the property and new investment partners have plans to continue the
development of the project.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Several new garden ofces went up in the Baton Rouge area throughout 2013, indicating a return
of new construction and stability in the market. Developers had been on the sidelines for years
with the economic downturn and rising vacancies. However, easing lender requirements and
overall market growth allowed for numerous new projects.
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
ITS NOT JUST BUSINESS...
ITS YOUR BUSINESS
At Neighbors we understand that
your business is more than just a job.
Contact us today for information on
what we can do for you and
your business.
Business Services
neighborsfcu.org Your savings federaIIy insured to at Ieast $250,000
and backed by the fuII faith and credit of the United States Government
NationaI Credit Union Administration, a U.S. Government Agency
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
trends ad.ai 1 3/7/2014 12:55:57 PM
Exceptional OIIice and Flex Space Exceptional OIIice and Flex Space Exceptional OIIice and Flex Space
SEALY & COMPANY
150 James Drive East, Suite 140
St. Rose, Louisiana 70087
BR: 225.767.4776 NO: 504.463.5600
FAX: 504.463.5650
!"#$%& () (*+&$#,
--./, 0.12
3"#(45%"&6#%7)8*9
:%##$;%< =) >%%,
--./, 0.12
?%##$;%<>45%"&6#%7)8*9
Baton Rouge ndustriplex Business Park
AVAILABLE PROPERTIES:

Baton Rouge 3 " Office/Warehouse
11441 Industriplex Boulevard
3,200 s.I., 3,609 s.I. & 4,410 s.I

Baton Rouge 5 " Office/Warehouse
11200 Industriplex Boulevard
3,975 s.I. & 6,045 s.I.
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1 !"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
There were also several notable ofce development announcements over the past year.
The March 2013 announcement of IBMs plans to locate a new technology center in downtown Baton
Rouge was a huge buzz in 2013. The company plans to occupy a portion of a planned $55 million river
front complex, which is being developed by Commercial Properties Realty Trust. Hopes are high that
this project will fuel more job growth in the technology sector for Baton Rouge.
Developer Mike Wampold purchased of the former state ofce building at 150 Third Street in March
2014. The 12 story, 92,567 square foot building was purchased for $10.25 million. No specifc plans
have been announced for the property, but speculation includes a hotel, apartments, or ofce space.
An investment group headed by David Weinstein and Dyke Nelson purchased the 114,000 square foot
former Capital One building downtown for $4.3 million in June 2013. The group has plans for a mixed
use development of retail and ofce. A local grocer has already announced plans to occupy the frst
foor.
State ofcials also announced the proposed development of the Water Campus on the site of the old
city dock. The property will cover over 30 acres and will initially include three buildings at a cost of about
$45 million. The facility will house ofce and research space for groups working on coastal erosion.
!
!
5025 Bluebonnet Blvd. - Baton Rouge, LA 70809
225-925-2300 - Fax: 225-925-1119
www.gullyphelpsmckey.com
David Trusty
Director of Commercial Real Estate
810-9926
datrusty@cox.net
David Palmer
317-3230
pipalmer@hotmail.com
A Solid Foundation of Knowledge, Service and Committment
Wendell Fredieu
964-2310
wendell.fredieu@gmail.com
Dr. Gary Shetler
938-6154
gary@drgaryshetler.com
Betty Phelps
Broker/Owner
241-2549
bprealtor@aol.com
Julia Kennedy
485-4330
j44kennedy@gmail.com
David McKey
Broker/Owner
241-2548
david.mckey@coldwellbanker.com
O
F
F
I
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
16
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
3 2 3
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
3 69 68
FORECAST
It is anticipated that the Baton Rouge ofce market will continue to improve throughout 2014.
Leasing activity in the frst quarter of the year has been healthy and local brokers report strong
optimism for the future. Strong petro-chemical and construction markets should continue to
fuel demand for ofce space. We expect the majority of activity to come from expansions and
relocations from within our market, and expect to see more positive announcements bringing
new companies to Baton Rouge. Several ongoing and proposed projects have the ofce market
council excited about our short and long term future.
OFFICE MARKET OCCUPANCY
Average rental rates and occupancy rates for the individual buildings and submarkets surveyed
are shown on the following spreadsheets.
Ior a mixed use development oI retail and oIIice. Alocal grocer has already announced plans to
occupy the Iirst Iloor.

State oIIicials also announced the proposed development oI the Water Campus on the site oI the
old city dock. The property will cover over 30 acres and will initially include three buildings at a
cost oI about $45 million. The Iacility will house oIIice and research space Ior groups working
on coastal erosion.

!"#$%&'(

It is anticipated that the Baton Rouge oIIice market will continue to improve throughout 2014.
Leasing activity in the Iirst quarter oI the year has been healthy and local brokers report strong
optimism Ior the Iuture. Strong petro-chemical and construction markets should continue to Iuel
demand Ior oIIice space. We expect the majority oI activity to come Irom expansions and
Acadian/
College
Downtown
Florida/
Airline
Sherwood
Forest
Essen/
Bluebonnet
2010 $15.00 $16.35 $12.57 $15.89 $14.50
2011 $14.00 $15.45 $12.42 $15.67 $14.25
2012 $14.00 $15.45 $12.42 $15.67 $14.25
2013 $14.50 $15.61 $12.58 $15.67 $14.75
2014 $14.50 $15.81 $12.75 $15.89 $15.00
$-
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
P
r
ic
e

p
e
r

S
F

Class B office average rental rate per SF 2010-2013
relocations Irom within our market, and expect to see more positive announcements bringing
new companies to Baton Rouge. Several ongoing and proposed projects have the oIIice market
council excited about our short and long term Iuture.

Office Market Occupancy
Average rental rates and occupancy rates for the individual buildings and submarkets surveyed
are shown on the following spreadsheets.

