NEMA%20Model%20Studio.jpg
With move-ins now scheduled to start October 1, NEMA is moving from virtual to reality at the corner of Tenth and Market, having just put the finishing touches on their first model unit, a 470-square-foot studio on the sixteenth floor of NEMA’s 317-unit south building.
NEMA%20Model%20Kitchen.jpg
Note the in-unit laundry, a feature of all 754 units, with washer/dryer combo units in the studios, stacked in the one and two-bedrooms. And while the studios have electric two-burner cooktops over a full-sized oven, the one’s and two’s have four burners and are gas.
The target rent for the studio above is around $2,500 a month, plus $250 a month for parking if desired. Parking at NEMA will be valet. And for those willing to don a hard hat and sporty orange vest, the model unit should be open to the public next week.
Construction on NEMA’s 437-unit north tower is expected to be completed in February, at which time the sales office will move and its current space below will become retail (as will an 8,000 square foot space along Market Street).
NEMA%20Sales%20office.jpg

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Cody

    I have about 350 square feet in the Essex Fox Plaza and have a 4 burner stove-top. For the price that NEMA is asking a 2 burner stove-top is not a good deal. No gourmet cooking there!

  2. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    $2500 for a studio? $2750 with parking??
    So glad I am an owner and not a second-class citizen like those renters.

  3. Posted by Mark

    $2500 to live in one of the dirtiest sections of a dirty town.

  4. Posted by sf

    No need for space! Working 80 hours a week just to pay the rent won’t leave you with much time for skiing, surfing, partying, or any of those other overrated activities we call life.

  5. Posted by Michael

    That stretch of Market isn’t dirty but it is damn windy. Will be interesting to see if any of NEMA’s outdoor amenities end up being used by anybody other than the marketing/sales teams.

  6. Posted by Willow

    “So glad I am an owner and not a second-class citizen like those renters.”
    JNLB: Why would you think that? Having been a renter and now an owner, people make different life choices. Some are simply not interested in buying. Not because they can’t, they choose not to.

  7. Posted by Futurist

    I don’t buy that argument that “some” are not interested in buying. Ok, maybe some, but not many. very few, in fact.
    So, if one has a sufficient down payment and very good income, you mean to say they would CHOOSE to rent vs. buy?
    Hard to believe. I’m on Jimmy’s side with this one.

  8. Posted by Live Smarter

    With these large developments, their rental prices are determined by the market. Have they pre-rented out the building already? For renters, one more occupant at NEMA means one less potential renter out there competing for a rent controlled unit.
    Are those single washer/dryer combo machines any good in terms of durability? I know they are used everywhere in Europe but am not sure about them here.

  9. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Uh, no sane person chooses to be a renter unless you’re in a transient situation or receiving a massive government-imposed subsidy a la rent control.
    Appreciation on my few properties this year has been > $200k. Plus I get to live in one and rent out the others.
    Who in their right mind would choose to pay more and get less?

  10. Posted by NJ

    “Uh, no sane person chooses to be a renter unless you’re in a transient situation or receiving a massive government-imposed subsidy a la rent control.”
    Wrong. I consider myself to be sane, and I chose to rent, here in S.F., for more than five years, from 2006 to 2011. I was not in a transient situation, nor was I receiving a subsidy. We also had the means to buy a place if we wanted to.
    Your apparent assumption that owning is always more financially sound than renting is flatly incorrect. Any asset can depreciate.
    For example, even though my wife badly wanted to buy a place in 2006, I insisted that we rent. I felt that not only were rents low at the time compared to the true cost of ownership (e.g., mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, taxes), but also that prices were in a bubble and would fall. It turns out that I was right. We came out way ahead by renting those five years than we would have by owning an comparable flat.
    Conversely, we bought in 2011, and are way ahead. A lot of this is due to luck, but it is obvious that the market has ups AND downs.

  11. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Well conversely, as soon as I was able to, I bought a house (2010) and then 2 more rentals … all in the mid-Peninsula.
    Having said that, they do (or would) cashflow which is essential for empire-building.
    But my bias was always towards buying ever since I landed in the US, which was 15 years ago… it just took about 12 years to save up that first 200 grand.

