Showing posts with label Global Housing Watch. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2022
On cross-country:
On the US:
On China
On other countries:
On cross-country:
On the US:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
From Freddie deBoer:
“My relationship to the YIMBY movement is a little complicated. One issue is a tendency to oversimplification. It’s understandable; the NIMBY position really is so noxious and the stakes are so high that there’s a natural desire to speak in black and white. But here’s a point that I don’t see engaged with much: while the zoning and regulatory hurdles are the major impediment to more building and lower costs, I suspect that even after major reform we won’t see immediate levels of building at the scale YIMBYs want and that we need. I suspect that market forces, inertia, and status quo bias will slow new building (and attendant badly-needed housing cost reductions) more than assumed. Tearing down regulatory barriers is essential, but that by itself won’t turn Pacific Heights into Neo-Tokyo.
I think one reason is that, as more density gets built, neighborhoods that preserve “neighborhood character” – that is, that retain the kind of low density lifestyles that characterize many expensive urban neighborhoods – will get attendantly more expensive. And that will make new building less economically attractive in pure market terms. If the luxury premium that you get from each resident is high enough, you can maintain a profit advantage compared to fitting even a great many more tenants into the same space. Rich people will pay a whole lot to keep other people out.
So if you look at the kind of walkable, low-density Brooklyn brownstone lifestyle a lot of people see as enviable, you’ve got places like Boerum Hill, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Park Slope…. These places are expensive for a variety of reasons, but certainly one of them is lower population density and the smaller-scale housing that affords. (You can see this in a neighborhood like Bedford-Stuyvesant, where there’s both very wealthy people and quite poor – and the easiest way to tell which parts are which is to note how dense the housing is.) Right now Park Slope’s large buildings are mostly found on its western edge on 4th Avenue and immediately closest to Prospect Park. In between is a sea of townhouses and other forms of low-density buildings. If we were to enable zoning reform to permit denser building in the streets that are now almost exclusively brownstones, we’d raise the housing stock and create some desperately-needed downward pressures on rents. But we would also find that the kind of bourgie people who would have paid $3 million for a house there would instead start competing for that “small town in a big city” lifestyle in those other neighborhoods, and this competition would make the existing housing stock even more expensive, thus undercutting the financial incentive to tear down low-density housing and put up high rises.
It’s also the case that, since there’s a relationship between housing density and income, the people who would be able to fight against new building most effectively would be those in low-density, even in a much-reformed regulatory environment. Rich people have multiple ways to get what they want, including in a freer housing market. Affluent people can just generate more noise and make life harder on developers even absent the most onerous zoning barriers. Dollars talk. (I had an ex-girlfriend whose family lived in a tony seaside Connecticut town; when someone was going to sell a parcel of land to put up another house on their block, the local residents simply split the cost and bought the lot so that no new building would happen.) And so you can easily imagine a future in which we pass zoning reform and yet Park Slope remains Park Slope, but where a neighborhood like Prospect Lefferts Garden – 75% Black, median income under $40,000, with a lot of single-family housing and a great deal of gentrification anxiety – sees sudden intense building and a resulting change in the demographic composition of the neighborhood. That would enflame precisely the sensitivities that we see in working-class communities of color when new building is proposed. And while I find resistance to such new building misguided, those of us who want to build more have to acknowledge that it’s an ugly thing if rich white people can keep new developments off their block but poor people of color can’t.
(Here’s an NBER paper about the costs of low-density housing such as Brooklyn brownstones, if you’re interested.)”
Continue reading here.
From Freddie deBoer:
“My relationship to the YIMBY movement is a little complicated. One issue is a tendency to oversimplification. It’s understandable; the NIMBY position really is so noxious and the stakes are so high that there’s a natural desire to speak in black and white. But here’s a point that I don’t see engaged with much: while the zoning and regulatory hurdles are the major impediment to more building and lower costs,
Posted by 7:10 PM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Friday, March 11, 2022
On cross-country:
On the US:
On China
On other countries:
On cross-country:
On the US:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Thursday, March 10, 2022
From a new paper by Deniz Igan, Emanuel Kohlscheen and Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul:
“House prices rose strongly in advanced economies during the pandemic, breaking with typical post-recession patterns. These developments support domestic demand in the short term but carry risks to the outlook if they reverse. Rapid economic recovery, fiscal support and high saving rates amid negative real interest rates explain part of the strong housing demand. Pandemic-induced demand for space, structural supply constraints and increased demand from investors provide additional support for house prices. The monetary policy response to inflationary pressures will be a relevant factor when assessing housing market risks. Moderate increases in interest rates could help forestall speculative demand.”
