This isn't to discount the shift of ownership from human persons to corporate persons, that's a factor too. But just numbers of available houses versus population plays a role.
If homes are a good monetary investment, that means home prices are going up, which means supply is not keeping pace with demand.
If home prices are going up at a rate faster than wages, then they are becoming more expensive for our children. Not in a round-a-bout way, but in a direct causal relationship way.
Homes can either be affordable or an investment, not both. If homes are to be affordable that means more need to be built.
Try pricing what it would take to buy a plot of land and build a home on it. In some places there are very expensive local regulations that must be satisfied. However, just the base value of some land with utility access, physical materials, and labor to assemble the home is "unaffordable." If the difference between the cost to produce a home and the sale value of the home was larger than there would be more home builders. If reducing the cost of housing is important to you than you should focus on ways to reduce the cost of producing homes.
The amount of bureaucracy is insane. Often times we have been the go between for different departments of city that have offices in the same building as each other. They all point the finger at each other. Can’t get answers to the power pole questions from LA DWP without Bureau of Street Lighting, Bureau of street lighting won’t do anything with out LA DWP etc… it’s madness.
House will be 3200sqft, very nice with a pool but lots of value engineering (thanks to my dad). Construction budget is $2m. Will be getting a construction loan. Requires monthly income of $35k combined. Lucky I’m doing this with my twin brother, so we might just be able to afford it, but currently can not due to interest rate rises since we started. Swinging big.
Bank appraised finished project at $3.5m.
My take away from the whole process is that LA infrastructure is terrible, and the city has effectively made it impossible for new construction by family’s. LA DWP single handedly cost us a year in permitting and its incentives are just so not aligned with home owners. My dream is we can go solar and batteries and tell them to get lost. I now have a real respect for what Starlink is doing. Down with the entrenched utilities!!!
You have to be rich to build a house in LA. Renovation is the only real option for individuals. Which just drives up house prices. New houses built is the only way out I think, and the government seems to only be making it harder.
Sorry, but this looks like one of the most incredibly out-of-touch rich people comments I've ever read. You're building a freaking castle in the middle of the city, moving roads around, and then you go on to say "families" can't build??
Maybe you're right and even building a modest home in the suburbs is harder than it should, but your project is definitely not proof of that.
If the goal is more houses, make them faster and easier to build. Less red tape, less infrastructure requirements. Otherwise it’s only well of people like me that can (barely) afford them.
Now I’m sure you’ll say “don’t live in a coastal city then”. That where the work is. And it’s also where 40k homeless people live. Connect the dots. We need more houses. There is land to build them, it’s just insane to do that under current rules.
For some people that's probably a bargain, but if you're not wealthy it's a lot of money just for /permission/ to do something.
In Texas it might be $40k land (varies by size and location), $250k for construction ($115/sqft * 2250 sqft), and maybe $50k for utilities/landscaping/driveway/permits etc (varies by taste and location). So $350k for a house in a state with a $70k median household income. With a 20% downpayment and a 6.5% interest rate this median family for a median house would spend 1 year salary on the downpayment and over a third of their gross income on the mortgage. If they had a typical amount of debt from cars, credit cards, or student loans their DTI would be too high to qualify.
EDIT: To my original point. Saying "Build more homes" is an oversimplification. Homes are largely priced such that they equal {Land + Building value}, and new homes are largely priced at { Land + Construction costs + reasonable margin for developer }. If you want to build more homes, look at how building can be cheaper. There are some clear low hanging fruit you are describing in your LA experience, but even where the regulatory environment and labor costs are more reasonable the numbers don't crunch well. Let's have conversations about how to reduce the cost of producing housing. Getting cost low enough that the median household income can afford new construction would absolutely drive up the number of homes being built.
I've built, all-together, about similar budget (for two houses with brothers) and I don't even think I have enough energy to build my own house, now. But gonna try, on some land in a county with minimal regulations.
House Twin and I built was in a Historic District, which was the biggest nightmare of the entire construction. We literally did the rebar and formwork and roof and plumbing and electrical. And they made us re-do windows and other such bullshit to "be in conformity with the neighborhood, but without giving the impression of being historic itself." JFC, make up your minds [worse than any HOA nightmare].
Misses the fact that homes are bought (most of the time) with borrowed money and leverage.
You can either look at that as increasing the supply of money or lowering the cost of money, and its reflection in housing prices.
A big chunk of that demand is for 2nd or 3rd or even 4th properties as investment rental properties. Can’t afford a house in the sf Bay Area, no problem, go buy 4 investment properties in the Midwest! I know people who’ve done that.
Also look what houses are built, they aren’t starter homes in many areas. They are “luxury” (luxury per home marketers, sq ft, and price, I won’t go down the rabbit hole of what I personally think).
Building more will inevitably fix the housing market, even if one investor owns every single new house.
There have been reports on this which observed the properties being removed from the housing market, so yes.
Its supposedly not worth the risk/effort to find renters which could potentially wreak your property, never pay and need to be evicted.
That makes it more cost -effective to just hold onto the property while paying someone to occasionally check up on it until it's resold for profit
It makes a lot of money, there are companies managing them, the owners don't have to.
A. Increase house prices
B. Decrease house prices
Question 2: adding rent seeking middlemen between people and housing is likely going to
a. reduce costs for housing
B. Increase cost for housing
So there’s a finite supply of house, investors from out of state are now competing, increasing demand but also have deeper pockets. Now the locals who would hav bought are forced to rent, increasing demand for rentals. They investors aren’t going to take a loss so they’ll rent at the rate that gives them the expected return, which they get because of the high demand they helped create, with rental prices justified relative to the sales price that they themselves jacked up
I'm not convinced it's that simple. Houses aren't widgets that you can flood the market with an unlimited supply to drop the price as much as desired. Homes cost a lot to build and use limited resources, which means at a certain point building more increases the cost.
Picture a city that is building only 1000 homes a year and then they decide to start building 10,000 a year. Will the prices drop? If the prices were very high due to excess demand, probably not because there is enough demand to absorb those 10k units without meeting all the demand, so prices won't drop.
Ok then, let's go all out and build a million units (let's imagine that land is somehow available for that in this thought exercise). Will prices go down? No, prices will go up! Ask anyone trying to build a home in a tight market, labor prices are extremely high because there is so much demand for a limited supply of labor. If this hypotetical city tried to build a million units, labor costs will skyrocket and so will the price per unit.
There are no efficiencies of scale left in a mature industry like house builing. Building more doesn't make the per unit cost cheaper, it actually makes it higher due to labor availability.
Supply and demand aren't quantities, they're functions. You may be trying to say that demand is inelastic around the present point, but I suspect it actually isn't.
Land is available. What's not is infrastructure, and economic surplus to maintain all the required new homes and infrastructure (roads, pipes, power grid, etc).
Housing suffers from the same curse as the transit infrastructure, or the nuclear industry, enormous economic and political inertia keeping/prefering the status quo, any new projects are small, low-efficiency, lack economies of scale, lack innovation (because copy-paste building just one more is the lowest risk thing).
Look at the recent California zoning remedy program, so few real estate developers are taking it, because it turns out that those small local markets are basically incompetitive cronyist distopias, and it makes no sense for them to get into a fight with the zoning/approval board.
Only if the houses are selling at the higher price. There are a lot of empty, unsold houses where the owner is refusing to reduce the price. Property economics is weird.
Not familiar with USA market but wondering: Are current houses just more fragile and fell apart within 50 years?
There are a lot of old abandoned homes. I would never live in a home built before 1978. Almost certainly that home is full of lead-based paint and asbestos.
Honestly unless the lead paint is the topmost layer, or they put so many coats of regular paint on that it’s falling off the wall, the actual risk of a toddler encountering and then consuming the paint chips is shockingly low.
We're closing in on 50 years past the 1979 lead-based paint cutoff - the vast majority of homes in my area, and I extrapolate that likely most areas, have been remediated. With asbestos - probably the worst issue in my area is that if you have asbestos shingles you want to remove they are stinking heavy and so cost a lot to dump. I live in a 1915 home that is a great example of houses in my area - has gone through multiple renovations in that time such that the guts are fundamentally new. Probably the biggest issue with these older homes is insulation, as unless you truly take them down to the studs, they are never going to be as airtight as modern homes.
In the US, modern houses tend to be larger, have better insulation (from what I've experienced), but can be cheap in some aspects (e.g. interior doors tend to be hollow, whereas older houses typically had solid doors). Overall though, I'm not sure if new or older homes were better built. I know some really well built old homes, but some very poor built ones too, and this goes for modern homes as well. Most should last 50 years though.
Shitty wildcat builders throwing down entire subdivisions of deeply defective homes is a serious problem in the Phoenix area, I know that for a fact.
Obsolescence gets overlooked but it is important. Not only are houses often poorly constructed, but many are simply no longer desirable. For example in my area, anything pre-1960 is likely very small, possibly without a garage, and may only have one bathroom. The modern homeowner wants something better. Houses in the 1970s were frankly, weird. They don't fit modern tastes at all. Many houses built in the 1990s are falling down already because they were so poorly built. So my point is, you have to take into account not only the top end inventory number, but also that lack of desirability is a real thing that drags down actual available inventory.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Houses are built to standards significantly higher than they used to be (aka, with standards).
Contractors skimp where they can but, due to threats of litigation, those cut corners are cosmetics.
One of my colleagues lived in such a multi-apartment block where there was a common toilet for the entire floor, so four households. In freezing weather, the toilet was bitterly cold.
Tell me how that makes any sense.
But beyond that, housing as investment property alienates people from the natural reward of caring for housing. We ought to be leaving into and communicating peoples' natural desire to make home livable. Instead we rip people from it, we punish people by forcing them to switch apartments when they're perfectly happy.
So many people effectively live in in slow motion life long exile.
In a lot of cases they wouldn't have become mentally ill or a fentanyl addict if they weren't homeless. Yes, addiction drives tons of people into homelessness, but homelessness can also cause addiction since a homeless life kinda sucks.
99 percent invisible did a podcast series on the reality and nuance of homelessness. It is the best take I’ve seen and really opened my eyes on a number of things. Episode 3 covers housing first, but I would recommend going through the whole thing.
Housing first is evidence based too. And cheaper than emergency services. And when done right much more dignified.
Yet here we have this society full of punitive know it all skeptics who don't actually seem care about the evidence quite as much as they care about dominating social structures that help them feel better about their insecurities.
There are hardly any takers.
As has always been true in real estate: location, location, location
Its not only the us dealing with this.
In many Western countries a large part of the population has been incentivised by both tax cuts and monetary policy to own property that it's become very hard for governments to change those policies to again make houses affordable without huge cuts of the wealth of their middle-class.
Up until this month prices in this market were declining and homes sitting on the market for weeks to a month or more with lots of price drops.
It's weird spring comes around with interest rates just as high and we are back to bidding war frenzy that was 2021/half of 2022.
Additionally, the pure supply and demand argument is insufficient because it does not explain why we have failed to create the additional supply to meet the demand. In a pure sandboxed supply/demand analysis with no other factors, we would expect to see supply increase as demand increases since in theory it means building homes is more profitable. The high school version of supply/demand is that they balance eachother eventually and the timeframe over which that happens is influenced by the elasticity in price of the good in question. Something about how the housing market functions has changed in some locations.
there is also, at least anecdotally, a shortage of skilled tradespeople across construction in general. post-2007 basically reduced the incoming pipeline to zero, and so now there is this missing labor cohort that would be really useful right now.
The shortage of skilled labor is another instance where we need to ask why supply is not meeting demand. I think in the case of the supply of skilled construction workers it is not difficult to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't require any malicious actors.
Anyway, I'm not really trying to make a political point or give everybody my own pet theories as to how this happened. I'm mostly just trying to make the point that the way this issue is generally discussed in the media is economically illiterate at a pretty fundamental level.The observation in the media that supply is not meeting demand is worthless on account of that not being a meaningful statement.
There's simply few reasons to enter the field and risk long term health issues when you can make the same amount, or better doing paperwork in an office.
Additional supply did come on, and has dropped recently in response to rates.
It's really not more than high school supply/demand. There are just a good number of factors which make up each at each location, and at least one of them is large and unpredictable (interest rates). There is always a lag on the supply side because only so many houses can be built at any time. It's the same for many commodities like oil and gas.
Actually computing a good supply or demand curve has always been the difficult part, not the theory. But supply lag and interest rates make up a big component of property supply and demand.
There is no pithy "this is the deep reason why", which is what it seems they want to hear.
Thanks for pointing out what should have been an obvious error. Yikes.
Regulations exist to mitigate tragedies.