Tag Archives: supply and demand

More data centers and AI, higher utility bills

Posted on by

With more AI and cloud-based activity in daily life, it may have one clear effect for people: higher prices for electricity.

Photo by Pok Rie on Pexels.com

As the Sun-Times reported in November, the demand for power from big data centers and a delay connecting new power sources, such as solar and wind, to the electric grid is resulting in ComEd customers seeing their monthly bills go up $10.60 a month on average…

Power demand across the country has skyrocketed as big data centers and artificial intelligence operations have created huge demand. Meanwhile, new sources of “renewable” energy, including wind and solar power, have been slow to get connected to an electric grid that spans from Northern Illinois to the East Coast, said Jim Chilsen, a spokesman for the consumer watchdog Citizens Utility Board.

How much will this register with Illinois customers – will they have no problem paying roughly $10 more a month to help support what they expect on their smartphone and online activity? Technology tends to have costs, even if people tend to think the benefits outweigh the downsides, but it can be hard to pin down. While all of the increased rates may not be due to computing activity, at least some is.

Considering indirect costs may just be difficult to do. Having direct feedback with technology probably elicits different reactions than these more indirect costs. Imagine the new AI feature on your phone comes with a $5 a month surcharge on your phone bill to cover its costs. Or each time you do an AI search you incur a charge. Contrast that with the costs of driving. Automobiles opened up all kinds of new opportunities but driving comes with numerous costs, some direct (like paying for gas, insurance, and maintenance) and some more indirect (taxes for infrastructure, changes in land use, pollution).

If asked how much they would be willing to directly pay for AI, what would Americans say?

A possible shift in American policy: encouraging more housing overall, not just housing for those with limited resources

Posted on by

One commentator notes that two possibilities for creating more housing in the United States could represent a shift in emphasis:

Photo by David McBee on Pexels.com

How’s that going to happen? Tax incentives for builders, perhaps an expansion of the low-income housing tax credit, but mostly, a $40 billion fund that would “empower local governments to fund local solutions to build housing [and] support innovative methods of construction financing.”

It’s not clear exactly what an innovation fund entails. Maybe the closest antecedent is a new, $85 million HUD program called “Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing,” or PRO Housing, which this summer issued 17 grants of a few million dollars each. The projects that got money include buying land for affordable housing in Rhode Island, retooling a digital application process in New York City, and hiring staff to fast-track affordable housing proposals in Denver.

It was a super competitive process, with $13 in requests for every $1 in award. Which raises the question: What can an annual outlay of $100 million (the PRO budget for next year) do to solve a problem as big as a deficit of 3 million homes? “State and local governments look at each other all the time, so those little examples can bear a lot of fruit,” said Chris Herbert, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard and a fan of the program. “There’s not a lot of money out there, but these grants can become an example for other places.”

Note what those two programs share: A focus on more housing, period, even if it’s not necessarily restricted to low-income Americans. That’s a subtle, crucial shift in federal priorities that reflects the growing sense that Washington must intervene to create more housing at all price points, not just for the poorest households with the most urgent housing needs.

Focusing on more housing overall could have several benefits:

  1. It could be popular across residents who might be feeling the need for more and cheaper housing. Promoting such programs could garner more widespread public support.
  2. Could fit the theory that providing more housing overall will help moderate prices across the housing spectrum.
  3. As noted later in the article, the public may have a negative opinion of public housing based on prior efforts.

At the same time, it is not entirely clear that such an approach would lead to the outcomes politicians and residents want. Do people generally want more housing (or is this limited to particular places)? Will reduced prices in housing brought on by increasing the supply reach the people who need the most housing help? What large-scale programs can help increase housing and flexibility even as different jurisdictions and locales approach housing differently at the local level?

All of this might just need to be worked out. Perhaps the shift above reflects an ongoing frustration among at least a few that not enough is happening regarding promoting housing.

US urban office space vacancies related to earlier office building booms

Posted on by

With the vacancy rate for office space in the major US cities almost at 20%, is now safe to conclude too much space was constructed in the first place?

Photo by Scott Webb on Pexels.com

America’s offices are emptier than at any point in at least four decades, reflecting years of overbuilding and shifting work habits that were accelerated by the pandemic.