  12. Posted by Willow

    I’ll put my landlord hat on here for a moment… Most of the tenants I’ve dealt with have no desire to own despite having more than enough means to do so. (Particularly in a transient city like San Francisco.) Some may decide to buy at a later stage when they are ready to “settle down”. Others may determine that they want to live in a specific neighborhood and decide the best way to do that is via renting. Home ownership is often low on the list of priorities for many…

  13. Posted by Mike

    There is a sense of freedom that comes with renting. If someday you find yourself tired of the cold and wind, you can just “check out” and go live someplace else.
    Some people feel more comfortable with the obligation of owning things. Condos, cars, rooms of furniture.
    Others feel more comfortable without the shackles of obligation of owning, owning, owning.

  14. Posted by lol

    @Live Smarter
    Are those single washer/dryer combo machines any good in terms of durability? I know they are used everywhere in Europe but am not sure about them here.
    The one I have in my furnished rental in Europe has been running for 8 years and so far no issues. Dunno about local versions though. The big plus is that there’s no extra piping necessary like air vents. They push warm air into the clothes, then the warm air is pushed through coils cooled by the cold water flow. Steam condensates, air is re-heated and re-flowed. That’s adapted to places that cannot have easy access to a vent. Some buildings also have problems with their vents when they exist, because they get clogged, smell can pass through, etc…
    These studios would qualify as “efficiency” in any other city. Boxy, small rooms, dorm feel, cost-cutting choices (like the washer/dryer in one). I wouldn’t live in one of these soul-sucking units. I am too old for that. But younger desperate kids who don’t know better, sure.

  15. Posted by BTinSF

    The model looks to me like “the very model of a modern dorm room”. $2500 seems awfully pricey.
    As for the rent vs own debate–I came to San Francisco 31 years ago and bought immediately because I wanted to control my future costs, expecting that I would ultimately retire here. The time has come–and, after multiple refinancings, I’ve got a monthly mortgage payment on a 2 bedroom/2bath condo that’s 1/3 what these folks will be paying for a studio.
    Even rent control offers no real security because the owners of rent-contolled units want desperately to make you move so they can up the rent to the current market.
    Sure, rent vs own is a choice. But in this town, if you still plan to be here in 5 years or longer, owning makes an awful lot of sense.

  16. Posted by NJ

    “Well conversely, as soon as I was able to, I bought a house (2010) and then 2 more rentals … all in the mid-Peninsula.
    Having said that, they do (or would) cashflow which is essential for empire-building.”
    Sounds like you had a bit of luck, then, not having the finances to buy in 2006-08. Had you bought then, you very likely would NOT have been cashflow-positive by renting the place out, as rents were relatively low and prices were relatively high at that time.

  17. Posted by Futurist

    I’ll echo what Jimmy and BT have said.
    Having bought 30 years ago in Noe Valley with a meager down (after saving for 2 years) of $15k, that little investment has turned into over $2m.
    Is it luck? maybe a small amount. But it’s more about pride of ownership, fixing up an incredibly run down Victorian, putting roots down in a neighborhood, planting trees, becoming long term friends with neighbors, and the strong feeling that this little house is OURS, not the landlords.
    And it has zero to do with the “shackles” of owning “anything”.
    Oh, and my mortgage for a 3bed/3bath house with garage, yard and views is less than 1/2 of what my friends are paying for rent in The Castro for a small one bedroom.

  18. Posted by anon

    So, if one has a sufficient down payment and very good income, you mean to say they would CHOOSE to rent vs. buy?
    I did that for several years, yes, and I still rent my primary residence in SF. Rent control makes it worth it for me, since I can easily see what my rent will be many years into the future and invest money elsewhere. My landlord lets me do whatever I want (had my kitchen painted a few weeks ago, ripped out a wall last year, installed new tile the year before, etc).
    I do own a place each in Tahoe and Seattle though.

  19. Posted by djt

    futurist, the “small amount” of luck was the chip industry succeeding here instead of somewhere else, followed by the internet building on that ecosystem. Without either of those, and without any other thing that quick to create riches replacing it, you house wouldn’t be worth 2 million. Maybe $500,000. Give luck its due!