From a new paper by Deniz Igan, Emanuel Kohlscheen and Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul:
“House prices rose strongly in advanced economies during the pandemic, breaking with typical post-recession patterns. These developments support domestic demand in the short term but carry risks to the outlook if they reverse. Rapid economic recovery, fiscal support and high saving rates amid negative real interest rates explain part of the strong housing demand. Pandemic-induced demand for space, structural supply constraints and increased demand from investors provide additional support for house prices.
Posted by 1:50 PM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
From the IMF’s latest report on Hong Kong:
“Residential house prices are on the rise again, contributing to a further increase in the already elevated level of household debt. The average debt-servicing ratio for new mortgages increased to 36.9 percent at its peak in February 2021 from 36.0 percent in December 2019, partly driven by the decline in household income. While household assets are large in aggregate—as reflected by the high household net worth-to-liabilities ratio of 11.2 times and safe assets-to-liabilities ratio of 2.9 times in 2019—the wealth distribution is skewed towards high-income households.
Given the stretched valuation, a disorderly adjustment in the property market could pose a risk to the economy. A sharp house price correction could trigger an adverse feedback loop between house prices, debt service capacity, household consumption, and growth, negatively affecting banks’ balance sheets. In addition, the FSAP analysis indicated that low-income households could be under significant financial stress when facing rising interest rates and falling income. To mitigate such risks, the authorities should continue to carefully monitor the household debt repayment capacity, particularly for low-income households.
The three-pronged approach to increasing housing affordability and containing housing market risks remains valid, but more efforts are needed to raise housing supply.
*Increasing housing supply is critical to resolve the structural supply-demand imbalance. Housing supply has increased on average since 2015 with the implementation of the government’s Long-term Housing Strategy and the Hong Kong 2030+ Strategy, but has fallen short of target by about 30 percent on average. Staff welcomes the identification of the land to provide 330,000 public housing units within the next ten years and urges the authorities to bring the actual public housing production back to the target without further delays. To this end, a comprehensive approach is urgently needed, including increasing land supply for housing production (e.g., land resumption, reclamation, and re-zoning) while expediting and streamlining the process for land identification and production (e.g., environmental, transport, and other relevant assessments). The recently announced Northern Metropolis development strategy could boost housing supply over the longer-term period.
**The macroprudential stance for property markets should be maintained to safeguard financial stability. A series of macroprudential policies that have been introduced and tightened since 2009—such as ceilings on loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, caps on debt service-to-income ratio (DSR), and stress testing of the DSR against interest rate increases—have helped contain vulnerabilities in the banking system (…). Given resilient house prices and mortgage growth, the existing residential property-related macroprudential policies should be kept unchanged for now and any changes should be data-dependent with due attention to the emerging risk of regulatory leakages. Moreover, the Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) should take the lead in strengthening the regular surveillance and data collection on lending by non-bank lenders (e.g., property developers and non-bank financial institutions), and the authorities should regularly reassess the need to expand the regulatory perimeter to mitigate the leakages in macroprudential policies.
***Stamp duties have been effective in containing speculative activity and external demand. The government has introduced three types of stamp duties to curb excess demand by both residents and nonresidents. Although they have helped curb house price increases and contain household leverage and systemic risks, the New Residential Stamp Duty (NRSD) introduced since November 2016 (…) is a residency-based capital flow management measure and a macroprudential measure (CFM/MPM) levied at a higher rate on non-residents than on first-time resident home buyers. Therefore, staff recommends phasing it out once systemic risks from the non-resident inflow dissipate.
Authorities’ Views
The authorities agreed that increasing land supply remains the key to fundamentally resolving the structural imbalance between housing demand and supply. They emphasized that various measures had been taken to boost land supply for housing production, including by accelerating land resumption and expediting and streamlining the process of land production, and such efforts were starting to bear fruits. The authorities viewed the current tight macroprudential stance for housing market as appropriate given the elevated house prices, while noting that they will continue to closely monitor the housing market and stand ready to make necessary adjustments with a view to safeguarding financial stability. They noted that mortgage lending by non-banks has been closely monitored and has declined in recent years amid the authorities’ efforts to regulate banks’ lending to non-banks and the expansion in the mortgage insurance program.”
From the IMF’s latest report on Hong Kong:
“Residential house prices are on the rise again, contributing to a further increase in the already elevated level of household debt. The average debt-servicing ratio for new mortgages increased to 36.9 percent at its peak in February 2021 from 36.0 percent in December 2019, partly driven by the decline in household income. While household assets are large in aggregate—as reflected by the high household net worth-to-liabilities ratio of 11.2 times and safe assets-to-liabilities ratio of 2.9 times in 2019—the wealth distribution is skewed towards high-income households.
Posted by 6:53 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Subscribe to: Posts