After this post, I promise to stop continually plugging the work and writing of Aziz Sunderji — at least for a few days. Over the weekend, I wrote about his recent post on happiness in America. Today, his latest post is about what happens to home prices after a particular grocery store opens. And for this, he looked at 32,000 store openings dating back to the mid-1970s and then compared them to ZIP-code-level home price data.

Here's what he found:

The average Walmart neighbourhood in this study has a median household income of $49,000, a college degree attainment rate of 23%, and a median home price of $144,000. And when a new Walmart opens, home prices have tended to underperform the national average by about 4% in the three years that follow.

On the flip side, the average Trader Joe's neighbourhood has a median household income of $82,000, a college degree attainment rate of 52%, and a median home value of $425,000.

Importantly, though, Trader Joe's isn't just picking neighbourhoods with obviously favourable demographics (retail is a lagging indicator — it generally comes once the demand is already there). It seems to be picking neighbourhoods that, in the words of Aziz, have "room to keep running." In the three years that follow a new Trader Joe's opening, homes in those ZIP codes have tended to outperform the national average by 6%!

One of the fascinating things about this finding is that it seems to perfectly support the company's target market. It has been said that Joe Coulombe (founder of the company) used to describe his target customer as "overeducated and underpaid." In other words, he actively targeted university graduates.

But being underpaid only lasts so long. We know that educational attainment is typically the single best predictor of household income. So, if you target this group, chances are that they'll eventually become fairly paid or maybe even overpaid. And when this happens, I guess it shows up in area home prices.

Cover photo by Karolina Bobek on Unsplash

Chart from Home Economics

Read through planning documents across North America and you're bound to find language that refers to low-rise residential neighbourhoods as "physically stable areas" where the "existing neighbourhood character" is paramount. But to be more precise, what this kind of language is actually saying is not that these neighbourhoods need to be broadly stable; it is saying that they just need to look more or less stable.

Here in Toronto, for example, it has been widely documented that many of our low-rise neighbourhoods are losing people. Household sizes are getting smaller, and houses that used to be subdivided are being returned to single-family use. A similar thing is happening in other cities like New York:

Bloomberg News recently reported that since 2004, at least 9,300 homes have been lost as a result of multi-family buildings getting "rolled up" into single-family homes. More recently, the city has even seen an increase in people combining two or more buildings into large urban mansions.

And while the total number of homes removed is relatively small for New York as a whole, it can be quite impactful to individual neighbourhoods. In the West Village, where there's a high concentration of rowhomes and townhouses, Bloomberg estimates that one out of every six small apartment buildings has been rolled up into a single-family home since 2004!

From a built form standpoint, you could say these are "physically stable" areas that are obediently adhering to their existing neighbourhood character. But under the hood and behind their street walls, they are clearly changing.

It is one of the great ironies of city building. People often fear new development because they worry it might disrupt the character of a neighbourhood. But preventing development does not guarantee stasis. In fact, we know that not building new housing actually increases the pressures felt on a city's existing housing stock, as people compete for a more fixed amount of supply.

The wealthy can always outbid the less wealthy on housing. So if you don't provide any new options, the wealthy will just buy up the existing stuff and turn it into what they want. Alternatively, you can build more housing and create a "moving chain" that frees up more existing housing for people of lower incomes.

Cover photo by Chanan Greenblatt on Unsplash

Map from Bloomberg

This is an interesting chart from the Globe and Mail. It shows GDP, Gross Domestic Savings (how much a country's residents and businesses save), Gross Fixed Capital Formation (technical term for investments in productive long-term assets), and the share of total investment going into housing for the 20 largest economies in the world.

One of the key takeaways from the chart is that Canada invests the most into residential real estate (figures are from 2024). Now, I'm not an economist, but the risk here is that we are tying up too much of our capital in housing, as opposed to investing in new ideas, emerging tech, and the future. And this imbalance could help explain why Canada has had weak productivity growth for decades.

Housing demand should be a byproduct of a strong economy; simply building housing won't drive an economy forward on its own. And I say this as a developer of housing.

Cover photo by Roshan Raj on Unsplash

Table via the Globe and Mail