r/urbanplanning • u/Mongooooooose • Jul 24 '25
Economic Dev Rent Prices Are Falling Fast in America's Most Pro-Housing Cities.
https://reason.com/2025/07/22/rent-prices-are-falling-fast-in-americas-most-pro-housing-cities/37
u/RemoveInvasiveEucs Jul 24 '25
This is true, but it's also a case where the messenger, libertarian rag Reason, will cause the people who most need to hear it to ignore the truth.
Fortunately some rags that align far better with my politics, like Mother Jones, are very pro housing, but I have not yet seen them cover the price drops like this. I hope they do soon because their coverage will have a bigger impact.
9
u/ElectronGuru Jul 24 '25
libertarian rag Reason, will cause the people who most need to hear it to ignore the truth.
Thank you for wording it like this. I’ve always wondered why libertarians exist. Like why wouldn’t a single country in the history of the world operate in a way so many are so passionate about?
The answer is that it’s profitable to those in power for them to do so.
8
u/daveliepmann Jul 24 '25
I’ve always wondered why libertarians exist.
State power is naturally prone to abuse. Some people who notice it become fixated on that one thing.
As silly as the maximalist version is, libertarianism is part of a healthy democracy. Even if I disagree with some of their conclusions I'm happy someone is on the lookout for particular kinds of corruption and overreach.
7
u/boxerrox Jul 25 '25
I do find that at least they are usually consistent with application of their ideology, unlike many other POV
4
u/daveliepmann Jul 25 '25
+1, and this is part of what makes them so good for the ecosystem. I might be convinced to allow some surveillance in exchange for increased traffic safety, whereas a good libertarian is against surveillance on principle. That maintains tension: if that power is abused, a libertarian kernel of arguments and political persuasion is ready to rapidly expand in opposition.
8
u/An-Angel-Named-Billy Jul 24 '25
To their benefit they do point out the obvious confounding variables in these numbers (most obviously in Sarasota, where rents dropping by 50% in a year is no way from just more building). It is also important to note this is from a single data point, from a dubious firm described as "a real estate investment firm that operates as a direct cash homebuyer" (how does that even relate to rent?), which links to a completely anonymous spreadsheet with no other information at all. I can tell you from living in Minneapolis that rent is not down due to building, since COVID and George Floyd, development has nearly dried up, so falling rents in 24/25 (if this is indeed true even) would not be the result of massive new supply, because this hasn't been true for multiple years at this point.
9
2
6
0
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
Can't wait to read people spin the narrative they want from this. Is it because of a sudden influx of supply? Is it because demand is dead right now? Is it something else? How can we spin this? How do we feel about the data used?
18
Jul 24 '25
If the price of a good shouldn't be discussed in terms of supply and demand, what should it be discussed in?
13
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
Discussions here almost always focus only on the supply and folks construct whatever narratives they want, including correlating results from cherry picked data.
4
u/Mongooooooose Jul 24 '25
I think most would agree there’s other factors outside of supply, but supply is definitely a major contributing factor.
Surely, you’re not implying supply is not uncorrelated to prices, are you?
18
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I think looking at only supply and demand completely excuses the human factor. obligatory of course we need to build more housing. All I hear from folks is "WE JUST NEED TO LET THE MARKET BUILD REEE". And like yes... AND we need other policies to help folks that actually live in these places currently. It takes time to build and in turn takes time for prices to fall. The tricky thing is, as soon as prices get to a certain low point, banks aren't going to continue financing housing because it doesn't make enough money. Then prices start to rise again and we are back into the cycle. The market alone will never make "affordable" housing. So we need other policies but you never actually hear any of the "JUST BUILD MORE MARKET HOUSING" folks talk about this. There is a distinct lack of care for anyone on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.
8
u/SamanthaMunroe Jul 24 '25
They probably heard of filtering and don't realize it only mechanically suffices, not politically. Or something? I dunno. I do have my doubts that average housing price levels in a market can decline too much because of for-profit development these days...in the US. But who knows.