Baton Rouge Office Market
March 2014
Twenty Nine (29) Buildings
83.75 Occupancy Thirty Three (33) Buildings
90.91 Occupancy
Baton Rouge Ofice Market March 2014
SUMMARY OF OFFICE MARKET BY AREA
For Class A Buildings 3/9/2014
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 Acadian Centre A 74,589 73,423 98.44% $20.00 0 0
2 CitiPlace Centre I (Hancock Bank Building @ CitiPlace) A 82,023 78,435 95.63% $23.00 0 0
3 CitiPlace Centre II A 31,516 31,516 100.00% $21.00 0 0
4 CitiPlace Centre III (The Bancorp Bank Center @ CitiPlace) A 42,659 36,718 86.07% $23.00 0 0
5 Acadia Trace A 121,000 121,000 100.00% $20.00 0 0
6 Corporate Atrium A 76,447 58,055 75.94% $20.00 0 0
7 Corporate Center A 48,000 48,000 100.00% $22.00 0 0
8 Republic Finance A 27,000 13,634 50.50% $27.50 0 0
9 2370 Towne Centre A 66,000 66,000 100.00% $25.00 0 0
569,234 526,781 92.54% $22.39 0 0
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET
OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE
RATE SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 One American Place A 333,306 257,803 77.35% $20.00 6,422 0
2 Bank One Centre - North Tower A 207,572 181,913 87.64% $21.50 9,700 0
3 Bank One South Tower A 333,000 301,819 90.64% $18.00 0 0
4 City Plaza A 166,473 160,725 96.55% $21.50 2,872 0
5 II City Plaza A 255,344 247,847 97.06% $28.00 24,587 0
6 La Cap Building A 75,000 69,583 92.78% $21.50 0 0
1,370,695 1,219,690 88.98% $21.75 43,581 0
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET
OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE
RATE SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 Essen Center A 113,000 60,000 53.10% $22.00 0 5,000
2 United Plaza IV A 71,547 71,547 100.00% $20.00 0 0
3 Jefferson Brentwood A 63,625 63,625 100.00% $21.00 0 0
4 One United Plaza A 94,204 94,204 100.00% $21.00 0 0
5 Two United Plaza A 197,010 190,114 96.50% $21.00 0 0
6 United Plaza III A 60,389 40,389 66.88% $21.50 0 0
7 United Plaza IX A 97,000 97,000 100.00% $19.50 0 0
8 United Plaza XII A 154,000 152,000 98.70% $20.00 0 0
9 United Plaza V A 58,365 58,365 100.00% $22.00 0 0
10 United Plaza VIII A 57,932 53,145 91.74% $20.00 0 0
11 United Plaza VII A 58,000 58,000 100.00% N/A 0 0
12 Bluebonnet Centre A 71,656 66,510 92.82% $19.50 0 0
13 Louisiana School Employee Retirement A 112,253 112,253 100.00% N/A 0 0
14 Jacobs Plaza A 192,600 192,600 100.00% N/A 0 0
15 Shaw A 240,000 240,000 100.00% N/A 0 0
16 Perkins Rowe A 126,328 107,453 85.06% $20.00 0 0
1,767,909 1,657,205 93.74% $20.63 0 5,000
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET
OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE
RATE SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 4000 S. Sherwood Office Building A 75,482 73,217 97.00% $19.50 0 0
2 Court Plaza A 57,486 52,007 90.47% $17.95 0 1,406
3 CDI Center A 105,720 58,840 55.66% $18.50 0 10,119
238,688 184,064 77.11% $18.65 0 11,525
# of
Buildings
AREA CLASS
SQUARE
FEET
OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE
RATE SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
8 ACADIAN/COLLEGE A 569,234 526,781 92.54% $22.39 0 0
6 DOWNTOWN A 1,370,695 1,219,690 88.98% $21.75 43,581 0
16 ESSEN/BLUEBONNET A 1,767,909 1,657,205 93.74% $20.63 0 5,000
3 SHERWOOD FOREST A 238,688 184,064 77.11% $18.65 0 11,525
33 3,946,526 3,587,740 90.91% $20.85 43,581 16,525
TOTAL
For Class A Buildings
Sunday, March 09, 2014
ACADIAN/COLLEGE
DOWNTOWN
ESSEN/BLUEBONNET
SHERWOOD FOREST
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
O
F
F
I
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
16
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
3 2 3
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
70 3 71
For Class B Buildings 3/9/2014
SUMMARY
OF OFFICE
MARKET
BY AREA
For Class
A & 8 8ulldlngs
3/9/2014
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 Corporate II B 56,400 47,300 83.87% $14.00 0 0
2 5420 Corporate B 30,663 26,437 86.22% $15.00 0 0
87,063 73,737 84.69% $14.50 0 0
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 Renaissance East B 172,000 172,000 100.00% N/A 0 0
2 Renaissance West B 50,000 50,000 100.00% $13.00 0 0
3 Gras Town Plaza B 30,000 28,500 95.00% $16.75 0 0
4 Roumain Building B 32,997 32,997 100.00% $16.00 0 0
5 State National B 71,912 35,955 50.00% $11.00 0 0
6 Taylor Building B 30,000 29,700 99.00% $15.50 0 0
7 339 Florida B 44,524 44,524 100.00% $16.00 0 0
8 525 Florida St. (Kinko's Building) B 30,000 30,000 100.00% $17.00 0 0
9 Cordova Square B 20,000 18,500 92.50% $20.00 0 0
10 500 Laurel Street B 28,000 17,000 60.71% $17.00 0 0
509,433 459,176 90.13% $15.81 0 0
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 Alpha Building (8281 Goodwood) B 30,209 28,841 95.47% $14.50 0 0
2 Dean Tower (5700 Florida) B 79,491 52,465 66.00% $15.00 0 0
3 Mid City Plaza (4962 Florida) B 31,975 8,000 25.02% $10.00 0 0
4 Direct General - 10255 Florida B 90,898 0 0.00% $10.00 0 0
5 1900 Lobdell B 53,000 53,000 100.00% $10.50 0 0
6 Bon Carre B 712,920 622,742 87.35% $16.50 23,188 0
998,493 765,048 76.62% $12.75 23,188 0
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 IBM B 51,878 51,878 100.00% $18.50 0 0
2 CJ Brown Plaza B 36,000 36,000 100.00% $16.00 0 0
3 Sherwood II B 25,673 17,200 67.00% $16.00 0 0
4 Sherwood Oaks Office Park B 101,157 75,201 74.34% $15.00 0 0
5 Sherwood Plaza Business Park B 61,000 43,834 71.86% $14.50 0 17,000
6 10719 Airline B 37,500 37,500 100.00% $17.50 0 0
7 Bellsouth Building B 122,849 122,849 100.00% $15.00 0 0
8 Security National B 45,378 45,378 100.00% $14.50 0 0
9 Sherwood Tower B 77,702 56,000 72.07% $16.00 0
559,137 485,840 86.89% $15.89 0 17,000
BUILDING CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
1 7414 Perkins Road B 72,145 72,145 100.00% $13.50 0 0
2 Essen Crossing B 52,669 52,669 100.00% $16.50 0 0
124,814 124,814 100.00% $15.00 0 0
# of
Buildings
AREA
CLASS
SQUARE
FEET OCCUPIED
OCCUPANCY
RATE RATE
SUBLEASE
6 MONTHS
PENDING
2 ACADIAN/COLLEGE B 87,063 73,737 84.69% $14.50 0 0
10 DOWNTOWN B 509,433 459,176 90.13% $15.81 0 0
6 FLORIDA/AIRLINE B 998,493 765,048 76.62% $12.75 23,188 0
9 SHERWOOD FOREST B 559,137 485,840 86.89% $15.89 0 17,000
2 ESSEN/BLUEBONNET B 124,814 124,814 100.00% $15.00 0 0
29 2,278,940 1,908,615 83.75% $14.79 23,188 17,000
Sunday, March 09, 2014
ACADIAN/COLLEGE
For Class B Buildings
FLORIDA/AIRLINE
DOWNTOWN
SHERWOOD FOREST
ESSEN/BLUEBONNET
TOTAL
TRENDS 2014
6&&-#. !03%&#)
A
R
E
A
C
L
A
S
S