  20. Posted by Futurist

    @ djt: Actually, no. The chip industry which you refer to had nothing to do with my so called “luck”.
    My luck, if I can barely call it that, was simply buying a rundown, old house in Noe, back when Noe was not “discovered”, and hanging on to it. During the last 30 years The City has thrived, become even more desirable, has not gone bankrupt, and attracted people with education and yes, money.
    So, I personally, don’t attach “luck” to much of anything in one’s life experience. By giving luck credibility and value, it downplays the reality of what really, for me, was a good CHOICE, together with lots of hard work, a steady well paying career and hanging in there.

  21. Posted by lol

    Yup, the same person choosing to put roots in Anywhere, USA and doing what futurist did would have had a very different outcome.
    This is a reaction typical of people who were lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time. They confuse luck with wisdom. Sure there was hard work, insight, and so on. But an overwhelming number of Americans are hard workers, and most are pretty aware of what is around them. And yet only a few manage to get to 7 figures equity.
    I got lucky and managed to ride TWO cycles buying (and even selling) at the right time. There was hard work, some research, but also an incredible amount of luck. I could retire, but I know that luck works both ways, and that being able to work hard and being successful as long as conditions allow you is a blessing that shouldn’t be wasted.

  22. Posted by NJ

    Futurist, you basically prove djt’s point by stating, “During the last 30 years The City has thrived, become even more desirable, . . . and attracted people with education and yes, money.”
    Why do you suppose all this is the case? It is not like the City has magically improved in other ways in 30 years. The Golden Gate Bridge, Bay, and Alcatraz were all here. And, while I didn’t live here then, I would guess that the cold weather, Muni, the homeless problem, dirty streets, and crime have not gotten appreciably better in that time. I grant you that maybe the Chinese elite, who seem richer now than they were then, may have chosen to buy here no matter what, but that’s hardly a drop in the bucket over 30 years.
    Tech is the difference.

  23. Posted by Rent v. Buy

    Heard it thousands time before…people making tons of money will buy.
    But there are people making $500k/yr with $50k in the bank, and there are people making $50k/yr who are home owners and with $500k in the bank too. So many variables and lifestyle choices.

  24. Posted by no desire to own

    When I first moved out here, I would have happily taken a small studio apartment over some of the slummy roommate situations many of my friends were in. One of the great joys of being an adult professional is having your own place and not worrying if one of your roommates drank your milk directly from the container.
    Now I’m one of those people who could afford to buy a place in cash, tomorrow. But fluctuations of 10 or 20% in a year scare me. As do tenant regulations if I ever rented. Actually, having tenants at all scares me, because unlike muni bonds, rental property ownership can involve calls at 3am about backed up toilets, things on fire, or stressful things like dealing with evictions. I’d rather put my limited time on this planet into other things.
    Renting gives me flexibility. It means I can invest in asset classes instead of one asset. And it means that I just don’t have to care about property so much and I can read SocketSite primarily as a spectator instead of a speculator.
    It also means that if my company takes off, I can upgrade with 30 days notice, no broker fees, no time wasted, minimal negotiations, and without considering if I should keep it and rent it out.
    People seem to think that home ownership can be viewed like any other investment. But owning property can very quickly turn into a job of its own. And it’s a job I’d rather not do.

  25. Posted by wc1

    “Rent control makes it worth it for me…I do own a place each in Tahoe and Seattle though.”
    Just wow. I don’t blame you for taking advantage of a messed up system, but this is part of the problem.

  26. Posted by anon

    ^Oh trust me, I’m all for changing the system. But we live in the system that’s here, not in the one that we wish for.
    Rent control makes it much more advantageous for me to not buy and instead invest money in more diversified assets.

  27. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    @no desire: you’re forgetting one rather important thing. You implied you’re a business owner. If you ever want to capitalize your company, you’ll need hard assets to back up that loan. You appear not to have any… which will be a problem for you.
    No real estate = no loan.

  28. Posted by anon

    “Money” works just fine as a hard asset. As do stocks, mutual funds, etc.
    You don’t need to own land to get a business loan – that’s really a baffling argument.

  29. Posted by Mike

    Assuming someone would need a loan. Some people have money in the bank because they don’t have enormous mortgages.