A staggering 19.6% of office space in major U.S. cities wasn’t leased as of the fourth quarter, according to Moody’s Analytics, up from 18.8% a year earlier. That is slightly above the previous records of 19.3% set in 1986 and 1991 and the highest number since at least 1979, which is as far back as Moody’s data go…

That glut weighs on the office market to this day and helps explain why vacancies are far higher in the U.S. than in Europe or Asia. Many office parks built in the 1980s and earlier struggle to find tenants as companies cut back on space or leave for more modern buildings.

“The bulk of the vacant space are buildings that were built in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s,” said Mary Ann Tighe, chief executive of the New York tri-state region at real-estate brokerage CBRE.

And just as in the early ’90s, it is the overbuilt South that is hit hardest. Today, the three major U.S. cities with the country’s highest office-vacancy rates are Houston, Dallas and Austin, Texas, according to Moody’s. In 1991, Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale in Florida and San Antonio held those positions.

This sounds like a cyclical market: during financial downturns, fewer companies want office space and vacancies rise. During economic success, more companies expand and make use of the space. When more space is built during the good times, that same space is not necessarily needed later.

Does that mean that COVID-19 was only a partial contributor to office vacancies? Was a reckoning going to come for urban office space even without a global pandemic? Or might office space be back in demand again soon as economic conditions change?

I can see why new office space is desirable to fund and build. Whether it should be built, given the cycles discussed above, is another story. And if office space cannot be easily converted to other uses, how much more is really needed in major cities?

If NIMBY movements wanted to protect property values, were they wildly successful?

Posted on by

The last fifty or so years of life in the United States has included numerous NIMBY efforts by residents (see recent examples here, here, and here). One of the reasons for NIMBY activity is to protect property values. Did NIMBY efforts lead to higher property values?

Photo by Monstera Production on Pexels.com

I was thinking about this recently after reading more Internet/social media chatter about the rise in housing values in recent decades. The appreciation in value is astounding in many places.

NIMBY efforts could have contributed to this in multiple ways. They may have limited housing supply. One common argument regarding promoting more affordable housing prices is to build more housing units. This will reduce demand for existing units.

Or, NIMBY movements may have limited what communities will build. When they do construct housing, it is of similar or better quality of what is already there so as to not create downward pressure on prices.

Or, effective NIMBY efforts have kept less desirable uses away from housing. In particular, single-family homes are often located away from other land uses perceived to threaten property values.

These actions led by residents may not be the only reason housing and property prices have soared. Residents are not the only actors with influence in housing markets and communities; certainly the actions of those involved in real estate, local officials, and others contributed to increased property values.

However, taking the long view, if NIMBYs have acted in order to protect property values, does it appear – whether they directly caused it or not – that this was successful?

How might a prediction of a crash in housing prices in specific cities affect behavior?

Posted on by

Goldman Sachs is predicting a big drop in housing values in four American cities:

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

In a note to clients earlier this month, Goldman Sachs forecasted that four American cities in particular should gear up for a seismic decline compared to that of the 2008 housing crash.

San Jose, California; Austin, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and San Diego, California will likely see boom and bust declines of more than 25%.

Such declines would rival those seen around 15 years ago during the Great Recession. Home prices across the United States fell around 27%, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller index…

In 2023, the investment bank expects home prices to barely fall in cities like New York (-0.3%) and Chicago (-1.8%) while predicting higher prices in Baltimore (+0.5%) and Miami (+0.8%).

It make sense that a company interested in investments and finance would want to make such a prediction. Will it change people’s behavior? A few ways this might matter:

-Local homeowners try to sell now before the big decline or prepare to stay put longer so they can see an increase in values. Either way, the supply of homes for sale is affected.

-Builders and developers reduce their construction and plans. They wait to see how long such a decline lasts. They hope to weather this and have higher profit margins later.

-Local governments steel for the impacts to tax revenues and population growth.

-People who might consider moving to or investing in the area reconsider. Would lower housing values make the area more attractive? (This might conflict with fewer homes for sale.)

Does such a prediction become a self-fulfilling prophecy to some degree as people wait for the drop in home prices?

I just want housing for Christmas, New Year’s, and the years to come

Posted on by

How about more housing for the holidays?

