This week’s round-up features how industries tangentially related to the housing market could be affected by its downturn, how the Biden Administration’s plans to invest IIJA funds, cybersecurity considerations for commercial property owners, and more.

This week’s round-up features how industries tangentially related to the housing market could be affected by its downturn, how the Biden Administration’s plans to invest IIJA funds, cybersecurity considerations for commercial property owners, and more.

RELATED ARTICLES

Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/05/22) – Hurricane Ian, the Inflation Reduction Act, and European Real Estate

A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022

This week’s round-up features Hurricane Ian’s effect on the construction labor pool, the Inflation Reduction Act’s projected impact on the real estate and construction industry, Europe’s real estate market, and more.

This week’s round-up features Hurricane Ian’s effect on the construction labor pool, the Inflation Reduction Act’s projected impact on the real estate and construction industry, Europe’s real estate market, and more.

RELATED ARTICLES

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/28/22) – Virtual Property, ESG Reporting, and Economic Sanctions

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/21/22) – 3D Printing, Sustainable Design, and the Housing Market Correction

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (09/14/22) – Smart Contracts, Rising Mortgage Rates, and a Railroad Strike

This is a selection of significant environmental and regulatory law cases decided by the federal courts after the Supreme Court’s 2021 Term concluded.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission On July 12, 2022, the DC Circuit held that an order of the FCC requiring radio broadcasters to follow a prescribed five-step process to verify the identity of program sponsors was not authorized by the Communications Act. According to the court, the FCC “decreed a duty that the statute does not require, and that the statute does not empower the FCC to impose.” Here, the agency failed to identify the statutory authority it needed to authorize the issuance of such an order. While certainly not as significant as the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, decided only a few days before this decision was released, it is a strong reminder that the courts want to know if a challenged rule is authorized by law.

Humane Society of the U.S., et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture On July 22, 2022, the court decided a case involving the steps the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act require to be taken before a final agency rule is legally promulgated. Customarily, when there has been a change in Presidential administrations, the incoming administration “quietly” withdraws rules awaiting Federal Register publication without much ceremony. The majority of this panel agreed that public notice should have been provided to the regulated community to comment on the new administration’s action to pull back a new rule which had been made available for public inspection before Federal Register publication that would have strengthened the protections afforded “show horses,” as now required by law. The court noted that “it seems clear that filing with the Federal Register constituted promulgation of a regulation even though publication may not occur until a later date.” Circuit Judge Rao filed a strong dissent. “By cutting off agency discretion at public inspection, the majority imposes judicial burden on agency procedures that conflicts with circuit precedent, the statutory framework and a longstanding regulation permitting withdrawals prior to publication.” There could be a further review of this unique ruling.

Sierra Club, et al., v. EPA In administering the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, EPA “lifted” ozone anti-back sliding requirements for the Dallas and Houston Clean Air Act nonattainment areas. The Sierra Club filed lawsuits challenging this action in the DC Circuit and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 26, 2022, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction over this EPA action because it was not an action that was “nationally applicable,” and the court also had no jurisdiction to second guess the EPA’s discretionary action to make and publish—or not—a finding of nationwide scope and effect. The DC Circuit then transferred the matter to the Fifth Circuit. This case may have considerable impact in the future when a Clean Air Act regulation may arguably have only a limited local, not national, effect.