  30. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Ok, cash and stocks also work as collateral. True. Can’t see the point of borrowing against liquid assets, but whatever.
    Eventually you’ll run out of liquidity and that is why big companies have bonds and we have a bond market.
    See, now, without the asset to borrow against I would have all my cash tied up in the company. I prefer to have a few years’ liquidity. Call me paranoid.

  31. Posted by spencer

    thats a pretty good rate for valet parking. I would definitely do that if i chose to live in this area.
    As for the apartment, that looks pretty shabby for a new building…everything is made on the cheap. The neighborhood also scores a c- to D.
    Im sure they will rent, but it would certainly suck to pay $2500 for that unit

  32. Posted by anon

    Eventually you’ll run out of liquidity and that is why big companies have bonds and we have a bond market.
    Um, yes, but not sure what this has to do with property. An asset is an asset. If I have 500k in cash, 500k in home equity, 500k in gold buried in a secret spot, and 500k in bonds to put up as collateral, they’re all roughly equal to a bank. Not sure why you think there’s some premium on equity in a property.
    If I’m starting a company, I’m going to borrow as much as needed and that the bank will give me. You seem to be thinking that equity is some secret stash, where any sophisticated investor views home equity as just another asset. I refinance my properties to pull out equity fairly often (especially when rates are low and valuations are rising) – I can make MUCH better use of that money elsewhere. Don’t like to keep my equity above around 25% of the appraised price, preferably lower.

  33. Posted by SFRealist

    “For the price that NEMA is asking a 2 burner stove-top is not a good deal. No gourmet cooking there!”
    Then I would suggest you don’t live there. Other people may make other choices than you and be just as happy.

  34. Posted by anon

    There are condos on the market in South Beach (much more desirable location) in the 450K range. If you can muster a 40% down payment…take a 220K or less first @ 4%, add in the HOA dues and property taxes you end up paying the same in mortgage payments as you do to rent for a 470 Sqft NEMA unit.
    You get a tax write off benefit and after living in the unit for the first year you are free to turn the unit into a rental. With a $220K first plus dues and taxes the unit will squeeze out a small positive cash flow with today’s rents at $2900 for a studio.
    It’s a no brainier if you have some bucks to spend on a down payment. Plus your in a much more desirable part of SF. Zillow says prices are expected to go up 20% next year for South Beach.
    Why in the world would you pay $2800 to live @ 10th and Market? When you can live @ Bryant and Harrison.
    These NEMA units remind of a movie I once saw about a family living in East Germany , pre 1989. I think there were 6 people living in a unit about this size. Very friendly living condition….lol

  35. Posted by Willow

    anon – You are kidding right? What you propose above is really a non starter for many people. Why would you put down 40% down on a small 450K condo in one of the lower end buildings in South Beach. No thanks. If I was in that position I’d rather rent a better unit at NEMA and hold onto my cash.

  36. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    I’d have to agree with Willow here. Shelling out $450k for a tiny condo is absolutely insane.

  37. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    In this case, anon is correct. Shelling out that amount for a low-end condo is not insane given the total circumstances under discussion. And I’m a renter.
    The only thing about the scenario he describes that’s “…really a non starter for many people” is that “many people” don’t have upwards of $180,000 in seasoned funds sitting around in a bank account not doing anything other than collecting 1% interest in a savings account.
    And of course, most of the people that do have that amount of cash are probably looking at higher-end properties than the 450K range.
    Willow, you’re not “holding onto your cash” in your scenario, because if you’re renting a better unit, your cash is getting eaten up by paying rent. And of course, for a lot of folks, rent is going up at a faster rate than their household income year over year.
    A person in the hypothetical situation described will be asking themselves two years from now if they were insane when they didn’t buy the $450k tiny condo when they had the chance in 2013, because barring another 2001 “dot bomb” era economic implosion, the price of that condo is going to go up a lot faster than the interest rate on the cash return they’re getting in a savings account.
    You don’t have to be an S.F. real estate “bull” get that.

  38. Posted by lol

    I am not following the math. With a 450K purchase price and 40% down how can you have a 220K mortgage? That would be 270K, right?
    That wouldn’t be my use of 180K today. Not at the current prices. In 2010, sure.

