Join >4.5k 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
Above is map from Brian Potter (over at Construction Physics) that shows every census tract in the US where vacation homes make up 20% or more of the total number of homes. What you are seeing is a relatively small number of census tracts — 3,372 out of a total of 84,414 (~4%).
Sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing, and so it's interesting to ask the opposite question: Which cities are actually building new housing in walkable neighborhoods? Here is a study published this week by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley that looked at exactly this. What they did was divide all US neighborhoods into five categories based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per resident in 2023.
The categories:
Very Low VMT - 12 miles per person per day
Low VMT - 17.3 miles per person per day
Mid VMT - 21 miles per person per day
High VMT - 25.5 miles per person per day
Very High VMT - 37.5 miles per person day
These seem like oddly specific distances, but it's what they used to sort new housing supply. Here's all of the US:
According to Potter, there are, perhaps not surprisingly, three main drivers of demand: beaches, lakes, and ski resorts. This is why if you drill down into Florida — which has the highest absolute number of vacation homes in the US at over 800k — you'll see that these homes are not evenly distributed across the state. They're on the coasts, and to a lesser extent inland near places like Disney World.
Also noteworthy is the fact that these census tracts tend to match up nicely with the location of ski resorts. Here's the same map of the US but with ski resorts overlaid:
And here's a close up of Salt Lake City and Park City, because, I love Park City:
As of Q1-2025, the US had over 147 million homes, and somewhere around 4.3 million of these were seasonal or vacation homes. If you'd like to better understand where these are and the trends surrounding them, I recommend you check out Potter's post.
Maps via Construction Physics; cover photo by Joe Ol on Unsplash
Since the 1950s, new home production in very low VMT neighborhoods has generally been declining. Most of the lower VMT stuff was built before the 1940s, which is why New York City is so walkable and its chart looks like this:
Most newer cities do not build in this way. In fact, based on this study, there are only five large metro areas in the US that have (1) built at least 15% of their total housing since 2000 (meaning, they're a younger city) and (2) built at least 40% of their homes over the last decade in lower-VMT neighborhoods (very low and low).
These metro regions are:
This is not that many cities. At the same time, is it even the right benchmark to be aspiring to? "Lower VMT" just means you don't need to drive as much as you might in other neighborhoods. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you live in an amenity-rich and walkable community. What about the new homes being built in neighborhoods where people don't need a car at all? How many of these exist?
Very few, I'm sure.
Cover photo by Jo Heubeck & Domi Pfenninger on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