Solenex LLC v. Bernhardt, et al. On September 9, 2022, the court issued another ruling in the long-running controversy over the administrative cancellation of Montana oil and gas leases that had been granted by the Department of the Interior in 1982. Judge Leon described the matter as consisting of a never-ending series of administrative reviews, a process which he called “Kafkaesque.” In his view, the original NEPA reviews were consistent with the law, and the intermittent statutory challenges did not reflect the law at the time the leases were granted. A few years ago, the DC Circuit reversed an earlier ruling by Judge Leon that the interminable delays were reason enough under the Administrative Procedure Act to warrant relief. Here, Judge Leon concluded by holding the Secretary’s most recent cancellation of the Lease as being without statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious: “It is time to put an end to this interminable and insufferable bureaucratic chess match.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Shark River Cleanup Coalition v. Township of Wall, et al. On August 24, 2022, the Third Circuit decided this case, in which the defendants argued that the Citizens Suit notice was deficient under the law because it failed to contain sufficient information to permit the defendants to identify the specific standard, limitation or order alleged to have been violated, citing 40 CFR Section 135(a). The township had taken by eminent domain a subterranean easement on the property that was to be used as the site of an underground sewer line system. Years later, a hiker discovered that portions of the underground sewer line no longer remained underground. The complaint averred that erosion of the ground surrounding the buried sewer line released large amounts of sand into the Shark River Brook. While the notice passed muster as to the site’s location in the woods, the court held that the notice was deficient because it did not provide enough notice to the government defendants to identify the specific effluent discharge limitation that had been violated. This defect caused the court to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

Yaw, et al. v. The Delaware River Basin Commission On September 18, 2022, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a challenge by many Pennsylvania legislators and representatives of several Pennsylvania townships to a decision of the Delaware River Basin Commission to ban fracking operations within the Delaware River Basin. The Commission determined that fracking poses “long-term risks to the development, conservation, utilization, management and preservation of the Basin’s water resources.” The plaintiffs argued that this action exceeded the Commission’s authority, violated the Takings Clause of the Constitution, illegally exercised the power of eminent domain, and violated the Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government. However, the court of appeals, like the lower court, dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds. While the Commission’s decision may not be good policy, the plaintiffs lack standing because their alleged institutional injuries do not satisfy the traditional tests of Article III standing.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Natural Land Trust v. Dakota Finance LLC On July 29, 2022, the Fourth Circuit held that the diligent prosecution exception was not triggered by a Notice of Violation issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control in September 2019. Sixty days after the statutory notice expired, the conservation defendants filed a CWA Citizens Suit against Arabella Farms, which was developing its property to operate a working farm and wedding venue. A month after the lawsuit was filed, the department and Arabella Farms entered into a consent decree that required the acquisition of requite permits and the payment of a $6,000 fine.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez On August 30, 2022, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit sustained the decision of the lower court that the ExxonMobil refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, had violated the Clean Air Act in the operation of its facilities and is subject to $14.5 million in penalties. This is the third decision the Fifth Circuit has issued in this hard-fought proceeding. In this latest round, ExxonMobil argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), substantially changed the standing jurisprudence of the federal courts. The panel majority disagreed, holding that the TransUnion case did not affect Circuit precedent. Judge Oldham, in dissent, remarked that “This case is a jurisdictional mess, that only a Fifth Circuit en banc court can correct.”

Net Choice, LLC, et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas On September 16, 2022, in an opinion by Judge Oldham, the Fifth Circuit held that a recent Texas statute, HB 20, which “generally prohibits large social platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker was constitutional.” The opinion is very long, well over 100 pages in which all members of the panel expressed their views of the law. Judge Oldham observed that the constitutional challenge was filed before the State of Texas began to enforce the law. The court held that the statute does not “chill speech,” but, if anything, it chills censorship. Also, the First Amendment offers no support for the plaintiffs’ claimed right to censor. Judge Southwick in dissent argued that social media platforms engage in First Amendment-protected expression when they moderate their users’ content.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

California State Water Resources Control Board v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On August 4, 2022, the court decided this Clean Water Section 401 case. Section 401 requires states to provide a water quality certification to applicants for federal permits before a federal permit can be issued for activities that may result in any discharge into intrastate navigable waters. The law also provides that the states must exercise that authority within one year of receiving the application, or their certification authority will be waived. Here FERC, in the aftermath of Section 401 certification rulings by the DC Circuit, determined that the state Water Board was engaged in coordinated schemes with other local governments whereby repeated filings to withdraw and resubmit the application would nullify the impact of the statutory deadline. However, the court held that FERC’s findings of coordination between the state board and the applicants were not supported by substantial evidence. Here, the court held that record evidence shows that applicants themselves chose to withdraw and resubmit Section 401 applications because it was clear to them that they could not timely comply with the California CEQA rules, and the errant FERC orders were vacated.