  39. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    No, he’s totally out to lunch on this one. $180k in cash is enough downpayment to buy a $900k property. The increased leverage (hence upside) and increased utility of the more expensive property makes it the obvious choice. A studio is a dead-end investment with a very limited, mostly transitory market.
    No one lives in a studio by choice unless they are getting a huge subsidy from rent control or some similar market-distorting policy.
    For example, people eventually get married, cohabitate, or have children. Doing that while living long-term in a studio is going to be extremely challenging. Studios are a dead end. The booby prize of real estate ownership.

  40. Posted by lol

    You didn’t follow my post I think.
    If a property sells for 450K and you put down 180K, what’s to finance is 270K. Not 220K. Anyway, probably a typo from his part.

  41. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    No, he’s totally out to lunch on this one. $180k in cash is enough downpayment to buy a $900k property. The increased leverage (hence upside) and increased utility of the more expensive property makes it the obvious choice.

    I agree with your financial analysis, but not with your assumptions.
    It’s true that $180k in cash could provide a reasonable down payment on a $900k property, but of course in order to get approved for that mortgage, you’d have to have a household income around $166k (4.6% APR, 30 year fixed jumbo), no?
    That’s not unreasonable for a solidly middle class couple in S.F., but of course, there’s lots of buyers who’d jump at the chance to buy a studio and get out of the rental market but don’t have a prayer of getting into the $900k property.

  42. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Studios are still a hopeless dead-end. It is a guaranteed short-term hold which means agent fees are going to eat you alive. More like an albatross than a step on the property ladder.

  43. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    …people eventually get married, cohabitate, or have children. Doing that while living long-term in a studio is going to be extremely challenging. Studios are a dead end. The booby prize of real estate ownership.

    Compared to what?
    IMO “the booby prize” would be a trailer. Or a mobile home or a “manufactured home” or whatever euphemism the California Association Of Realtors has their members using now.
    Now that’s a dead end. In most cases, you’ve bought an asset that’s depreciating like a car and still have to pay rent on the space in the mobile home park.
    I realize the trailer’s not an option in S.F. proper, but lots of folks in the outer parts of the Bay Area (m.h. parks are quickly being redeveloped on the Peninsula) and in California in general who’d normally live in a studio in a heavily populated city still live that way. And they sometimes get married, cohabitate, or have children while living that way.
    And I’d bet lots, if not most of them would sell their right testicle to buy a studio in S.F. if they had the down payment.

  44. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    I was restricting the scope of discussion to conventional properties that could be financed through normal channels.
    My friend’s wife grew up in a tin shack by a freeway in Thailand, with her, her brother and her mom. Yes, there are worse living conditions than a tiny studio in SF. I realize that. Its also irrelevant to the discussion.

  45. Posted by anon

    …people eventually get married, cohabitate, or have children.
    There are a significant number of people who never do this. Not a huge number, but still in the tens of thousands in a city like SF.
    Plus, you can always rent out a studio, or just use it as a pied a tiere if you move on to bigger and better places out of the city. I’ve thought about buying a studio in Chicago because work takes me there ~30 days a year. It would be nice to have a place where I could leave stuff and have it feel like a “sorta home”. Also wouldn’t be bad as a weekend place to take the wife occasionally.

  46. Posted by Willow

    Brahma: You can put your cash into lots of different investments so you’re not necessarily going to keep it sitting in a bank account earning 1%. The scenario described by anon is really a bad idea from an investment perspective. Rents will eventually stabilize. I’m not saying buying is bad but to purchase a small condo with the hopes to rent it for basically a cash neutral position (after departing with a significant chunk of money) and then expect 20% appreciation is really not a great RE investment strategy and makes me think we are heading back into bubble territory. The transaction costs associated with RE are substantial so generally its a good rule of thumb to steer clear of any rental property that is not cash flow positive. Appreciation upside for small studios/1bedrooms are somewhat limited so not sure the point of doing this. You’d be far better off renting.

  47. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Ok, we’ll add “hotel replacement” and “shag pad” to the list of possible uses of a studio.
    Conversely, I stayed at the Intercontinental O’Hare for $85/night on Priceline which included free parking, internet and a free upgrade to a 1-bed suite on the top floor due to my “extra-special” status level with them.
    Transaction costs alone (5%?) on a real-estate purchase would pay for about 200 nights at the Intercontinental … or roughly 7 years’ worth at your current usage. Hotels exist for a reason.