Photo by Michael Tuszynski on Pexels.com

“We have a supply problem with housing,” Marc Norman, associate dean at the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate, told Yahoo Finance Live (video above). “We’ll see the price declines, but I think the income gains that we are seeing lately are still not keeping up with the prices that we are seeing in the market — in most markets.”…

“We, for the last 20 years, have underbuilt the housing,” Norman said. “In 2008, we saw the sort of demand go down, but it never came back in terms of supply.”

After the 2008 real estate crash, residential construction activities in the private sector never recovered to the level of 2006. Although home building slowly increased year over year during the last decade, projects remained well below early 2000 levels, according to figures from the Census Bureau and. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Several thoughts in response:

  1. The United States has never fully recovered from the housing bubble in the late 2000s. The rise in housing values, homeownership, and lending activity led to a lot of trouble.
  2. How much money has the real estate and development sector made since the late 2000s? How much money has been left on the table by not building (or not being able to build, as discussed in the article, due to zoning and other restrictions)?
  3. How many older homes are retrofitted or renovated to meet current standards and tastes each year compared to how many new housing units are needed? Both routes could help provide housing.

All of this could set up nicely for giving housing as a Christmas present in the future.

The implications of unevenness in rapid housing value appreciation

Posted on by

A new analysis suggests housing prices did not increase as much in recent years in some wealthier areas:

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

House prices were up less than 1% last quarter from a year earlier in Westchester, New York, for example — and not much more than that in Montgomery County, Maryland, a favorite of wealthy commuters to the capital.

The trend isn’t limited to the east coast, with Chicago’s Cook County posting an increase of 2%. By comparison, almost two-thirds of the counties surveyed saw prices rise more than 10%…

“Demand today tends to be stronger at the entry and mid-priced tiers of the market than at the higher end,” said Rick Sharga, Attom’s executive vice president of market intelligence. “Price appreciation tends to rise more quickly in counties with a higher percentage of lower-priced homes available.”…

In more than three-quarters of the 586 counties analyzed by Attom, housing was less affordable than in the past relative to incomes.

Interpreting this report about the data and trends, it sounds like housing prices increased faster than incomes in many places but not all places. Additionally, housing did not appreciate at the same rate; places with more cheaper housing appreciated more.

Two quick thoughts in response:

  1. There is a need to both see housing as a national issue and a need to understand local variation in housing. While so much about housing can be local, there is also a tendency to make sweeping claims about housing across the country as a whole. Better addressing both levels of analysis requires better reporting of data and different kinds of analysis. (And this is why national housing policy is so difficult.)
  2. There is an idea that people who need cheaper housing can move to places or markets with cheaper housing. What if enough people move to those cheaper housing areas so that there is no longer cheaper housing? I’m thinking of the rapid housing value increases in Austin. In the first place, not everyone can simply move to take advantage of that cheaper housing, but, even if they did, this would defeat the purposes of moving as housing prices would increase.

View housing – and America? – as “a country of 384 metro areas”

Posted on by

Housing is all about location so why not view it as a metro by metro issue?

Photo by Maria Orlova on Pexels.com

When it comes to housing, it might be better to think about the U.S. as a country of 384 metro areas (plus 50 million Americans who don’t live in places big enough to qualify as a metro area) rather than one continuous country. In 2021, the U.S. population grew just 0.1% – the lowest annual expansion rate since our nation’s founding. But housing dynamics are best viewed through the different metro areas that are growing and shrinking. Of the 384 metro areas, 72 had declining populations in the decade leading to 2020, according to the Census.

The general argument makes some sense: supply and demand for housing depends on the metropolitan region. I have lived in one of these regions that has very limited demand for housing and experienced numerous foreclosures in the late 2000s. In places such as these, housing is cheap and plentiful – but there are relatively few people who want to move there and, if they do, there is limited desire to rehab older homes. On the other hand, the activity in particular housing markets – such as the coverage of housing and population in Manhattan and San Francisco during COVID-19 – draws all sorts of attention because of the prices and demand. All of this contributes to why housing is difficult to address at a national level.

More broadly, seeing the United States as a collection of metropolitan regions (or expanded city states?) may make some sense. For example, the 9+ million people in the Chicago region may see themselves as more of a collective than describing people from Illinois or people from the Midwest. These people share a particular housing and jobs market, common sources of information, entertainment options, a transportation network, and regional forces.