S
Q
U
A
R
E

F
E
E
T
O
C
C
U
P
I
E
D
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

R
A
T
E
R
A
T
E
S
U
B
L
E
A
S
E
P
E
N
D
I
N
G
1
A
C
A
D
I
A
N
/
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
A
&

B
6
5
6
,2
9
7
6
0
0
,5
1
8
9
1
.5
0
%
$
1
8
.4
4
0
0
2
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
A
&

B
1
,8
8
0
,1
2
8
1
,6
7
8
,8
6
6
8
9
.3
0
%
$
1
8
.6
5
4
3
,5
8
1
0
3
F
L
O
R
I
D
A
/
A
I
R
L
I
N
E
A
&

B
9
9
8
,4
9
3
7
6
5
,0
4
8
7
6
.6
2
%
$
1
2
.7
5
2
3
,1
8
8
0
4
S
H
E
R
W
O
O
D

F
O
R
E
S
T
A
&

B
7
9
7
,8
2
5
6
6
9
,9
0
4
8
3
.9
7
%
$
1
7
.2
7
0
2
8
,5
2
5
5
E
S
S
E
N
/
B
L
U
E
B
O
N
N
E
T
A
&

B
1
,8
9
2
,7
2
3
1
,7
8
2
,0
1
9
9
4
.1
5
%
$
1
7
.8
1
0
5
,0
0
0
6
,2
2
5
,4
6
6
5
,4
9
6
,3
5
5
8
8
.2
9
%
$
1
6
.9
9
6
6
,7
6
9
3
3
,5
2
5
A
R
E
A
C
L
A
S
S
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
0
7
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
0
8
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
0
9
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
1
0
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
1
1
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
1
2
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
1
3
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y

%

S
p
r
in
g

2
0
1
4
A
C
A
D
I
A
N
/
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
A
&

B
9
5
.4
8
%
9
8
.8
0
%
9
4
.8
9
%
9
3
.4
2
%
8
7
.6
4
%
8
7
.3
3
%
9
1
.4
5
%
9
1
.5
0
%
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
A
&

B
8
6
.7
1
%
8
7
.5
9
%
8
0
.1
0
%
8
4
.2
3
%
8
1
.5
5
%
8
0
.2
4
%
8
8
.7
9
%
8
9
.3
0
%
F
L
O
R
I
D
A
/
A
I
R
L
I
N
E
A
&

B
7
5
.3
9
%
6
6
.4
9
%
7
1
.9
9
%
6
8
.7
5
%
7
2
.3
3
%
7
5
.2
2
%
7
1
.7
3
%
7
6
.6
2
%
S
H
E
R
W
O
O
D

F
O
R
E
S
T
A
&

B
8
8
.7
2
%
9
0
.7
3
%
9
1
.2
5
%
8
2
.9
8
%
8
0
.9
7
%
8
4
.3
8
%
8
0
.8
4
%
8
3
.9
7
%
E
S
S
E
N
/
B
L
U
E
B
O
N
N
E
T
A
&

B
9
5
.7
4
%
9
6
.1
2
%
9
5
.0
6
%
9
3
.6
9
%
8
9
.7
0
%
8
8
.7
0
%
9
2
.4
4
%
9
4
.1
5
%
8
8
.4
1
%
8
7
.7
9
%
8
5
.5
6
%
8
4
.8
4
%
8
2
.8
3
%
8
2
.9
9
%
8
6
.4
2
%
8
8
.2
9
%
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y

O
F

O
F
F
I
C
E

M
A
R
K
E
T

B
Y

A
R
E
A
F
o
r

C
l
a
s
s

A

&

B

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
S
u
n
d
a
y
,

M
a
r
c
h

0
9
,

2
0
1
4
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y

T
r
e
n
d
2
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
20
14
F
I
N
A
N
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FINANCE
Banks and thrifts continue to hold the majority of
commerclal real estate debt ln the Unlted States as
of the third quarter of 2013. Securitized lenders hold
the second largest piece, though regular principal
reductions and payofs have outpaced new originations.
Agency and GSE- backed mortgage pools hold the
third position, followed by life insurance companies,
government and other lenders.
F I NANC E T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
16 2 72
2014 FINANCE COMMITTEE
BRIAN S. ANDREWS
Committe Chair
Speaker, TRENDS
Assistant Director,
LSUS E.J. OURSO COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
REAL ESTATE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

KENNY HODGES
Speaker, TRENDS
Managing Partner,
ASSURANCE FINANCIAL
TOMMY KEHOE
Speaker, TRENDS
Executive VP & Chief Operating Ofcer,
EUSTIS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE
MIKE AIRHART
President, LOUISIANA MORTGAGE LENDERS
Chairman, LOUISIANA HOUSING CORP.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BRIAN CALLENDER
Vice President, WHITNEY BANK
JAMES R. PURGESRSON, JR. , CCIM
Sr. Vice President, CITIZENS BANK & TRUST
STUDENTS
LSUS E.J. OURSO COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
STUDENT REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
2)03%0) !4*&5*)
Speakers
of Busine
Financial
Associati
Callende
COMME
More of t
Banks an
States as
regular p
backed
governm
s: Brian S. A
ess, Tommy
l and student
ion. Commit
er of Whitne
ERCIAL RE
the Same
nd thrifts co
of the third
principal red
mortgage p
ment and othe
Co
So
AN OVER
TR
Andrews of t
y Kehoe of E
ts from LSU
ttee Member
ey Bank and
EAL ESTA
ontinue to h
d quarter of 2
ductions and
pools hold
er lenders.
ommercial &
By Inv
urce: MBA Comm
!"
#$%
&'(
)
*+,- .$/01#
!234#$+
56789
:;
RVIEW OF
RENDS IN R
Pre
the Real Est
Eustis Comm
Us E.J. Ours
rs: Mike Air
James R. P
ATE FINAN
hold the maj
2013. Secur
d payoffs ha
the third p
& Multifam
vestor Group
mercial/Multifamily
'(< !=:
% 2;>-1
( +//0-/<
))7?9
#$@-
-/<
>-1/< 5)7A9
F REAL EST
REAL EST
esented By
tate Research
mercial Mort
so College o
rhart of Lou
Purgerson, J
NCE
jority of com
ritized lende
ave outpace
position, fo
mily Mortga
p, As of Third
y Mortgage Debt O
&B-$
C(D 42
#$%
58
9
TATE FINA
TATE 2014
h Institute at
tgage, Kenn
f Business
uisiana Mort
Jr., CCIMo
mmercial re
ers hold the
ed new orig
ollowed by
age Debt Ou
d Quarter 20
Outstanding, Third
'#$E/
F>1+,;/< 6
@G #$%
21;,2H+2/
"'(<
87I9
ANCE
t LSUs E.J.
ny Hodges of
Student Re
tgage Lende
of Citizens B
eal estate de
second larg
ginations. Ag
life insura
utstanding
013
d Quarter 2013
#$%
68759
Ourso Colle
f Assurance
al Estate
rs, Brian
Bank & Trus
ebt in the U
gest piece, th
gency and G
ance compa
ege
st
United
hough
GSE-
anies,
Speakers
of Busine
Financial
Associati
Callende
COMME
More of t
Banks an
States as
regular p
backed
governm
s: Brian S. A
ess, Tommy
l and student
ion. Commit
er of Whitne
ERCIAL RE
the Same
nd thrifts co
of the third
principal red
mortgage p
ment and othe
Co
So
AN OVER
TR
Andrews of t
y Kehoe of E
ts from LSU
ttee Member
ey Bank and
EAL ESTA
ontinue to h
d quarter of 2
ductions and
pools hold
er lenders.
ommercial &
By Inv
urce: MBA Comm
!"
#$%
&'(
)
*+,- .$/01#
!234#$+
56789
:;
RVIEW OF
RENDS IN R
Pre
the Real Est
Eustis Comm
Us E.J. Ours
rs: Mike Air
James R. P
ATE FINAN
hold the maj
2013. Secur
d payoffs ha
the third p
& Multifam
vestor Group
mercial/Multifamily
'(< !=:
% 2;>-1
( +//0-/<
))7?9
#$@-
-/<
>-1/< 5)7A9
F REAL EST
REAL EST
esented By
tate Research
mercial Mort
so College o
rhart of Lou
Purgerson, J
NCE
jority of com
ritized lende
ave outpace
position, fo
mily Mortga
p, As of Third
y Mortgage Debt O
&B-$
C(D 42
#$%
58
9
TATE FINA
TATE 2014
h Institute at
tgage, Kenn
f Business
uisiana Mort
Jr., CCIMo
mmercial re
ers hold the
ed new orig
ollowed by
age Debt Ou
d Quarter 20
Outstanding, Third
'#$E/
F>1+,;/< 6
@G #$%
21;,2H+2/
"'(<
87I9
ANCE
t LSUs E.J.
ny Hodges of
Student Re
tgage Lende
of Citizens B
eal estate de
second larg
ginations. Ag
life insura
utstanding
013
d Quarter 2013
#$%
68759
Ourso Colle
f Assurance
al Estate
rs, Brian
Bank & Trus
ebt in the U
gest piece, th
gency and G
ance compa
ege
st
United
hough
GSE-
anies,
COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY
MORTGAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING
By Investor Group, As of Third Quarter 2013
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
33333 75
Commercial & Multifamily Mortgage Debt Outstanding
By Sector, Through Third Quarter 2013 ($ millions)
Source: MBA, Federal Reserve Board of Governors and FDIC
COMMERCIAL & MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING
By Sector through Third Quarter 2013 ($ millions)
So
Multi
By Inv
urce: MBA Comm
!"#$
%&'
()
*()+, *
&-.#'
/001#0
ifamily Mor
vestor Group
mercial/Multifamily
$23 4$5 6+7
'-8&9/&0 4$5
)+, ::;<=
*>? 4$5
' !)+
, @;A=
+-4-# 4$5
6&B#'$C
@;A=
rtgage Debt
p, As of Third
y Mortgage Debt O
D&249
C#$-,
=
t Outstandin
d Quarter 20
Outstanding, Third
)4$E0
F.'/8-0,
D/8# G$01
*&C%4
A;H=
ng
013
d Quarter 2013
0 4$5
I@;:=
1'4$2#
4$/#0,
=
So
Multi
By Inv
urce: MBA Comm
!"#$
%&'
()
*()+, *
&-.#'
/001#0
ifamily Mor
vestor Group
mercial/Multifamily
$23 4$5 6+7
'-8&9/&0 4$5
)+, ::;<=
*>? 4$5
' !)+
, @;A=
+-4-# 4$5
6&B#'$C
@;A=
rtgage Debt
p, As of Third
y Mortgage Debt O
D&249
C#$-,
=
t Outstandin
d Quarter 20
Outstanding, Third
)4$E0
F.'/8-0,
D/8# G$01
*&C%4
A;H=
ng
013
d Quarter 2013
0 4$5
I@;:=
1'4$2#
4$/#0,
=
MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING
By Investor Group, As of Third Quarter 2013
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