RELATED ARTICLES

A Court-Side Seat: Case Law Update (February 2022)

As demand increases for low-carbon technologies to power the energy transition, the acquisition of critical materials—so-called given their integral role in the transition of energy activities—is becoming increasingly important. As described in our previous post, such critical materials include rare earth elements (REE), lithium, nickel and platinum group metals. In short, the transition endeavors to reduce use of one non-renewable resource—fossil fuel—by significantly ramping up our use of other non-renewable resources. While critical material discussions have largely centered on the availability and economic extractability of the minerals themselves, Pillsbury is also counseling on the other resources needed to bring the materials to market at the scales required for our decarbonization goals.

Chief among these resources is water. The extraction, processing and manufacture of critical materials into low-carbon technologies all require significant volumes of water. For example, up to 5,000 gallons of water are needed to produce one ton of lithium. Critical materials are often found in arid climates that are already experiencing water stress (such as the “lithium triangle” of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, and copper in Chile), or in areas experiencing conflict and challenges to water development (such as cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the U.S., development potential resides largely in the water-constrained western and southwestern states, such as Arizona (copper), California (REE), New Mexico (copper, REE), Texas (REE), Utah (magnesium, lithium, platinum, palladium, vanadium, copper), and Wyoming (REE, platinum, titanium, vanadium).

Securing water to perform these processes is a threshold hurdle, and water rights schemes vary across jurisdictions. In the U.S., each state has a separate water right permitting or allocation regime, and inter-basin transfers from water-rich to water-poor areas are not always viable options legally or practically. Interstate compacts are already experiencing conflicts over usage rights and claims among member states. Adding to the complexity is that climate change—the very risk critical materials are being deployed to combat—influences the water cycle and when, where and how much precipitation falls. These challenges increase supply chain vulnerabilities for critical materials.

Compounding water availability concerns are water quality concerns. Both extraction and production can yield significant quantities of process wastewater, the treatment and discharge of which are subject to strong permitting regimes. For instance, the platinum group metals—used in hydrogen fuel cells—are more soluble than other critical materials. Permits for wastewater discharges to the environment pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act’s Section 402 (33 U.S.C. § 1342) are necessary. Further, while some generators of aqueous wastewater streams can dispose of the wastewater in public treatment works, their impact on the biological treatment processes used by such works is being evaluated.

Water is therefore a limiting factor in critical material development, both in its inputs and its outputs. To fully unleash the energy transition, advancements are needed in reuse and recycling; incremental production; and use efficiency and treatment.

As the development of critical materials resources expands, the realities of water demand will be increasingly felt. Water stress and regulatory dictates may limit access to water resources needed for extraction, processing and manufacturing processes on the front end, and spur concerns over water quality on the back end. As such, water supply and permitting regimes must be considered from the outset of critical material projects. Innovative methods will be needed to mitigate supply and quality issues. Those in the critical materials supply chain should seek counsel on how to effectively deploy such measures.

RELATED ARTICLES

Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

This week’s round-up examines rising mortgage rates and their effect on the housing market, the long-term impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on commercial real estate, a potential U.S. railroad strike, and more.

This week’s round-up examines rising mortgage rates and their effect on the housing market, the long-term impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on commercial real estate, a potential U.S. railroad strike, and more.

RELATED ARTICLES 

A Potential Crypto Mining Moratorium in New York

Landlords Beware: When Tenants Are Sanctioned

Proactive and Realistic: Anticipating ESG-Related SEC Scrutiny

This week’s round-up addresses the shift in housing demand, efforts of apartment complexes to become more eco-friendly, plans for “cities of the future,” and more.

This week’s round-up addresses the shift in housing demand, efforts of apartment complexes to become more eco-friendly, plans for “cities of the future,” and more.

RELATED ARTICLES 

Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World

This week’s round-up dives into the digitization of the real estate and construction industry, focusing on property technology, Web3 and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and more.

