Join >4.6k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Real estate may be local, but a lot of markets appear to be correlated. I felt that way this past summer when I was meeting with developers in Paris and I continue to feel this way when I read articles about other markets. Here's a recent one from Building Salt Lake talking about the state of Utah's multi-family market.
Based on the article, cap rates appear to be in the mid-4s for newish product, which is too low right now:
Investors aren’t jumping at the 4.6 cap deals they can typically find in Utah today, she added, when they could get over 5.5 in other major markets.
“Salt Lake, a 4.6 cap, I personally think it’s a little mispriced relative to where else we can put our money,” Schultz said.
This means that there aren't the asset trades to support new development. To justify ground-up development, developers need to see a positive spread between their development yield and the exit cap — one that compensates them for the additional risk of construction. If that spread isn't there, or if it's unclear what it might actually be, development shuts off.
Rents and values coming down also doesn't help:
Back in 2022, which was the peak of the market, you could underwrite double-digit rent growth on a typical 250-apartment deal Downtown. Now, he said, “we’re seeing that effective rents down about 8.25%.”
Overall multifamily values are down 26%, King said, though he added that’s not indicative of every single project or every deal. He also said that decline came after four years of record supply and double-digit rent growth.
What should be clear from these excerpts is that Salt Lake City is not at the point in the cycle where developers are jumping to deliver new ground-up multi-family product. They're at the point in the cycle where firms are looking and hoping to buy distressed assets below replacement cost.
Cover photo by Saul Flores on Unsplash
Everybody wants a 3 bedroom condo or apartment until they see what they cost. We've spoken about this before. We know that the barrier is cost (i.e. affordability) and that many cities have more cost-effective alternatives. The result is that developers have a strong incentive to build smaller 1-bedroom apartments. And by strong incentive, I mean that it might be the only way to pencil a new project.
I think some people believe that developers are only doing this to profit maximize and that they could build more family-sized apartments if only they really wanted to. But it's not that simple. There needs to be a market for it at rental rates that can generate a positive margin for developers.
To show just how strong these market forces are, here's a chart from Bobby Fijan showing how Austin has changed its unit mix over the past 25 years. From 2000 to 2005, more than 50% of new apartments were 2 beds. But from 2021 to 2025, this shared dropped to less than 25%, and studio and 1 beds now make up nearly 80% of the new multi-family market.
This is the new construction market in the vast majority of North American cities today.
Cover photo by Jeremy Doddridge on Unsplash
"Rent control is the second-best way to destroy a city, after bombing." —Lawrence H. Summers
Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City, clearly ran a good campaign. He used social media and short-form videos to find his audience and win with the message that the city has become unattainable to most.
But it is also clear that the stock market really does not like his message. Shares of firms with exposure to New York City's real estate market reacted immediately: Vornado Realty Trust, SL Green, Equity Residential, Empire State Realty Trust, LXP Industrial Trust, and others, were all down. At the same time, the wealthy vowed to leave New York for places like Florida, as they so often do these days.
One of reasons for this negative reaction was Mamdani's commitment to not just cap rent increases, but freeze rents in rent-stabilized units for the entire duration of his term. We've spoken a lot about rent control over the years (here, here, here, and other places) but, at a high level, the problem with rent controls is that they create a strong disincentive for landlords to invest and maintain their homes and for developers to build new homes. So what ultimately happens is that you get a more rapidly aging inventory of existing homes and a reduced amount of new supply.
A full-out rent freeze takes this even further. A rent freeze does not mean that utility costs will also be frozen, that insurance and taxes will be frozen, that interest rates will be capped, and that all other landlord operating expenses will be restricted from inflating. (If this were the case, we really wouldn't have market economy.) So what a rent freeze does is ensure that, in real dollars, a landlord is able to collect
The same is true in condominiums and other ownership structures. Whenever somebody talks about frozen maintenance or common element fees, I immediately remind them that this is a bad thing, not a feature. It means the condominium corporation is on an unsustainable path and will eventually run out of money. Something is being sacrificed in order to keep up with rising operating and capital expenses. At the very least, you need to keep up with inflation.
I can appreciate that rents are too high. As a developer, I would love to be able to build to lower rents. It reduces absorption risk and it's better for the city. But rather than just freeze rents, a more productive and sustainable approach would be to attack the underlying root causes for the problem. A rent freeze is a short-term political fix that will have second and third-order consequences. Problems for a different day and for a different mayor, perhaps. But problems nonetheless.
Cover photo by Daryan Shamkhali on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
50