&

M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y

M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

D
e
b
t

O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

B
y

S
e
c
t
o
r
,

T
h
r
o
u
g
h

T
h
i
r
d

Q
u
a
r
t
e
r

2
0
1
3

(
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)

S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
B
A
, F
e
d
e
r
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
s
a
n
d
F
D
I
C

A Community Bank
Since 1916
Business

Bankers.

Business

Partners.
At Citizens, we strive to be more than just
your business banker. We want to be your
business partner serving local businesses
with one-on-one service in the true
community banking tradition. Contact any
member of our Business Banking Team
to learn more.
citizensbankandtrust.com
Jim Purgerson, CCIM
Senior Vice President
jpurgerson@cbtla.com
Ryan Elliott
Vice President
relliott@cbtla.com
Kathy Miller
Vice President
kmiller@cbtla.com
Brooks Lewis
Senior Vice President
blewis@cbtla.com
Lillian Grossley
Vice-president - Business Development
lgrossley@cbtla.com
Do you have a business banker?
58240 Belleview Road
Plaquemine 70764
225.687.6897
Belleview Branch
Baton Rouge 70817
225.755.1916
4810 ONeal Lane
ONeal Branch
57910 Main Street
Plaquemine 70764
225.687.1916
Main Office Perkins Rowe Branch
10601 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge 708010
225.761.4170
Sherwood Branch
2925 S. Sherwood
Baton Rouge 70816
225.291.1420
Bocage Branch
7646 Jefferson Hwy.
Baton Rouge 70809
225.923.1916
NEW LOAN ORIGINATION
Conduit Lending
Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities or CMBS loans through conduit lenders continue a return
to the market. Preliminary indications are that 2013 origination volumes were 15 percent higher than
originations in 2012. Confrmed numbers through the end of the third quarter evidence a steady rise in
this lending source.
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
33333 77
Multifamily Mortgage Debt Outstanding
By Sector, Third Quarter 2013 ($ millions)
Source: MBA, Federal Reserve Board of Governors and FDIC
Conduit Lending
Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities or CMBS loans through conduit lenders continue a
return to the market. Preliminary indications are that 2013 origination volumes were 15 percent
higher than originations in 2012. Confirmed numbers through the end of the third quarter
evidence a steady rise in this lending source.
Quarterly Issuance of CMBS and CDOs
Third Quarter 2013 ($billions)
Source: MBA and Commercial Real Estate Direct
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y

M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e

D
e
b
t

O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

B
y

S
e
c
t
o
r
,

T
h
i
r
d

Q
u
a
r
t
e
r

2
0
1
3

(
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)

S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
B
A
, F
e
d
e
r
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
s
a
n
d
F
D
I
C

MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE DEBT OUTSTANDING
By Sector, Third Quarter 2013 ($ millions)
QUARTERLY ISSUANCE OF CMBS and CDOs
Third Quarter 2013 ($ billions)
Conduit Lending
Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities or CMBS loans through conduit lenders continue a
return to the market. Preliminary indications are that 2013 origination volumes were 15 percent
higher than originations in 2012. Confirmed numbers through the end of the third quarter
evidence a steady rise in this lending source.
Quarterly Issuance of CMBS and CDOs
Source: MBA and Commercial Real Estate Direct
!"## %&"##
'&( %))(*))( +,"-./
0)112,.3"& 42-(2,
55678957:5;5
!"##%&"##<=>&?@"-AB.)1
C2--3?2, +)==D
E2,A3-D +,"-./
!"-"=2,F0)112,.3"& 42-(2,
5567:6:7;;G5
C2--3?2,+)==D<=>&?@"-AB.)1
!",A C>-2">
'&( %))(*))( +,"-./
0)112,.3"& 42-(2,
5567:6:7;;5G
!",AC>-2"><=>&?@"-AB.)1
Contact a lender today to discuss commercial owner occupied and
investment real estate loans. Visit gulfbank.com to learn more.
+3&& H13#/
E2,A3-D +,"-./
0)112,.3"& 42-(2,
5567:6:7;;I8
+3&&H13#/<=>&?@"-AB.)1
BATON ROUGE
COMMERCIAL LENDERS
Life Insurance Company Lending
Throughout the market downturn of 2007-2010, commercial real estate in the New Orleans/Baton
Rouge market held up much better than other major cities across the country. Delinquency rates
were signifcantly lower than the national average and Chief Investment Ofcers of Life Insurance
Companies took notice of this trend, becoming more comfortable lending in south Louisiana.
National trends for life insurance companies show increased portfolios and originations through
the end of 2013. Preliminary indications are that 2013 origination volumes were 25 percent
higher than originations in 2012.
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16 2 16 2 78
Life Insurance Company Lending
Throughout the market downturn of 2007-2010, commercial real estate in the New
Orleans/Baton Rouge market held up much better than other major cities across the country.
Delinquency rates were significantly lower than the national average and Chief Investment
Officers of Life Insurance Companies took notice of this trend, becoming more comfortable
lending in south Louisiana. National trends for life insurance companies show increased
portfolios and originations through the end of 2013. Preliminary indications are that 2013
origination volumes were 25 percent higher than originations in 2012.
Quarterly Commercial Mortgage Commitments by Life Insurance Companies
Source: MBA and American Council of Life Insurance Companies
QUARTERLY COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE COMMITMENTS by LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Third Quarter 2013 ($ billions)
Member FDIC
Strength
leads to
opportunity.
WHITNEY BANK AWARDED A
5-STAR RATING FROM
BAUERFINANCIAL, INC.
Strength is not something you claim. Its something you
prove. Recently, BauerFinancial, Inc., the nations leading
nancial rating rm, awarded Whitney its highest 5-star
rating. This rating attests that Whitney Bank excels in the
areas of capital, asset quality, protability, risk management
and sound business practices. A strong bank leads to a
strong Baton Rouge. Put Whitney to work for you.
Call 225-381-0422 Click whitneybank.com
Come by one of our convenient locations
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
2 16 2 80
Long Term Fixed Rate Index The benchmark 10-Year Treasury rate was 1.98% in February
2013 and ending up significantly at 2.90% by December 2013. The MBA had projected an
increase to 2.40% by the end of 2013 in its February 2013 forecast. The group now projects a
3.20% 10-year rate by the end of 2014.
10-Year Constant Maturity Treasury Rates
January 2006 through February 2014
Source: Federal Reserve
!"#$
!"%&
'"$( '"$&
)"$*
'
'"%
)
)"%
!
!"%
+
+"%
%
%"%
,
-
.
*
#
/
-
0
*
#
1
2
3
*
#
,
-
.
*
(
/
-
0
*
(
1
2
3
*
(
,
-
.
*
&
/
-
0
*
&
1
2
3
*
&
,
-
.
*
$
/
-
0
*
$
1
2
3
*
$
,
-
.
'
*
/
-
0
'
*
1
2
3
'
*
,
-
.
'
'
/
-
0
'
'
1
2
3
'
'
,
-
.
'
)
/
-
0
'
)
1
2
3
'
)
,
-
.
'
!
/
-
0
'
!
1
2
3
'
!
,
-
.
'
+
10 - YEAR CONSTANT MATURITY TREASURY RATES
L
o
n
g

T
e
r
m

F
i
x
e
d

R
a
t
e

I
n
d
e
x

T
h
e

b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k

1
0
-
Y
e
a
r

T
r
e
a
s
u
r
y

r
a
t
e

w
a
s

1
.
9
8
%

i
n

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

a
n
d

e
n
d
i
n
g

u
p

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

a
t

2
.
9
0
%

b
y

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3
.

T
h
e

M
B
A

h
a
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
o

2
.
4
0
%

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

2
0
1
3

i
n

i
t
s

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
.