This week’s round-up dives into the digitization of the real estate and construction industry, focusing on property technology, Web3 and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and more.

RELATED ARTICLES 

A Potential Crypto Mining Moratorium in New York

NFT Use Cases in Real Estate

Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

The 3D printing construction market is likely on the cusp of a boom.

This unique construction method boasts many advantages in comparison to traditional forms of construction. Projects can be completed more quickly and at a fraction of the cost, given fewer laborers are required and the materials used are much cheaper. Though market growth stalled during the COVID-19 pandemic, industry leaders expect 3D printing construction to experience exponential growth in the coming years.

While 3D printing technology has risen in popularity and prominence in the past couple of decades, it is only recently that 3D printing companies have begun making strides in the construction industry. Critical to the construction process is the software that is used to create and model the planned structure. A software program turns a building’s blueprint into code that then dictates the movement of a 3D printer on the construction site. After a concrete-like mix is loaded into the printer, the printer begins to build the walls by laying one cylindrical layer of concrete at a time, in accordance with the blueprint. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in 3D printing construction: some companies print the core structure as well as the roof and floor of the structure, while others print only the core and shell and install those portions separately using traditional methods and materials.

Project cost and completion time estimates vary by company but are much lower than comparable metrics in the traditional construction industry. Many structures can be completed in less than 24 hours using primarily one construction material. Beyond the cost- and time-saving benefits, 3D printing construction can also have immediate beneficial environmental impacts as well. Some companies incorporate recycled or carbon-neutral materials into their concrete mix. The resulting structures are said to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly, as they are more energy-efficient due to being well-insulated. Impressively, construction waste is also drastically reduced, with some companies estimating to reduce waste by as much as 95%.

Alleviating the Affordable Housing Crisis Given its cost-effectiveness, one of the ways in which 3D-printed construction is poised to have the greatest impact is in the affordable housing sector.

Several 3D printing construction companies have already been making an impact in this area. Austin, Texas-based ICON has focused heavily on the affordable housing market with an emphasis on alleviating homelessness. ICON has partnered with the Austin nonprofit Mobile Loaves and Fishes to print homes in Community First! Village, an affordable permanent housing community that aims to reduce chronic homelessness in the city. ICON has also worked with non-profit New Story to provide affordable housing for local textile workers and fishermen in Tabasco, Mexico, by printing an entire neighborhood of 500-square-foot, two-bedroom homes.

The industry also has the potential to create a larger market of affordable homes for individuals and families who are being priced out of expensive real estate markets. While some experts say the housing shortage is starting to ease after record highs during the COVID-19 pandemic, demand in many markets still far outweighs supply, especially for buyers on a budget. California-based Mighty Buildings creates energy-efficient mini-homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with its own proprietary printing substance that hardens when exposed to UV light and is resistant to fire, water, and heat damage. Their units start at $115,000. The company is also in the process of developing a 15-home neighborhood of more customizable two-bedroom homes in Coachella Valley by the end of 2022. They hope to expand their operations outside of California into other expensive urban areas.

In addition to private companies, the U.S. government has also begun expressing interest in the possibilities of 3D-printed construction. In June of 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Texas A&M University a $3.74 million grant to fund a project focused on affordable and sustainable 3D-printed housing. The project will involve printing structures using hempcrete, a mixture of hemp powder or fibers with water and lime, and aims to demonstrate how printed structures can comply with modern design codes while being more cost-effective and environmentally friendly than traditional construction methods.

Larger-Scale Projects While much of the discussion around 3D printing construction centers on single-family dwelling units, its many benefits are further maximized for large-scale construction projects. In 2021, the Texas National Guard unveiled a 3,800-square-foot military barracks constructed in partnership with ICON. The structure was completed at one-third of the cost of traditional building methods and can house 72 individuals at a time. The Department of Defense announced in April of 2022 that it would be working with ICON to construct three military barracks at the U.S. Army base in Fort Bliss, Texas.

