Since 2009, policymakers in Minneapolis having been implementing land use changes to encourage more housing supply. Some of these changes have included eliminating parking minimums, encouraging multi-family buildings up to 6 storeys on commercial corridors, establishing height minimums in high-density zones, and permitting triplexes on all residential lots. It's, from what I can tell, the type of stuff that many cities have now done or are looking to do. But it seems to have worked remarkably well in Minneapolis. According to The Pew, between 2017 and 2022, the city issued permits for nearly 21,000 new homes and nearly 87% of them were for homes in buildings with 20 or more suites.
This is interesting. It tells us that the triplex policies don't seem to be doing all that much, but that the market has certainly taken to larger multi-family projects. This is an accomplishment. Even more importantly, though, is that it seems to be having a measurable impact on average rents. During the same time period as above, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12% and average rents increased by only 1%. Whereas the rest of Minnesota only increased its housing stock by 4% and, maybe as a result, average rents went up by 14%. Changes in homelessness also look dramatically different.
It looks to be a similar story to what's playing out in Austin: increased housing supply is tempering rent growth. (Okay, in the case of Austin it seems to be causing rents to fall.) What I would be interested in seeing now is a further breakdown of this 87% share. Because 20 suites is a different kind of build than 300 suites. It's different for developers and it's different for cities. And I'd like to know if the market is favoring one over the other, or if it's building apartments at all scales. If the city is in fact building lots of new apartments at multiple scales, then this is even more of an accomplishment. It means there might be no "missing middle."
Cover photo by Eastman Childs on Unsplash
Rental housing in France is both heavily regulated and supported through dedicated public funds. Here's a high-level overview of what that means (via this 2021 Brookings case study by Arthur Acolin):
Homeownership rates in France went from 35% in 1954 to 56% in 2001
As of 2018, 58% of French households own, 40% rent, and the remaining 2% supposedly get free housing from either their employer or a family member
Not surprisingly, younger households are most likely to rent (the figure is > 60% for people aged 18-29)
Household size seems to play a major factor in how likely people are to live in public housing
France has some 4.5 million public housing units and 17% of all households live in them (which represents about 43% of all renter households)
Within the unsubsidized rental market, 93.5% of households live in homes owned by individual investors (this is as of 2013) and only about 3.5% live in homes owned by institutional investors
This is pretty typical of Europe, where multi-family isn't an established real estate asset class like it is in North America; so for those of you who like to hate on individual condo investors, check out France
In the decade between 2010 and 2020, 28 metro regions in France adopted some form of rent control and, in a few markets, like Paris and Lille, there are also maximum rents that can be charged for specific housing types
If you're interested in rental housing, Brookings also has articles covering the US, Germany, Spain, Japan, and the UK. They can be found here.
We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.
At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it's to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.
Which is probably why there's a growing interest in building more of it. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here's a photo of Culdesac's new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn't look like the Arizona I know):
But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:
“Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”
This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.
I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.
However, it's going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating "walkable archipelagos" or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we'll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.