T
h
e

g
r
o
u
p

n
o
w

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

a

3
.
2
0
%

1
0
-
y
e
a
r

r
a
t
e

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

2
0
1
4
.
1
0
-
Y
e
a
r

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

M
a
t
u
r
i
t
y

T
r
e
a
s
u
r
y

R
a
t
e
s

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
6

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
!
"
#
$
!
"
%
&
'
"
$
(
'
"
$
&
)
"
$
*
'
'
"
% )
)
"
% !
!
"
% +
+
"
% %
%
"
%
, - . * #
/ - 0 * #
1 2 3 * #
, - . * (
/ - 0 * (
1 2 3 * (
, - . * &
/ - 0 * &
1 2 3 * &
, - . * $
/ - 0 * $
1 2 3 * $
, - . ' *
/ - 0 ' *
1 2 3 ' *
, - . ' '
/ - 0 ' '
1 2 3 ' '
, - . ' )
/ - 0 ' )
1 2 3 ' )
, - . ' !
/ - 0 ' !
1 2 3 ' !
, - . ' +
INTEREST RATE INDEX UPDATE
Floating Rate Indexes - The Prime Rate remained at 3.25% for the entire year as the Federal Funds
Rate remained near zero over the same period.
INTEREST RATE INDEX UPDATE
Floating Rate Indexes - The Prime Rate remained at 3.25% for the entire year as the Federal
Funds Rate remained near zero over the same period.
Average Monthly Prime, Fed Funds and 30-Day LIBOR Rates
Source: Federal Reserve
In their most recent Economic Forecast, the Mortgage Bankers Association projected flat results
for all indices through the end of 2014.
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
!
'
.
,
/
!
'
0
1
2
!
'
+
,
-
!
(
.
,
/
!
(
0
1
2
!
(
+
,
-
!
)
.
,
/
!
)
0
1
2
!
)
+
,
-
!
*
.
,
/
!
*
0
1
2
!
*
+
,
-
"
!
.
,
/
"
!
0
1
2
"
!
+
,
-
"
"
.
,
/
"
"
0
1
2
"
"
+
,
-
"
#
.
,
/
"
#
0
1
2
"
#
+
,
-
"
$
.
,
/
"
$
0
1
2
"
$
+
,
-
"
%
34561
718 79-8:
$!;,/ <=>?@
AVERAGE MONTHLY PRIME, FED FUNDS AND 30-DAY LIBOR RATES
In their most recent Economic Forecast, the Mortgage Bankers Association projected
fat results for all indices through the end of 2014.
Long Term Fixed Rate Index
The benchmark 10-Year Treasury rate was 1.98% in February 2013 and ending up signifcantly at
2.90% by December 2013. The MBA had projected an increase to 2.40% by the end of 2013 in its
February 2013 forecast. The group now projects a 3.20% 10-year rate by the end of 2014.
Decisions made here. Banking made simple.
Trends / Here & Simple / 1/2 Pg. Horiz. 7.625 x 5 / 3.04.14
!"#$%"#"
&'(&) *'&+,-./ -'0
LENDER UPDATE
RealtyRates.com 1st Quarter 2014 Investor Survey of permanent lenders shows the following
preferences of property types (as of the fourth quarter of 2013):
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
2 16 2 82
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE FINANCE
The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) expects to see $1.2 trillion in mortgage originations
during 2014, a 32 percent decline from 2013. While MBA expects purchase originations to
increase 9 percent, it expects refnance originations to fall 57 percent. Among the hottest topics
in residential real estate fnance for 2014 are the implementation of national Qualifed Mortgage
rules and regulations and local changes that will impact the Capital Region markets.
Pricing
Since 2006 the Federal Government has supported the economy in general and the real estate
industry specifcally with low interest rates. The general consensus among industry experts is
that rates have bottomed out and are on a path of increasing to more normal industry averages.
!"##
$"##
%"##
&"##
'"##
("##
)"##
FREDDIE MAC 30-YEAR FIXED FATE MORTGAGE
Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives
A VA R I E T Y OF
BUSI NESS LOANS
FOR A VARI ET Y OF
BUSI NESS NEEDS
campusfederal.org | 225.769.8841
Whet her you ar e l ooki ng t o
purchase an existing building or
build a new one, the key is having
business loan options like ours.
Campus Federal can make sure you
have the right loan and the right
rate to help you close the deal. To
nd out more about our owner-
occupied or real estate investment
l oans, cal l , cl i ck or come by.
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
2 16 2 84
Qualifed Mortgages
(From the Basic Guide for Lenders published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)
Starting January 10, 2014, lenders must assess the borrowers ability to repay for virtually all
closed-end residential mortgage loans. All Qualifed Mortgages (QM) are presumed to comply
with this requirement. As described below, a loan that meets the product feature requirements
can be a QM under any of three maln categorles: (l) the general denltlon, (2) the "GSL- ellglble
provision; or (3) the small creditor provision.
Mandatory product feature requirements for all QMs
- Polnts and fees are less than or equal to 3% of the loan amount (for loan amounts less than
$100k, higher percentage thresholds are allowed);
- No rlsky features llke negatlve amortlzatlon, lnterest-only, or balloon loans (8UT NOTL:
balloon loans originated until January 10, 2016 that meet the other product features are
QMs if originated and
held in portfolio by small creditors);
- Maxlmum loan term ls less than or equal to 30 years.
Three main categories
1. General defnition category of QMs - Any loan that meets the product feature requirements
with a debt-to-income ratio of 43% or less is a QM.
2. "GSL-ellglble category of QMs - Any loan that meets the product feature requlrements and
ls ellglble for purchase, guarantee, or lnsurance by a GSL, PHA, vA, or USDA ls QM regardless
of the debt-to-income ratio (this QM category applies for GSE loans as long as the GSEs are
in FHFA conservatorship and for federal agency loans until an agency issues its own QM
rules, or January 10, 2021, whichever occurs frst).
3. Small creditor category of QMs - If you have less than $2B in assets and originate 500 or
fewer frst mortgages per year, loans you make and hold in portfolio are QMs as long as you
have considered and verifed a borrowers debt-to-income ratio (though no specifc DTI limit
applies).
Non-QM Lending
Even if a loan is not a qualifed mortgage, it can still be an appropriate loan. A lender can originate
any mortgage (whether or not it is a QM) as long as the lender makes a reasonable, good-faith
determination that the consumer is able to repay the loan based on common underwriting
factors. Lenders can continue to rely on their sound, tested underwriting guidelines that
they have used in the past to make loans that have generally performed well, as long as they
document the information they consider.
Jumbo Loans
Another impact of the new legislation will be felt in the jumbo loan market during 2014. A Wall Street
Journal article from early 2013 reports that jumbo loans will be subjected to more scrutiny, higher down
payments and fewer options than in years past. This could also impact the feasibility of subdivision
development where mortgage loans in excess of $417,000 are required.

Changes to the Areas Eligible for USDA Rural Development Financing
Property ellglblllty for USDA houslng programs ln the Capltal Peglon and across the country wlll change
to 2010 Census data on October 1, 2014 (barring Congressional Action to extend current eligibility),
resulting in additional areas being deemed ineligible for this popular and afordable loan product in
rural areas. Loss of eligibility for the Rural Development products will potentially have a negative impact
on home afordability and could change the feasibility of subdivisions currently in the works or planned
for the near future in the impacted areas. (SEE PAGE 86 FOR ILLUSTRATIONS)
Come
home to
www.cottonportbank.com
N
O
W

O
P
E
N
www.cettenertbank.cem
Stop by and see a familiar face!
6500 Corporate Boulevard | 225.231.6606
We have helped generations of customers realize their DREAMS.
ALLEN HARRIS
Sr. Commercial Loan Ofcer
DALE PLAUCHE
Sr. Vice President
VANESSA DODEZ
Branch Manager
Lobby Hours: MondayFriday 8am - 5pm | Drive Tru: MondayFriday 8am - 5pm
F
I
N
A
C
E