Prior to 2021, such a partnership would not have been possible as the Department of Defense (DOD) had not yet published its updated criteria for additive concrete construction. This meant companies that used such methods were unable to bid for military projects. However, the DOD published their policy in September of 2021 and has since announced that they are further exploring how 3D building techniques can be used to manage the backlog of military construction projects. Given the potential, competition for military construction projects among 3D printing construction companies will almost certainly increase.

3D Construction Around the World and Beyond The potential for 3D printing construction is also being explored by companies around the world. In 2020, Belgian company Kamp C printed a two-story home that was 60% more efficient to produce in terms of materials, time, and budget. In France, a family moved into a four-bedroom 3D-printed home constructed by the University of Nantes in its effort to study more affordable housing solutions. Dubai has also stated its goal that 25% of new construction will be created using 3D printing methods by 2030.

NASA also has expressed interest in the 3D printing construction industry. In 2019, they hosted a competition program in which teams designed 3D-printed habitats meant to function in deep space. They have since announced a partnership with ICON in Austin to explore how 3D printing construction technology can be used to create space exploration habitats on Mars. The building method is particularly attractive given the prohibitive cost of transporting traditional building materials on multiple flights to space.

Potential Challenges and Regulatory Unknowns Given the projected growth rate of the 3D-printed construction industry, the capabilities of the industry may outpace the development of corresponding regulations. Builders will need to ensure that their structures comply with local and state building codes. Because of the method by which the structures are built and the material used to do so, standard features that are normally installed within the walls or under the floors, like plumbing and electrical, need to be installed using an alternative method. This method will need to be approved and described by residential building codes if expansion into the residential real estate market is going to take off. While states like California have already included a section on 3D-printed construction in their residential building codes, the vast majority of cities and states have not. This could potentially slow down the expansion of 3D-printed construction into the residential space.

The relative youth of the industry also may pose an additional problem for builders who hope to expand into the residential real estate space. Because 3D-printed homes are still very new to the market, both buyers and third-party service providers, like plumbers and electricians, may demand extended reps and warranties from builders to protect themselves from unexpected issues that could arise with the homes in the future. The possible need to provide expanded legal protections for consumers and third parties may make expansion into residential riskier and less lucrative for builders.

These potential problems may resolve over time. The development of residential building codes and other regulations specific to 3D-printed construction will be an ongoing process over the coming years. In the meantime, builders could inspect their early 3D-printed structures to determine how they fare over time. By the time regulations account for 3D-printed construction, builders may have a much clearer idea of how to assess the risks associated with their designs to best structure deals with consumers.

RELATED ARTICLES

Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

Data Analytics and Proptech

Europe’s energy infrastructure struggles under record heat waves, Wall Street tightens commercial real estate lending, blockchain technology and NFTs (non-fungible tokens) continue to transform real estate ownership, and more.

Europe’s energy infrastructure struggles under record heat waves, Wall Street tightens commercial real estate lending, blockchain technology and NFTs (non-fungible tokens) continue to transform real estate ownership, and more.

Record heat waves in Britain disrupt the nation’s infrastructure, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law promotes the use of construction technology with two key efforts, China’s property sector continues to stagnate, and more.

Record heat waves in Britain disrupt the nation’s infrastructure, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law promotes the use of construction technology with two key efforts, China’s property sector continues to stagnate, and more.

Opportunities for early real estate investment in the Metaverse are worthy of consideration, but also come with significant risks. Originally published on Gravel2Gavel and recently featured in The Computer & Internet Lawyer, Pillsbury authors Robert Howard, David Wright, and Craig de Ridder take a look at the key questions potential metaverse investors need to consider, from security and financing risks and regulatory uncertainty to intellectual property rights and privacy concerns.

The Biden administration will use infrastructure funds to upgrade 85 airports across the U.S., The Affordable New York tax provision expires, homebuyers in China refuse to pay mortgages, and more.

The Biden administration will use infrastructure funds to upgrade 85 airports across the U.S., The Affordable New York tax provision expires, homebuyers in China refuse to pay mortgages, and more.

Under the Corporate Transparency Act, certain corporations and limited liability companies will be required to report the beneficial owners of the entity to FinCEN, and those forming such entities will need to provide certain information as well.  Entities organized solely to hold real property are currently not exempt under the rules.  The related regulations were released in late 2021 and were only proposed regulations, so guidance to date is still potentially in flux, but are expected to go into effect

Under the Corporate Transparency Act, certain corporations and limited liability companies will be required to report the beneficial owners of the entity to FinCEN, and those forming such entities will need to provide certain information as well.  Entities organized solely to hold real property are currently not exempt under the rules.  The related regulations were released in late 2021 and were only proposed regulations, so guidance to date is still potentially in flux, but are expected to go into effect in the foreseeable future.

Click here to read the full article by Pillsbury’s Megan Jones.

Formula One’s (F1) popularity has surged in recent years. On track, the 2021 season has been the most exciting in recent memory given Red Bull’s successful campaign against the reigning seven-time champions Mercedes. Off track, Netflix has popularized the sport by releasing four seasons of Drive to Survive, an episodic documentary that dives deep into how Formula One teams operate. Looking forward, the 2022 season won’t likely disappoint. New car and engine designs were introduced and races like the

Formula One’s (F1) popularity has surged in recent years. On track, the 2021 season has been the most exciting in recent memory given Red Bull’s successful campaign against the reigning seven-time champions Mercedes. Off track, Netflix has popularized the sport by releasing four seasons of Drive to Survive, an episodic documentary that dives deep into how Formula One teams operate. Looking forward, the 2022 season won’t likely disappoint. New car and engine designs were introduced and races like the Singapore Grand Prix are back on the calendar. As the sport grows, more cities may consider hosting races to boost their global profiles. Here, we breakdown how real estate-related issues may affect such a decision.

Property Sourcing

Property sourcing for an F1 race can be challenging. Most F1 races are hosted in reputable global cities where approval processes can take considerable time and local interests may conflict with those of the event organizers. This is especially the case for street races, where local streets are converted into racetracks and noise pollution concerns are significant. The Miami Grand Prix is an example of a race that took considerable time and energy to approve. In 2019, plans to host a Miami Grand Prix in downtown Miami were thwarted by local activists due to noise pollution concerns. Then, in 2021, when the Mayor of Miami Gardens submitted a new bid to host a Miami Grand Prix in his city, city commissioners reportedly heard two hours of complaints from local residents that opposed the race. After the Miami Gardens city council approved the project, residents took their frustration to court and attempted to stop the race on grounds of racial discrimination and noise pollution. Reconciliations like a plan to pledge $5 million to fund community beneficial programs and a STEM program for local children failed to quell these concerns.

Residents might also oppose a race if it does not offer sufficient economic benefits. Development of the Buddh International Circuit in India faced significant opposition when residents learned that the land they gave to the city was being used to construct sports facilities instead of public projects, which many residents believed would have provided more jobs.

Building the Track

The Price Tag

Building an F1 track is an expensive endeavor. According to Forbes, the average construction cost of a typical F1 track is around $270 million. Sometimes, event organizers may need additional capital to purchase land for permanent facilities. For the upcoming 2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix, Liberty Media, the owner of F1, is buying $240 million worth of land on the Las Vegas strip to build paddock infrastructure for future Las Vegas races. Event organizers might also invest additional capital to help their race stand out from the competition. The Yas Marina Circuit in Abu Dhabi cost more than $1 billion to construct because it includes additional features like a marina and a high-tech hotel.

Grade One Circuit Requirements

According to Appendix O of the International Sporting Code, which is promulgated by the Federation Internationale de I’Automobile (FIA), F1 event organizers must construct Grade One compliant tracks, which have the highest standards of six potential grades. Some real estate-related requirements for Grade One licensure include the following:

Track Layout – FIA regulations mandate that track gradients must be gradual, especially in high-speed braking or curved sectors. The width of a track must be at least 12 m and the starting grids width must be at least 15 m. Such requirements ensure that racecars have enough space to overtake and steer through corners. Without them, collisions are bound to happen.