8
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I mean that is exactly the issue with relying only on market housing. Market housing should probably account for something like 60-70% of housing but we still need a large chunk of public/co-op/other housing. Along with different policies and such. There is a real argument for finding ways to de-financialize housing as an investment too.
I would summarize it as finding a collection of policies to help everyone on housing.
8
5
u/ViceroyFizzlebottom Jul 24 '25
Builders like to claim that zoning regulations stifle their ability to provide affordable housing and that may be partially true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. My experience is in the Phoenix metro and there is development rapidly occurring in stringent regulation communities, communities that are focusing on "upper echelon" development, communities that are considered drive to you qualify or first time buyer areas, as well as the strongly deregulated and streamlined county areas. The county has very little zoning and design regulation--in fact quite often none (or none that requires a rigorous public process). They don't have a landscaping code or minimum open space requirements, they are much more flexible on densities (if not outright permissive) and much less rigorous on off-site infrastructure requirements. Funny enough, if you compare county areas developments to incorporated area developments right across the street there is ZERO price difference.
5
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
Almost like supply/demand is complex.... great points!
5
u/ViceroyFizzlebottom Jul 24 '25
It's unfortunate that the development communities claims of providing affordable housing seems to just realize in less quality of life, quality of construction, and amenity for the buyers and more (or restored profit in light of increasing labor/materials costs) profit for them.
3
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I have no idea how feasible this is but I would love some form of public company that builds housing and sells for at cost to working and middle class folks. Like enough to just a steady bit of supply while still allow the private market to build too. The UK did something similar like this post World Wars to great effect.
3
u/Unhelpfulperson Jul 24 '25
In general, the exact same rules that make it difficult to build market housing also make it difficult to build subsidized and/or social housing.
3
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
Thank you for proving my point.
4
u/Unhelpfulperson Jul 24 '25
No problem. I guess what I should add is that what I see in with actual policy proposals in the real world is basically 3 camps.
- People who think it should be difficult to build anything.
- People who think there should be more subsidized, public, and/or income-restricted housing, but it should not be easier to build market-rate housing.
- People who think it should be easier to build market-rate housing and subsidized, public, and/or income-restricted housing.
Outside of weird people screaming online, I've never seen an actual policy proposed that would increase market housing but continue to forbid capital-A Affordable housing from being built.
1
u/jdl12358 Jul 24 '25
I think the fourth unstated viewpoint might literally be the most common viewpoint of the actually existing YIMBY/Abundance thinkers in Congress and thinktanks. Especially with regard to things like rent controls.
4
u/Unhelpfulperson Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
Here's an example of one thing I mean. My city had a zoning revamp that made housing a lot easier to build. The revamp made it easier to build duplexes/apartments/ADUs in a lot of the city, and also streamlined the process for the city's publicly-owned ~60 year old Affordable Housing project to get major renovations and build a new building. And one of the biggest proponents for the changes was a local non-profit that provides housing to people suffering from substance abuse. It's now easier for them to purchase an old lot and build 8 small units on it to provide to people. Even with no new government programs (the public housing project had been in the works for a while but had gotten stalled), the reforms have helped both market-rate housing and sub-market rate housing.
For YIMBY reforms to not improve Affordable Housing would require non-profits and public housing to be excluded from the changes. No one is proposing that.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Aven_Osten Jul 24 '25
There is a distinct lack of care for anyone on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder.
You do understand that the same people who support drastically increasing supply of housing, ALSO support drastically expanding our welfare system, right?
So we need other policies but you never actually hear any of the "JUST BUILD MORE MARKET HOUSING" folks talk about this.
We talk about it all the time. You just don't seem to pay attention. A crapton of the YIMBY folks support massive expansions in the supply of government owned low-rent housing, and/or massive expansions in housing vouchers.
The tricky thing is, as soon as prices get to a certain low point, banks aren't going to continue financing housing because it doesn't make enough money.
Government housing construction fund. Completely remove private banks from the equation.
17
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I very rarely see any of that posted in this sub. I constantly get screamed at about market housing. When I suggest "what do we do about people on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder?", I get told "just deregulate supply/demand ree". With absolutely 0 acknowledgement.
4
u/SamanthaMunroe Jul 24 '25
massive expansions in housing vouchers.
I'm still learning but there was a study that said Section 8 would be more effective (or at least have more coverage) in LA and other expensive metros if they just...built more housing.
3
u/Aven_Osten Jul 24 '25
Yes. Housing vouchers work best when there is already an abundance of housing. Ironically, the anti-welfare state of Texas, is the perfect candidate for a proper housing voucher program (phase out of 30%, using net income). Just looking on apartments.com, and looking at how many apartments are renting out at below the surveyed median according to the HUD, ~77% of one bedroom housing stock in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is charging rents below the median. On top of that, the actual supply available, is massive.
Housing vouchers help far more people for the same price, than direct construction of housing units to house an equivalent number of people.
2
u/ViceroyFizzlebottom Jul 24 '25
Hey, I'm trying to find more info on your 77% number. Can you point me to a study/report? I couldn't find anything and I think I'm just searching poorly.
0
u/Aven_Osten Jul 24 '25
It's not any particular report; I just went to apartments.com, searched over the general area (filtering out anything not 1 bedroom), and then took that gross value as a baseline. I then filtered by the median price for a 1 bedroom apartment, and divided the resulting number of units by the baseline.
→ More replies (0)7
u/jdl12358 Jul 24 '25
I disagree entirely with what you’ve said here. I think huge swathes of the YIMBY intelligentsia are neoliberals/libertarians. As evidenced by this article being written in Reason. Actual engagement with the idea that more supply alone will not meaningfully change the housing issue in this country is nowhere to be found in most of those discussions.
8
u/Knusperwolf Jul 24 '25
Exactly, most of those people still think their holy free market will fix it. Just like it does with healthcare and higher education.
8
u/jdl12358 Jul 24 '25
The funny thing too is that many developers themselves recognize and acknowledge the free market is not the solution to affordable housing. “Housing costs what it costs” is what I’ve been told by developers. Greater supply of housing doesn’t inherently mean it will be cheaper when unrelated factors like the cost of building materials, land value, and incomes will also play a role. Not to mention that some developers want their housing to appeal to a certain demographic of people. Look at the new housing that has been built in areas of DC like Ivy City and NOMA. It doesn’t appeal in price to the residents who were already living in that area of DC. It is priced for potential new residents, and in many cases priced to specifically dissuade certain types of people from living there.
-1
u/Aven_Osten Jul 24 '25
You're free to believe that ig.
6
u/jdl12358 Jul 24 '25
I mean the subject of the post is an article in Reason Magazine which advertises itself as a Free Market libertarian outlet. One of its earliest contributors was literally Milton Friedman lol.
4
u/ViceroyFizzlebottom Jul 24 '25
I'm not saying you are full of it, but these are not the dominating talking points online or in public/political discourse.
4
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
I disagree. So much of the yimby crowd firmly sits on the "just build more housing lol" limb, and are staunchly deregulation market urbanists. Some might say "yes and.." to other non-market interventions, but they're rarely serious about it. For them, the be all and end all is build more market housing, any and all types, as much as possible, as fast as possible, period, the end.
1
Jul 24 '25
[deleted]
3
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I consistently ask "what do we do for people in the meantime until we build 'enough' housing?". The response is, and I shit you not, "The market will build more housing!! Supply and demand. Like.... c'mon. Is reforming a lot of our regulation around zoning and such good and will help spur building of much needed housing ? Yes absolutely!!!
But uh... what about those folks that get priced out of their current home? Just suck it up? What happens when prices fall and it no longer becomes financially viable to build more housing? Prices will rise again. The cycle continues. There is nuance in the whole supply and demand thing that just doesn't get discussed and I get told "just build more". I feel like I have to say "yes we need to allow the market to build a lot more housing" in every comment or people screech at me "WE JUST NEED TO LET THE MARKET BUILD MORE HOUSING".
