Paris is the first city in France to implement some form of residential rent control. The first came in 2014 (enacted in the market in 2015), but this was later removed in 2017. The second came in 2019, and this current program remains in place until November 2026, at which time it will be reviewed.
But given that it has already been in place for a number of years, people have started to analyze it's effectiveness. Here is a study by Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme (APUR) that was published this month.
The report is in French, but I can tell you that, what they did, was compare the Paris region to 8 other cities in France -- all of which do not have the same rent controls. They were: Aix-en-Provence, Grenoble, Marseille, Nantes, Nice, Strasbourg, Toulon, et Toulouse. These were allegedly chosen because their housing markets are thought to be similar to that of Paris'.
What they found was that from July 2019 to July 2023, legislated controls in Paris lowered rents by approximately 4.2%, compared to where they would have been without any market intervention.
At the same time, they noticed that these same controls seemed to become more effective over time. From July 2019 to June 2020, they lowered rents by 2.5%, but from July 2022 to June 2023, they lowered rents by 5.9%.
Paris is the first city in France to implement some form of residential rent control. The first came in 2014 (enacted in the market in 2015), but this was later removed in 2017. The second came in 2019, and this current program remains in place until November 2026, at which time it will be reviewed.
But given that it has already been in place for a number of years, people have started to analyze it's effectiveness. Here is a study by Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme (APUR) that was published this month.
The report is in French, but I can tell you that, what they did, was compare the Paris region to 8 other cities in France -- all of which do not have the same rent controls. They were: Aix-en-Provence, Grenoble, Marseille, Nantes, Nice, Strasbourg, Toulon, et Toulouse. These were allegedly chosen because their housing markets are thought to be similar to that of Paris'.
What they found was that from July 2019 to July 2023, legislated controls in Paris lowered rents by approximately 4.2%, compared to where they would have been without any market intervention.
At the same time, they noticed that these same controls seemed to become more effective over time. From July 2019 to June 2020, they lowered rents by 2.5%, but from July 2022 to June 2023, they lowered rents by 5.9%.
Finally, they also found that the controls seemed to impact smaller places the most. For apartments between 8 and 18 m2, rents were 10.2% lower than expected during July 2019 and July 2023.
This is all interesting stuff, but in many ways, it is expected. Rent controls are intended to depress rental growth. That's the whole point. And based on this data from APUR, it is working in Paris.
But the really tough questions pertain to the possible knock-on effects. If rents are 4.2% lower, but operating costs are now growing faster than rents, then this is a problem for the housing market. You're on an unsustainable path.
And if lower rents mean that fewer developers are going to build new housing, then this is also a problem, because less supply will eventually translate into more upward pressure on rents. I don't know for sure that this is happening in Paris, right now, but these are crucial considerations.
It's never as simple as just looking at rents and thinking lower is better for long-term affordability.
Generally the way the former works is that you have to have been living continuously in the home since July 1, 1971, and the building itself needs to have been constructed before 1947. If this is the case, then in theory, you should have seen relatively minor rent increases over the years.
This was the case for the late real estate agent, Alice Mason, who died at the beginning of this year at the age of 100:
She never left the rent-stabilized [controlled?] apartment where she held her storied dinners, in a century-old building on East 72nd Street. (In Manhattan real estate parlance, it was a classic eight, a gracious prewar layout that included three bedrooms and two maid’s rooms.) In 2011, the developer Harry Macklowe bought the building for a reported $70 million and began to turn the units into condos, buying out the tenants to do so.But Ms. Mason refused to give up her apartment. When she moved there in 1962, the rent was $400 a month. At her death, it was $2,476. The apartment below her, in the same line, was recently on the market for just under $10 million.
Green, Penelope. “Alice Mason, Real Estate Fixer and Hostess to the Elite, Dies at 100.” The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/style/alice-mason-dead.html.
For better or for worse, this is an obviously awesome deal, and reason enough to never move and have family members move in with you before you die so that you can try and pass down this asset for generations to come.
"Your local self-inflicted housing criss ouroboros" tweeted this chart out over the weekend, showing the number of new rental suites completed in Toronto since 1900. The data is from Open Data Toronto and it does not include any condominiums. It also only includes apartment buildings with 10 or more suites (which would be most of the supply anyway).
This chart is a good example of what
Finally, they also found that the controls seemed to impact smaller places the most. For apartments between 8 and 18 m2, rents were 10.2% lower than expected during July 2019 and July 2023.
This is all interesting stuff, but in many ways, it is expected. Rent controls are intended to depress rental growth. That's the whole point. And based on this data from APUR, it is working in Paris.
But the really tough questions pertain to the possible knock-on effects. If rents are 4.2% lower, but operating costs are now growing faster than rents, then this is a problem for the housing market. You're on an unsustainable path.
And if lower rents mean that fewer developers are going to build new housing, then this is also a problem, because less supply will eventually translate into more upward pressure on rents. I don't know for sure that this is happening in Paris, right now, but these are crucial considerations.
It's never as simple as just looking at rents and thinking lower is better for long-term affordability.
Generally the way the former works is that you have to have been living continuously in the home since July 1, 1971, and the building itself needs to have been constructed before 1947. If this is the case, then in theory, you should have seen relatively minor rent increases over the years.
This was the case for the late real estate agent, Alice Mason, who died at the beginning of this year at the age of 100:
She never left the rent-stabilized [controlled?] apartment where she held her storied dinners, in a century-old building on East 72nd Street. (In Manhattan real estate parlance, it was a classic eight, a gracious prewar layout that included three bedrooms and two maid’s rooms.) In 2011, the developer Harry Macklowe bought the building for a reported $70 million and began to turn the units into condos, buying out the tenants to do so.But Ms. Mason refused to give up her apartment. When she moved there in 1962, the rent was $400 a month. At her death, it was $2,476. The apartment below her, in the same line, was recently on the market for just under $10 million.
Green, Penelope. “Alice Mason, Real Estate Fixer and Hostess to the Elite, Dies at 100.” The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/style/alice-mason-dead.html.
For better or for worse, this is an obviously awesome deal, and reason enough to never move and have family members move in with you before you die so that you can try and pass down this asset for generations to come.
"Your local self-inflicted housing criss ouroboros" tweeted this chart out over the weekend, showing the number of new rental suites completed in Toronto since 1900. The data is from Open Data Toronto and it does not include any condominiums. It also only includes apartment buildings with 10 or more suites (which would be most of the supply anyway).
This chart is a good example of what
we spoke about yesterday
: "If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth." And that's exactly what was done in the 1970s. But in reality, the changes were more broad than this. The 1970s saw a
Housing became rightly viewed as a basic human right. But because of this, the policy landscape shifted away from facilitating the private sector, to intervening and regulating the private sector. This included tax changes which negatively impacted new housing development and, yes, rent controls.
Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this dramatically lowered the overall supply of new rental housing. To the point where we had effectively shut off the taps by the late 1990s. Thankfully, the condominium sector stepped in and started meaningfully delivering new housing -- both for sale and for rent (via individual private investors).
The supply of new condominiums in Toronto is not shown above, but there is no question that this (shadow rentals) has formed the vast majority of our new rental stock over the last two decades. But in my view, this shift was largely the result of policy decisions. We decided that we didn't want the private sector building so many new purpose-built rentals, and so we told them to stop.
It then listened remarkably well.
we spoke about yesterday
: "If you want to negatively impact new supply, cap rental growth." And that's exactly what was done in the 1970s. But in reality, the changes were more broad than this. The 1970s saw a
Housing became rightly viewed as a basic human right. But because of this, the policy landscape shifted away from facilitating the private sector, to intervening and regulating the private sector. This included tax changes which negatively impacted new housing development and, yes, rent controls.
Ironically, but not unexpectedly, this dramatically lowered the overall supply of new rental housing. To the point where we had effectively shut off the taps by the late 1990s. Thankfully, the condominium sector stepped in and started meaningfully delivering new housing -- both for sale and for rent (via individual private investors).
The supply of new condominiums in Toronto is not shown above, but there is no question that this (shadow rentals) has formed the vast majority of our new rental stock over the last two decades. But in my view, this shift was largely the result of policy decisions. We decided that we didn't want the private sector building so many new purpose-built rentals, and so we told them to stop.
