Tag Archives: housing starts

The reasons behind a low housing inventory

Posted on by

Why are there few homes to purchase in the United States? Here are several reasons:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

One reason inventory is so low nationally is that many homeowners were able to lock in record low interest rates in 2020 and 2021. Mortgage rates have skyrocketed since then—the rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage reached 6.7% on March 9, nearly double that of a year ago, according to Freddie Mac. That means that homeowners who bought or refinanced with low interest rates are reluctant to sell their homes and buy another with a mortgage with a much higher interest rate.

The low inventory makes house hunting an even more painful and emotionally charged process than usual, because buyers are finding that there just aren’t that many options. They have to choose between paying a high price for the inventory that is available, or waiting—potentially for a long time.

There are factors at play that make some markets especially brutal. In January, according to Redfin, the places out of the top 100 most-populated metro areas in the country with the lowest inventory were Rochester, N.Y. (1.2 months’ supply); Buffalo, N.Y. (1.4 months’); and Allentown, Penn. (1.5 months’). Rounding out the top ten were Grand Rapids, Mich.; Worcester, Mass.; Greensboro, N.C.; Hartford; Boston; and Montgomery County, Penn…

One other reason that there’s low inventory? The influx of investors who have bought properties, including single-family homes, to rent. Investors bought 24% of all single-family homes in 2021, up from around 15-16% each year going back to 2012, according to a Pew Stateline analysis.

Add to this that many places in the United States are short units of affordable housing.

I have not seen many hints that this is a short-term problem or one that will be addressed soon. The mortgage rate issue will take time to see through. The housing crunch in particular markets may require hyperlocal policies as well as changing national conditions. Investors will continue to act in the market. The construction that is taking place is often aimed at higher ends of the market.

What I am still surprised at: how come no national politician is making this a centerpiece of a campaign? Imagine a politician promoting homeownership opportunities, new housing starts, seeking ways to boost construction, and wanting to help people achieve the American Dream. This could appeal to both sides of the aisle. This would not necessarily require major changes to national policy beyond a consistent message, helpful incentives, and a desire to help address the foundational issue of housing that many face.

Slow housing construction in Chicago area, matching slow population growth

Posted on by

The release of data showing a small population increase in Chicago and the region also included data on housing construction in the Chicago region:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The number of homes in the Chicago metro area grew by 3.9% between 2010 and 2020, census data made public Thursday shows. That was a slower growth rate than the nation overall, where the number of homes grew by 6.7%.

The slow housing growth was not surprising, as the region recovered from the 2008 housing and financial crisis…

Among Cook and the collar counties, only Kendall County added homes at a higher rate than the nation: 11.6%. It added more homes than any county in the state, likely reflecting the county’s explosive growth in population over the past decade…

The Chicago area’s population growth could be good news for the housing market, inspiring investors and developers to take a deeper interest in the city, Smith said.

Presumably, builders and developers are going to be a bit hesitant to build a lot of units when the population is not growing as quickly. If new demand is limited, why build too many units and risk having lower selling prices? Add this corollary to the growth is good idea in American communities: higher rates of housing construction is a sign of a bright future and a higher status.

I do wonder what percent of homes or residential units need to be replaced each decade. Populations in metropolitan regions expand out – as noted above in Kendall County with double-digit growth – and occupy existing homes and units that may or may not meet their needs. Teardowns are one option, usually limited to wealthier communities where a new home in place of an older one can get a hefty price, but so are denser housing developments, in-fill development, or a change of use for properties (think vacant shopping malls or office parks converted to housing).

Additionally, does this small increase in homes also help address the need for affordable housing? At what price points are these new homes going for? I would guess that at least a sizable percentage of the new homes are out of reach of many in the region.

Chicago area housing starts up 37%; still one-fifth of “normal”

Posted on by

The good news: Chicago area housing starts are up. The bad news: housing starts had slowed so much in recent years that this is nowhere near “normal.”

Housing starts in the first quarter in the Chicago area rose 37 percent, which puts the local housing market on track to build 4,000 homes this year, the best performance in three years, according to Metrostudy, a housing research and consulting firm.

Still, a normal number for new-home starts in the Chicago area is 18,000 to 20,000. “We’re one-fifth of that. We’re a long way from being normal,” said Chris Huecksteadt, director of Metrostudy’s Midwest markets…

A lack of quality inventory and bidding wars among resale homes have caused some consumers to change their focus and consider buying newly constructed homes. Several local builders report that they’ve started homes as spec or model homes and the properties have gone under contract before the drywall is up…

Because of that kind of demand, as well as a recent spike in lumber prices, some local firms are raising prices by $5,000 to $20,000 per home to help offset the cost of materials and to maintain or improve their profit margins. No one is getting too aggressive with price hikes, though, because it might lead to problems with appraisals and mortgage financing.

This may be the new normal for quite a while. As the end of the article notes, it may be difficult to generate consistent demand until there are more jobs.

When I see figures like this, I always think about the existing housing stock. Does this automatically mean that the available number of houses is really low? Or, is there a growing interest in recent years among buyers to forgo the problems existing houses may have and instead pay a little more to get a spot-free home? If some of the existing housing stock is going unpurchased, what then happens to those homes? Some people may not be able to move while other houses, particularly those in more disrepair and neglect, could become a drag on some neighborhoods.