T
R
E
N
D
S
2.#"%&-3 !4*&5*)
16
C HAI R MAN T R E N D S
!"#$%&' !")*&'+++ ,-%./%&' !")*&'0)1
3 2 3 16 3 2 3 86 3 87
Property eligibility for USDA housing programs in the Capital Region and across the country
will change to 2010 Census data on October 1, 2014 (barring Congressional Action to extend
current eligibility), resulting in additional areas being deemed ineligible for this popular and
affordable loan product in rural areas. Loss of eligibility for the Rural Development products will
potentially have a negative impact on home affordability and could change the feasibility of
subdivisions currently in the works or planned for the near future in the impacted areas.
Currently Ineligible Future Ineligible
Final determination of ineligible areas must be made by Rural Development, and final
determination of eligibility regarding a particular property must be made by Rural Development
upon receipt of a complete application. The proposed ineligibility maps on the USDA website
presented above do not constitute a final determination by Rural Development as to an area's
eligibility or as to a specific property.
Final determination of ineligible areas must be made by Rural Development, and fnal
determination of eligibility regarding a particular property must be made by Rural Development
upon recelpt of a complete appllcatlon. The proposed lnellglblllty maps on the USDA webslte
presented above do not constitute a fnal determination by Rural Development as to an areas
eligibility or as to a specifc property.
CID: YOUR EXPERTS IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
For over 30 years, the Commercial Investment Division (CID) has had a mission to bring
the individuals and companies within the commercial real estate industry in the Greater Baton
Rouge area closer together to share information and knowledge so that all can prosper and
better serve their clients and customers.
Today, the CID is the pre-eminent commercial real estate group in the area. CID members
are top producers in their respective market sectors who meet regularly to share ideas and stay
abreast of current issues and developments in commercial real estate. The major goals of CID
includes networking, the dissemination of information to its members, as well as the education
and encouragement of our members in achieving professional designations such as CCIM, SIOR,
CRE, and CPM. Our membership presently totals approximately 500 members and includes
most of the major commercial REALTORS, appraisers, bankers, builders, title companies, etc.,
in Baton Rouge. The CID has regular luncheon meetings with prominent area speakers on
topics of interest to the commercial real estate community. CID also sponsors educational
seminars from time to time concerning timely commercial and investment real estate topics
and ofers professional development and awards several thousand dollars annually in education
scholarships to its members. Many of our members have achieved professional designations
through their ongoing experience and education and TRENDS is an opportunity to ofer the
community the wealth of knowledge represented by our combined expertise.
DEVELOPING TRENDS
|n the late l980's, the C|D worked wlth LSU's Peal Lstate Pesearch |nstltute to orlglnate the
TRENDS in Real Estate Seminar. Today, it is the areas premier real estate seminar and hosts over
500 participants each year. The goal of the TRENDS program is to educate CID members and
their clients, as well as other real estate practitioners, in the Greater Baton Rouge area about
the current state of the local market, and to ofer our opinion of forecasted market trends. Six
distinct market sectors of commercial real estate are covered at TRENDS: fnance, industrial,
ofce, multifamily, residential, and retail. These presentations represent the combined eforts
of volunteer committee members who pool their resources, data and expertise in analyzing
each sector. Each TRENDS presentation is the product of hard work and extensive evaluation by
market experts. The TRENDS Committee is a dedicated group of volunteers that works diligently
all year long in preparation for the TRENDS Seminar.
Without these eforts TRENDS would not be possible. My sincere thanks goes to each of the
commlttee members, presenters, sponsors, advertlsers and G8PAP stan as well as to the LSU
Real Estate Department for making this years program another success.
The current CID President, Mr. Walt Ketchings, will be the Chairman of the Trends in Real
Estate Seminar in 2014. We are looking forward to another great year! I want to personally thank
you for your continued support of the CID and the TRENDS Seminar and I look forward to seeing
you at next years seminar.
Sincerely,
R. Deane Bryson
NA| Latter & 8lum, |nc.
Chairman
2014 TRENDS
2
SPECIAL THANKS
6&&-#. !03%&#) TRENDS
20
14
88
The Baton Rouge Commercial Investment Division would like to thank the following people for
their help with preparations for this publication and all the information that went in it.
Trends Leadership: Deane Bryson, Chairman, Branden Barker, Brian Andrews, Gary Black,
Tom Cook, Ken Damann, Herb Gomez, Scot Guidry, Sean McDonald, D. Wesley Moore,
Branon Pesnell, Kelley Pace, ToddPevey, Carlos Slawson, Jonann Stutzman, Dottie Tarleton,
JonathanWalker, and to all the individuals that worked on the executive reports.
Thank you to our Keynote Speaker, Dr. Elliot Eisenberg, Ph.D.
Mrs. Jill Boss of Boss Solutions, LLC., (Graphic Design/Layout), Xact Business Solutions (Printing),
Wren Aerial Photography (Aerial Photography for Power Point Presentations), and Dobie Media
( Video Productions ).
A very special thanks to Mrs. Jill Sylvest, who worked very hard to get all our sponsors and
advertisers, along with the Greater Baton Rouge Associations of REALTORS (everyone at the
ofce).
We would like to thank, Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company for cofee, and NAI Latter & Blum
Commercial Real Estate for breakfast and goodies.
Finally, we want to thank all of our Sponsors and Advertisers. Without your support, this event
would not be possible.
PREMIER Sponsor:
ASSURANCE FINANCIAL
Platinum Sponsors:
Cook, Moore, & Associates - Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company - The Aviation Business Park
@ BTR
Gold Sponsors:
Americana Zachary - eau ox CommerciaI ReaI state - CCIM, La Chapter - Citizens ank
& 7rust ntergy - Maestri-MurreII ReaI state, INC. - McCIinchey Staord - MI Properties
- LA LLC - Mike FaIgoust & Associates - NAI Latter & Ium CommerciaI ReaI state - Parker
PIace states - SeaIy & Company - Snappy 1acobs ReaI state Management, LLC - 7he
Preserve at Harveston - Vintage ReaIty Company - WampoId Companies - Whitney ank
Silver Sponsors:
Campus FederaI - CuIIy, PheIps, & Mckey - Home ank - Neighbors FederaI Credit Union
Red River ank - 7he Cottonport ank
Program Sponsors:
American Cateway ank - Area Home Lending - aton Rouge 7itIe Company, Inc.
CapitaI Dne ank - Chase - ustis CommerciaI Mortgage - First ank and 7rust - IberviIIe
ank - 1erry deI Rio ReaI state, Inc. - Lewis Companies - Louisiana CommerciaI Database
MidSouth ank - NDLA Lending Croup - PadiaI ReaI state, Inc. - Property Dne, Inc.
Regions ank - Saurage/Rotenberg CommerciaI ReaI state - S1 Croup, Inc.
StirIing Properties - Workbox

2014 Trends Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Trends Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C O M M E R C I A L I N V E S T M E N T D I V I S I O N

OF THE GREATER BATON ROUGE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

. No part may be reproduced or retransmitted without the express written permission of

You might also like