  48. Posted by conifer

    Moreover, Chicago apartments are not a good investment long term compared to San Francisco.
    A friend of mine just lost a lot of money on two he bought while living there.

  49. Posted by anon

    Hotels exist for a reason.
    Hence my non-monetary note of:
    It would be nice to have a place where I could leave stuff and have it feel like a “sorta home”.
    Staying at an airport hotel is not something that I do, sorry. I like to enjoy the actual city, but your point is well taken on it not being the best investment. That said, you talked above about needing to own property in order to get loans (wtf?), so I assume you’re not only looking at property as strictly an investment either.

  50. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    If you just want to buy something then go ahead. Don’t bother justifying it on financial terms… it cannot be done.
    I buy property because banks will loan me money to do so and I’m able to acquire them for substantially less than comparable homes in the vicinity. That arbitrage, which is not predicated on future appreciation, makes the few houses I buy an extremely profitable investment. Even more so when leverage is taken into account.
    If I hold the properties, I can borrow yet more money using them as collateral.
    You may some day find that borrowing significant sums of money without collateral is next to impossible. The credit limit on all my credit cards and unsecured lines of credit combined is less than $300,000 with rates bordering on usury. Naturally I have zero balance; the credit cards exist as a last resort should they be needed.
    Liquidating an illiquid asset like real estate is both costly, time-consuming and tax-inefficient… which is why mortgages are so useful.
    I would never use liquid assets like cash as collateral for a loan like someone had previously suggested. That makes no sense.
    Stocks or bonds as collateral… could go either way and would depend primarily on the loan rate, term and tax consequences of liquidating the portfolio. Its a pretty simple calculation that is usually tilted in favor of liquidating the asset rather than borrowing against it unless the loan term is short and/or interest rate is extremely low.
    That is why I stated that real estate ownership is necessary to secure any significant borrowing. Go ahead show us why that is not so.

  51. Posted by anon

    You may some day find that borrowing significant sums of money without collateral is next to impossible.
    Where in the world did anyone suggest this? You indicated that using real estate as collateral was somehow necessary to get business loans, which is just so divorced from reality I don’t even know where to start. Not many startups in the Bay Area using houses as collateral for loans…lol

  52. Posted by anon

    That is why I stated that real estate ownership is necessary to secure any significant borrowing. Go ahead show us why that is not so.
    Businesses tend to use future revenue and/or a stake in the company as “collateral” for loans, not a house or other property. That’s why you put together a business plan for the bank or other investors. If a bank requires you to put up your own house as collateral, it probably means your business plan is crap.
    I would never in a million years put up MY house to potentially be lost if my business fails. Just wow, no. Separating personal and business liability is part of “Starting your own business 101″.

  53. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Have you ever actually gotten a loan without collateral as you describe?

  54. Posted by anon

    Um, yes, that’s how I started my first business. I had to submit a lengthy business plan outlining expected revenue and expenses. My second business required putting up 22% of my first business as collateral for a loan.
    Have you ever truly mixed personal and business liability? Seriously, don’t do that. It’s a terrible idea.

  55. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Which bank?
    Just curious.

  56. Posted by anon

    First Republic. It was basically one of these bad boys:
    http://www.firstrepublic.com/business/business-lending/loans-secured-by-marketable-securities
    And yes, it was “heavily customized to meet individual client needs”, as basically any business loan will be. My history with the bank was certainly what mattered in getting the loan, but it was the banker himself who made sure that I was setting things up appropriately to limit personal liability should the business fail.
    Any banker trying to get you to sign your house over with a business failure probably thinks your business is going to fail.

  57. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    That, or they just ask for everything and see what they can get.

  58. Posted by lol

    Article in sfgate this AM says NEMA is 100% leased.
    Wow. It’s a good time to be a landlord with something to lease.
    [Editor’s Note: That’s incorrect. While NEMA’s shorter South tower is 100 percent leased, the 37-story north tower is now pre-leasing.]

  59. Posted by lol

    ok, I should have just copied the actual title. NEMA building is 100% leased.
    In light of some of the negative comments of this thread, that’s still pretty impressive.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *