Here is a chart that we have all seen many times before. This one is from a recent New York Times opinion piece called, "America Needs to Build More Housing" and it shows the relationship between home prices (the price-to-income ratio) and houses built (average housing starts per 1,000 households). In this scatter chart, the four quadrants are as follows:
Cities that don't build a lot of housing and are expensive (San Francisco)
Cities that don't build a lot of housing but are still relatively affordable (Chicago)
Cities that build a lot of housing and are affordable (Austin)
Cities that build a lot of housing but are still relatively expensive (Hilton Head Island)
This last quadrant has the fewest number of data points and a number of the locations are resort or second-home destinations, which have their own unique market dynamics. Similarly, the lower-supply cities, like Chicago and Detroit, have managed to maintain some degree of affordability by virtue of the fact that their population and economic demand haven't grown as quickly as in other cities.
But generally speaking, the correlation is as one would expect: more homes equals lower prices. It is, however, worth pointing out that not all homes are created equal. The cost and time required to build a low-rise, wood-framed house in the suburbs is not the same as building a high-density, reinforced-concrete tower in the city.
Still, we know that all forms of supply ultimately improve affordability in a market. With this in mind, how might one describe Toronto today? We've been told we're in the midst of a housing crisis, and yet there are lots of available homes on the market, both to buy and rent. Indeed, it's a buyer's and tenant's market. So what's going on?
Well, it's important to keep in mind that a chart like this represents a long-term historical average and that building new housing generally takes a long time (too long, I might add). Right now, we could describe the Toronto housing market like the proverbial "pig in a python."
The market is in the midst of absorbing a huge influx of completed supply and, as our chart suggests, this is having a deflationary effect on home prices in the short term. However, once this pig gets digested, there's absolutely nothing next in the pipeline to digest, and according to basic economics, we know exactly what that will mean for the market.
Cover photo by Artem Labunsky on Unsplash
Chart via the New York Times
What I have learned from this recent New York Times article is that if you have a company with "AI" in the name — such as OpenAI, ScaleAI, Adept AI, Hayden AI, or Harvey AI — then you probably need to lease office space in an area of San Francisco (around the Mission District) that is now being called The Arena. Here's a map from the article:
The struggles of San Francisco's office market have been well publicized. At the beginning of this year, San Francisco had the highest office vacancy in the US at approximately 27.8%. But beneath this headline, AI firms have leased more than 5 million square feet in the city since 2020. And CBRE is forecasting that AI-related companies will lease another 16 million square feet between now and 2030. So here comes the boom following the bust — which is the bipolar way in which San Francisco generally likes to operate.
But what is also interesting is that, even in this brave new world of AI, blockchains, and remote work, agglomeration economies are alive and well. AI companies are choosing to physically cluster in The Arena because there are economic benefits to doing so. There are mountains of research to support the fact that it will make these firms more innovative and more productive due to knowledge spillovers. You don't want to be isolated from your competitors — you want to be cheek by jowl. Physical proximity matters and, therefore, cities matter.
So much so that the New York Times is now asking: What if San Francisco is the new Silicon Valley? In other words, could its center of gravity be right now moving from the suburbs to the city? That makes perfect sense to me.
Cover photo by Josh Hild on Unsplash; map from the New York Times
Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:
Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.
The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:
Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”
According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.
Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?
Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash