Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Saturday, January 28, 2012, 1:55 PM
1 Comment
In the Sunday New York Times there is an interesting real estate cover story: So You’re Priced Out. Now What? that compares core neighborhoods with competing, less expensive alternatives. I provided the data fodder for the piece. Not always perfect apples to apples comparisons because neighborhoods in the boroughs are generally not homogenous, but clearly there is some linkage.
In analyzing real estate trends, I tend to think in terms of competition:
- House versus house
- Buyer versus seller
- Buyer versus buyer
- Seller versus seller
- Bank versus bank
- Brokerage versus brokerage
- Agent versus agent
- School district versus school district
- Location versus location, etc.
And on the location aspect of value, I certainly think about prices in one neighborhood versus another (i.e. Soho vs. Tribeca, Upper East Side vs. Upper West Side) all day long (it’s how I make my living) but I look at them on a correlative basis not a competing basis – how one poaches or syphons off buyers from another.
I’m not exactly sure what it all means but I’m rethinking it.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 8:30 AM
2 Comments
[click to expand]
According to the 2010 Census, the hype (and promise) of new urbanism and the dying suburbs aren’t exactly accurate. Here are the results of an analysis by newgeography (hat tip to The Atlantic)
In each of the eight metropolitan areas, the suburbs grew at a rate substantially greater than that of the core municipality. The core municipalities had an average growth from 2000 to 2010 of 3.2 percent. Suburban growth was 21.7 percent, nearly 7 times as great. Overall, the number of people added to the suburbs was 14 times that added to the core municipalities.
The analysis also found that the core areas that had older housing stock saw more modest development growth and population loss.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 1:00 AM
1 Comment
Source: Extraordinary Observations [click to expand]
In a newly discovered blog, Extraordinary Observations by Rob Pitingolo (ht: WSJ/Real Time Economics), I found a refreshing look at a key economic resource: “people” in his post “Where the Smart People Live”.
One of the trends I had observed during the housing boom was a move toward new urbanism. Re-purposed (my favorite new word) commercial buildings in urban centers to residential units and public spaces. It began to feel like urban areas were getting the better of the suburbs and perhaps, in theory, the more upgraded urban markets attracted talent from markets that didn’t adapt to the trend.
Rob’s analysis looked at city and urban density patterns and even “degree sprawl.” Really clever.
It’s becoming increasingly accepted that there is real economic value to bringing a lot of smart and entrepreneurial people together in the same place. This can be tough to measure, unfortunately. Perhaps best proxy we have available is educational attainment – usually measured as the number of people in a particular place with bachelor’s degrees or higher, as reported by the Census Bureau.
Where the Smart People Live [Extraordinary Observations]
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 11:19 AM
Comments Off
National Trust for Historic Preservation does a lot of good work slowing the disappearance of US landmarks.
One might incorrectly assume their job might be a tad easier (thereby diminishing the urgency of their cause) without the massive quantity of essentially free mortgage money that was available for some crazy stupid development during the recent credit boom. The tear it down mantra seems a bit dated now.
The Trust created a Flickr photo pool for their new campaign.
No biggie but it’s fun to peruse. Of course, remember who is writing the blog and how boring he is. After being out of the loop for vacation, I feel the need to clear my desk so forgive the larger than usual volume of posts coming at you this week.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Thursday, May 7, 2009, 12:52 AM
Comments Off
One of my favorite visuals when I visit San Francisco are the trolleys and street cars. When I rode a street car for the first time a few years ago, I didn’t realize that they were largely retired cars purchased from eastern cities like Newark and Philadelphia.
Here’s a cool map from The Infrastructurist (hat tip to The Architect’s Newspaper Blog) outlining where some of the activity is. There’s a version on the infrastructurist site
There seems to be a bit of a renaissance toward light rail service in many cities given their reasonable economics and limited pollution among other advantages (such as fun). This has likely been a result of the swing towards urban residential development, especially in former commercial districts and class b and c office markets. The credit boom fueled demand for residential housing in downtown markets and more need for public transportation.
With the recession, credit crunch and falling tax collections being experienced in many urban municipalities, I wonder if the opportunity for light rail expansion is already past. Transportation is always a key consideration in urban residential housing market.
Man, I love trains.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Friday, September 5, 2008, 12:11 AM
4 Comments
A study by Michigan State University, one of the best schools on the planet (ok, it’s my alma mater), found that:
Good landscaping can increase your home’s value by 5% to 11%
“Most lawns should be cut between 2 1/2 and three inches high,” says John Stier, professor of horticulture at the University of Wisconsin’s turfgrass extension program and playing-field consultant for stadiums in the National Football League and Major League Baseball.
It’s essentially like decorating the interior of a house. Sellers should present a home in a neutral manner so the buyer can envision moving in.
The marketability may be enhanced because the property has an edge over competing listings. This may translate into shorter marketing times, a higher price or both.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Saturday, April 5, 2008, 10:35 PM
Comments Off
I recently got a copy of The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas researched by Jenny Schuetz, Rachel Meltzer, and Vicki Been of the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University. I have had the pleasure of knowing Vicki Been and the good work of the Furman Center. Last summer I had honor of having a paper I co-authored with the Furman Center back in 2003 published in the Journal of Legal Studies.
I’ve always been intrigued by the influence of zoning on housing: why a town or neighborhood has a consistent housing stock, higher end type of property, limited multi-unit dwellings, limited of commercial space, (let alone the lack of chain-link fences, a key source of suburban blight).
Zoning tends to be exclusion based to keep affordable housing out of specific areas and has a lot to due with whether a housing market is higher priced in certain markets and not in others.
Inclusionary zoning, also known as inclusionary housing, refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require that a given share of new construction be affordable to people with low to moderate incomes.
the average annual number of single-family permits issued during the 1980s, 1990s and since
2000. As shown in the first two groups, the changes in annual permits since 1980 are quite
similar when comparing all jurisdictions that had not adopted IZ by 2006 and all those that had
adopted IZ at some point. However, this comparison obscures considerable variation among
jurisdictions with IZ, as shown in the last four groups of columns. In particular, those
jurisdictions that adopted IZ prior to 1980 or after 2000 issued substantially more permits, both
before and after adoption, than jurisdictions that adopted IZ in the 1980s and 1990s. The most
recent adopters seem to have been developing much more rapidly in the early decades and saw
dramatic drops in the number of permits, even before adopting IZ.
Although less pronounced, there is also considerable variation in changes in housing prices
among jurisdictions with IZ (Figure 7.2). Jurisdictions that adopted IZ prior to 1980 had higher
than average housing prices as early as 1980 and have seen some of the sharpest increases in
prices between 1980 and 2000. This would be consistent with either the explanation that IZ
resulted in higher prices in those locations, or that jurisdictions with strong location-specific
demand were some of the first to adopt IZ. As of 1980, jurisdictions that adopted IZ in the 1980s
and 1990s more closely resembled those that have never adopted IZ, and have seen price
increases roughly comparable to the non-IZ group since then. The most recent adopters, which
had some of the lowest housing prices at the beginning of our study period, have seen relatively
modest price increases, and in 2000 were still relatively affordable.
Such zoning can be controversial. It is often done without public funds and can promote economic and racial integration, but can restrict development of open market properties, creating higher priced housing, reducing affordability.
The report draft is a good read.
While you’re at it, take a look at The Effect of Community Gardens
on Neighboring Property by Vicki, and my co-author Ioan Voicu. Interesting stuff.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 10:29 AM
Comments Off
In the widely email distributed article this week from The Atlantic (and what’s up with the Atlantic these days? an even better read.): The Next Slum? Christopher Leinberger suggests that the problems of the inner city may work their way into the suburbs.
Thats a logical argument given the trend toward new urbanism …city’s rule, suburbs drool, as they say.
Crime and vacant properties seem to be on the rise in suburbia but I think that phenomenon is attributable to the rise in foreclosure rates due to subprime and credit problems. Many houses were built for people who egenrally couldn’t afford them or they were very vulnerable to an up tick in mortgage rates. Take Stockton, CA for example.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
However, I would think builders would adapt to the change in demand. I am not entirely sold on the logic presented since the lack of demand for McMansions would drop their value and bring more demand. Nelson appears to be suggesting a nation full of empty homes.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.
However, the idea that urban centers could see more home price appreciation than the exurbs or even the suburbs over the next few decades is plausible. It’s already occurring.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Monday, April 23, 2007, 12:01 AM
1 Comment
Since 2003 I have provided a chart that appears once a month in the Economic Spotlight section of Crain’s New York Business magazine. Here is this month’s chart appearing in the current issue of Crain’s New York Business.
Source: Crain’s New York Business
Go here for a complete archive of all my Crains’s New York Economic Spotlight charts. They are organized by year.
As an added bonus (to me, actually, ’cause I am in it), there is an interesting article in Crain’s on how NYC currently has the edge over the outlying suburbs.
Posted by Jonathan J. Miller -Monday, February 12, 2007, 10:40 AM
Comments Off
On our other blog, Soapbox, in the post called Martha of Katonah, a The Hall Monitor column by Todd Huttunen, brings back memories of the rock band, The Knack, singing Martha Stewart’s version of “My Sharona Katonah, about a sleepy town in Westchester County, New York.
….sort of.
Next Page »