Of course, some regions may be more like other regions. Scholars have examined some of these broader collections, such as Rust Belt or Sunbelt regions or immigrant gateways, or used particular cities as models – particularly Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles – by which we can better understand all cities and regions. Yet, even these regions that share common characteristics have particular histories and current realities that would help set them apart from other.

All of this gets at an ongoing issue in sociology and other disciplines: at what point is it worthwhile to group phenomena together because of common traits or is it better to leave them as distinct entities because of their differences? There are both common traits in and a lot of variation among the 384 metro areas (plus all the other people living outside metro areas). At least for housing, it is tempting to treat each market as unique even as there are common patterns.

The factors affecting housing in the Chicago region in 2022

Posted on by

Several experts suggest housing prices will continue to rise in the Chicago area in 2022 but not at the same rate as they did in 2021:

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Rather, changes in home price growth, the supply of homes for sale and upticks in rock-bottom interest rates are more likely to stabilize the market after an unpredictable 2021, they said. That likely won’t mean an end to competition or high prices — and it doesn’t bode well for first-time homebuyers — but the market could ease up compared with 2021…

In the nine-county Chicago metro area, the median home sale price from January to November was $300,000, up nearly 12% over the same months in 2020, according to the Illinois Association of Realtors…

Prices are likely to rise next year, but won’t continue the exponential growth of 2021, said Daniel McMillen, head of the Stuart Handler Department of Real Estate at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Without an influx of new residents to the area or big increases in incomes, that growth will become unsustainable, he said…

Homebuyers are continuing to look for amenities like home offices and workout areas, Melbourne said. Kitchens are a priority. Condo-buyers are looking for bigger units, rather than one-bedrooms.

The pressure from COVID-19 moves will hopefully subside. Then, the more regular patterns in Chicago area real estate might take over again. There are at least several interrelated factors:

  1. Limited population increases in the Chicago region. This reduces demand.
  2. Uneven development within the region where some neighborhoods and suburbs will be popular and others not. Prices will go up in desirable places.
  3. Construction of new residences has been down. What kind of units will be built? If recent trends hold, it will be housing aimed more at wealthier residents. Additionally, these units will be constructed in some locations and not others.
  4. If there is a long-term shift in what homebuyers and renters want from units, does this significantly shift demand? Continued or more working from home has the potential to affect the individual and collective experience of places.
  5. The particulars of certain communities. Communities understand themselves as having certain characters and prioritize particular goals. Local regulations could incentivize or discourage certain kinds of development.

There are numerous factors affecting housing to pay attention to amid changing conditions.

Investors buying about 20% of homes in the United States

Posted on by

A story about rising home prices in small town America highlights the role of investors buying property:

Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

Local buyers bid against one another as well as against investors who now comprise about a fifth of annual home sales nationally. Online platforms such as BiggerPockets and Fundrise make it easier for out-of-town investors to buy real estate in smaller cities across the U.S., said John Burns of California-based John Burns Real Estate Consulting.

Often, Mr. Burns said, “the cash flows are better in the Tulsas and Allentowns of the world” for those seeking to rent out properties. In the fourth quarter of 2020, nearly a fifth of homes sold in the Allentown area were bought by investors, according to Mr. Burns’s data.

While much attention is directed to hot real estate markets in major metro areas – with a lot of attention for the most expensive like Manhattan, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and others – this hints at a different dynamic. In smaller town, there is not a big supply of new housing. Thus, investors can purchase homes and turn them into rental properties. Without large influxes of new residences, these rental units can bring in good money as buyers look to move up within an unchanging local supply.

If there is such demand and limited supplies of new homes in places like Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the focus of this article, one possible future is a business opportunity for local or national builders who could come in and provide new apartments or single-family homes. While the community may not be growing much in terms of population, housing stocks do need replenishing and what people desire over time changes. Could building in Bethlehem generate the kinds of profits builders are looking or are more of them chasing even better profit opportunities in hotter markets with faster-growing populations?

If investors are making a significant number of these purchases, could communities respond in ways that help retain opportunities for local residents as opposed to far-off companies? Could they form local investment funds or cooperatives that then only sell or rent the homes at reasonable rates to local residents? This could be an affordable housing issue in many communities and even if local actors generated little profit in the transactions, they could help insure a supply of human capital.