Here is a housing study that looked at housing supply -- in the US from 2000 to 2020 -- relative to median housing values. And here is the key takeaway:
What this chart is saying is that new housing is rarely added in cities with the lowest-value homes. The bar on the left represents municipalities whose median housing values are less than 50% of the metropolitan average. And this makes sense. If values are low there is likely little to no incentive to build. The math just doesn't work.
However, as home values increase, the incentive to build and the ability to finance new projects also increases, and that is what we see in the above chart. This also makes sense.
But something interesting happens in the highest-value cities -- housing supply once again starts to fall off. And it turns out that there is a bit of a sweet spot. Municipalities whose relative housing values are 110 to 130% of the metropolitan average actually produce the most overall housing. Any higher than that and things start to decline.
Why is that? The answer likely has to do with restrictive land-use regulations. The highest-value cities (and wealthiest suburbs) often have a lot of large single-family lots, as well as policies to ensure that this kind of built form doesn't change. This has the effect of both limiting supply and enshrining values.
So when it comes to housing supply, what you don't want are low-cost areas. But you also don't want the highest-value areas. What you want are areas that are doing well, but no so well that they start really restricting new entrants. This is what our industry often refers to as exclusionary zoning.
Now, one of the most common ways to respond to this problem is to develop an opposing policy, namely inclusionary zoning. But usually what this policy doesn't do is direct more supply to these high-value and low-density areas. Instead what it typically does is force the segment that is producing the most housing -- let's call it the 110 to 130% band -- to deliver more affordable housing.
It's a neat trick that sounds pretty cool, but it is not at no cost.
I'm not all that familiar with Stockholm's housing market, but according to this recent article, it would appear that, like most big cities, there isn't enough affordable housing to go around. This is despite the fact that everyone in Sweden is technically entitled to it.
As of December 2021, there were 736,560 people (in Sweden) in the queue for a rent-controlled apartment, resulting in an average wait time of about 9.2 years. So basically what you want to do is put yourself on the list as soon as you turn 18. And then hope that at some point in the future you'll be granted an affordable apartment.
Given this dynamic, it makes sense there would be a long waitlist. If everyone is entitled to a rent-controlled apartment, you are effectively giving people two options: pay the market price or put yourself on this list, wait for a decade, and then pay less than the market price.
Why wouldn't you at least try to pay less?
The problem with this approach is that supply will almost certainly never keep pace with demand. It also appears to be fuelling a robust (and I guess illegal) secondary sublet market. Because if you have a below-market contract that is yours to keep forever and that lots of other people want, you have a valuable asset.
Getting housing right certainly isn't easy.
Here is a chart from MetroSight that compares housing tenure in California in 2000 and then between 2015-2019:
Two things you might notice immediately are that the number of renter-occupied households has generally increased and that the number of owner-occupied households without a mortgage (i.e. they own their home free and clear) has also increased for every age category except for those 65 or older.
MetroSight uses this data to argue that a new "wealth-related phenomenon is emerging" in California. Instead of the housing market being largely driven by income (that is, I make this much per year and I can afford this much house), it is being driven by accumulated wealth.
The possible explanations for this are as follows:
The share of renter-occupied households is increasing because people increasingly can't afford to buy
The share of owner-occupied houses with a mortgage is decreasing because less people can afford to buy given California's price-to-income ratios
The share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage is increasing because people are increasingly inheriting homes or getting gifted cash from their families
Consider that the share of owner-occupied houses without a mortgage even increased for the 18-24 age category. Unless you're the next Zuckerberg (who was a billionaire at age 23), this is pretty challenging to do without some kind of assistance, especially in a place like California.
This outcome also provides a possible explanation for why the over 65 age category is the only segment that has seen a reduction in free and clear ownership. It is because they are transferring their wealth to the next generation so that they too can obtain homeownership.
Chart: MetroSight
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
