As further evidence that real estate is a local business, let’s take a look at the housing market in Japan today. It’s a very unique market.
According to this Freakonomics podcast, 50% of all single family houses in Japan are demolished by the time they reach 38 years old. That’s their half-life. By contrast, in the US, this number is 100 years.
The reason for this is rapid depreciation. Real property typically consists of two things: land and the building. Land doesn’t depreciate. But the structure sitting on the land does.
In Japan, the building or structure is thought to be fully depreciated (and therefore worth nothing) after about 30 years for a single-family home and after about 40 years for an apartment/condominium.
The result is that there’s virtually no resale housing market. When somebody buys a house, it is usually torn down and completely rebuilt. It’s a uniquely Japanese phenomenon.
So why does this happen?
The Freakonomics podcast presents a couple of hypothesis. Some believe that it’s caused by a Japanese fixation with newness. New is seen as pure and clean.
Others believe that it has to do with a building code that is constantly changing due to the high frequency of earthquakes in Japan. 20% of the world’s earthquakes with a magnitude of 6.0 or greater happen in Japan. And so there appears to be a belief that newer homes – with the latest seismic technologies – are the safest.
Whatever the case may be, the fact that there’s virtually no resale housing market in Japan, not surprisingly, produces some interesting outcomes. For one, maintenance and DIY home projects are uncommon. Why invest in your home when it’s not viewed as an asset, but as a disposable good?
At the same time, people worry very little about marketability when they are building new. And this is a big reason why Japan is so famous for its radically designed homes. When you’re building only for yourself, you just do what you want.
But most importantly, some (such as Richard Koo, who is interviewed in the podcast) believe that this approach to housing is a huge “obstacle to affluence.” Without a functioning resale market, the Japanese don’t get the opportunity to build wealth/equity in the same way that other countries do.
Do you buy that?
Since 2009 when the U.S. economy started to recover, housing starts (i.e. new residential construction) have favored multifamily buildings over single family housing. Apartment/condominium construction has grown 3 times faster according to the U.S. Census Bureau (via Bloomberg).
A lot of this multifamily construction is assumed to be rental apartments, but this category also includes for sale condominiums. The classification has to do with building typology rather than housing tenure. (I would love to see how the above graph breaks down in terms of the latter.)
The typical explanations for this trend often relate back to Millennials being poor and saddled with student debt. That’s why they’re delaying buying single family homes. But eventually the expectation is that they will resume doing (largely) what previous generations have done.
Money and the economy, I’m sure, have something to do with the above trend. But I’m not convinced that it’s the whole story.
There are also shifts happening with respect to consumer preferences and with respect to how we plan and build our cities. That’s why I’m very interested in monitoring family formations and housing choices.
At the same time, I’m also a Millennial. And whenever I catch myself thinking a certain way, I assume that there are probably other Millennials out there who feel similarly.
Yesterday Lloyd Alter of Treehugger wrote a great rebuttal to my post about homes for families. His argument was that I missed a whole world of building typologies between single family homes and apartments. (Something that architect and urban planner Daniel Parolek calls “The Missing Middle”.)
Now he’s absolutely right. I didn’t mention it – other than provide an option in the survey for townhomes. And he’s right that it’s a tremendous opportunity for cities looking to increase housing supply and improve affordability.
But the reason I didn’t mention it in my survey is because, here in Toronto, we’re not very good at that middle scale.
I previously wrote a post talking about Toronto’s 3 stages of intensification. It went from high-rise to mid-rise, and then to low-rise intensification. And my argument was that we’re still in and figuring out the mid-rise scale. (There are challenges at this scale, but that deserves a separate post.)
Eventually though, I think we will get to low-rise intensification. And that will cover off many of the building typologies that Lloyd is talking about: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and, my personal favorite, laneway houses.
This, of course, isn’t the case in every city. Many cities, such as Montreal, have a strong history of neighborhood-scaled apartments. Lloyd points that out in his article. But that’s not the case here in Toronto.
In fact, Toronto’s Official Plan explicitly designates these low-rise “Neighborhoods” as areas that are stable and should not see much intensification. And it was a great selling point for the Places to Grow Act: intensification here, but not there.
But I think this will change. Not because I’m a real estate developer and I think it should change, but because our current arrangement is causing a dramatic erosion of affordability at the low-rise/ground-related housing scale.
If it were up to me, and it most certainly is not, I would start with laneway housing. It’s a great way to intensify low-rise neighbourhoods without altering the character of the streets.
If you live in a single family neighborhood, I would especially love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.