Facilities – Event organizers are required to provide facilities like race control, marshal posts, paddocks, and medical centers during races and some facilities have required design features. For example, the pit lane must be at least 12 m wide, with pit garages and race control facilities adjacent to the starting straight and separated by a pit wall and signaling platform. Access for emergency services must be prioritized and organizers must construct bridges and/or tunnels for emergency vehicles to move in and out of the circuit. All facilities must also be accommodative for spectators with disabilities by including features like designated viewing areas, special toilet facilities, reserved parking spaces, and paved walkways for wheelchair access.

Advertising – To prevent advertisements along a track from affecting the safety of a race, the FIA mandates that the location and characteristics of advertisements should not interfere with a drivers’ or officials’ visibility or produce an adverse or misleading optical effect. For instance, “bewildering repetition of brightly contrasting posters” and “badly placed hoarding” that may cause “misjudgment of the road layout” are prohibited. Advertisements on a track’s surface are strictly banned, and advertisements in a run-off area must not affect the area’s skid-resistance.

Boosts to Local Economies

F1 races can be big drivers of revenue for hosting cities. The Austin Grand Prix reportedly brings in approximately $300 million to the city annually, which is a larger revenue windfall than South by Southwest and University of Texas’s football home games combined. Furthermore, the Austin Grand Prix spurred the development of a 5,400 square foot medical facility that is used for year-round training for medical professionals and, during races, serves as a required trauma care location for drivers. Other facilities like the paddock building can be converted into a 500-person banquet hall and the racetrack can be converted into a concert venue. It’s estimated that the grand prix generates 2,000 jobs, increases Austin’s population, and further elevates Austin as a desired travel destination for tourists.

Like Austin, Singapore’s local economy has also benefitted from its grand prix. The Singapore Tourism Board estimated that F1 generates about 1.4 billion Singaporean dollars in total incremental tourism receipts. During the 2017 grand prix, there was a 413% increase in turnover at key restaurants and 332% increase in visits to shopping malls. The hotel sector often reports an impressive increase in hotel rates during the weekend too.

F1 races often contribute to property and infrastructure development immediately surrounding a circuit. As mentioned above, the Austin Grand Prix led to the construction of a massive medical facility and the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix led to the construction of an entire integrated tourism complex on Yas Island.  According to a report released by Cavendish Maxwell, it is possible that the Saudi Arabia Grand Prix in Jeddah led to a $500 million investment in the Jeddah Islamic Port by DP World, a sponsor of the F1 team Renault.

Unfortunately, some F1 races encounter financial trouble. The 2011 South Korea Grand Prix failed to attract much tourism and generated a massive loss. The grand prix was eventually cancelled in 2013 due to financial concerns. Similarly, the Melbourne Grand Prix is often plagued by large costs and reportedly lost about 62 million Australian dollars in 2015.

Real Estate Investments by F1 Teams and Drivers

F1 teams and drivers are also contributors to the real estate market. Lawrence Stroll, the owner of Aston Martin, bought a large parcel of land near the Silverstone circuit in the UK to construct a new Aston Martin facility for its F1 team. Alfa Romeo reportedly entered the Ever Dome metaverse to provide new virtual experiences for fans on the team’s own virtual real estate. F1 drivers like Lewis Hamilton own sizable real estate portfolios consisting of high-end properties in popular grand prix locations like Monaco.

Formula One’s Expansion

According to the FIA’s most recent update on 3/2/2020, there are 39 circuits around the world that are licensed as Grade One tracks. Not all of these circuits are on the F1 calendar and some licenses have expired, but new circuits are always being added. The Jeddah Circuit in Saudi Arabia was licensed in 2021 and had its debut last year. The Miami Grand Prix debuted this year and the Las Vegas Grand Prix was added to the 2023 calendar. There are reportedly talks to bring F1 back to the African continent with a re-envisioned South African Grand Prix in the making. We expect more cities to join the F1 calendar as the sport grows.