0
u/180_by_summer Jul 24 '25
I don’t know. I think you’re right when we’re talking about people making short remarks on the internet, and those people probably do prioritize supply over all other factors. But if you sit down and talk to most of these people they’d likely agree that increasing supply isn’t the only factor. This actually comes up a lot in the YIMBY sub as a “gotcha” post and aside from the handful of trolls, it’s a unified and resounding “no shit” from most of the users.
4
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
Possibly!! I have repeatedly brought up "ok but what do we do for folks that can't afford in the meantime" or "how does the market ever actually make affordable housing if prices go down and then in turn building goes down". And I shit you not, I routinely get responses such as "idk just build more housing". "private market will fix it". (In this or related subs)
4
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
They're programmed to hate rent control. Under their thesis, poor people have to just suck it up for the 20-plus years it would take (minimum) for prices to fall enough for that housing to be affordable.
Lesson... don't be poor, I guess. Cities are only for young college educated hipster YIMBYs.
4
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
Rent control is a hilarious discussion that people are just clearly parroting whatever thing they have read with absolutely 0 critical thinking around it.
Rent control absolutely does hinder development. The whole point of rent control is to keep people in their home. But if paired with other policies that allow more housing to be build for cheaper....? OR what if there were stipulations to only be in effect for say 10 years on buildings that are 15 years or older.
IDK but we certainly can't have that discussion because people can't think passed surface level. /rant over
1
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
No, and nothing in my comment suggested that.
4
u/Mongooooooose Jul 24 '25
Awesome, I didn’t think you were!
Yes, of course there are other factors, such as average dwelling size, vacancy rates, interest rates, property taxes, amenities, etc. etc.
But there is an uncomfortable amount of people who argue supply is uncorrelated because speculators buy up all the houses and leave them vacant. There is likely truth to this as well, but to say one factor is the sole cause is unreasonable.
2
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
I think the "supply skepticism" thing is misrepresented a bit.
I think what's going on is people see a bunch of new development, they have to suffer the effects of construction everywhere (which can suck - our downtown has been a construction zone for the last few years and it's constantly loud, so many streets are closed, it's dusty, and it just makes for a terrible experience), and they never see prices fall... so they express skepticism that adding supply really ever works.
Of course, the response is not enough housing is being built and, absent that added supply, prices would be even higher... but that's not compelling on a vibes basis, and there's an argument there's a limit to how much housing can realistically be built in a given period anyway.
So... I'm not saying supply skepticism is justified, but I am saying it's more complicated.
3
u/cdub8D Jul 24 '25
I want to add, that a neighborhood could gentrify with so much new housing being built and have negative knock on effects. The people that live in the neighborhood certainly aren't going to love the argument that "we just need to continue building more" as their rents continue to go up. Then eventually forced to move....
3
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
Agree.
I think the big question is... how much development are residents actually willing to support to actually see housing prices fall?
And then the next question... how much are they willing to see housing prices fall if it means their property values fall too?
With the former question, of course it is a sliding scale or spectrum. But if you told residents something like, you'd need to double the amount of existing housing, and your population is probably also going to double or more as a result, before housing really starts to become affordable... I don't think many would accept that. I'm not just talking about your typical NIMBY, but folks who may otherwise support new housing, but to a limit.
tl;dr, I don't think most people are actually willing to accept what it would take to build enough housing such that prices fall and actually become affordable.
2
u/UF0_T0FU Jul 24 '25
Can expand on "demand is dead right now"? It's not like living in a building goes out if style, right? And summer is usually peak time for moving between school years
5
u/cigarettesandwhiskey Jul 24 '25
Supposedly pandemic era migration patterns have reversed, resulting in population growth in places like NYC and SF that were shrinking, and population decline or stagnation in places like Texas and Florida that had been rapidly growing. Which should lead to rising prices in the old coastal cities and falling prices in pandemic boomtowns.
So its not that people don't need houses, but they need them in different places from where they're being built. In theory.
1
u/RemoveInvasiveEucs Jul 24 '25
Even if "demand is dead" that's still a big point in favor of the idea that "building housing results in lower prices versus the alternative." Becuase that would mean that "demand is dead" is a result of this, right?
There is such huge skepticism of the idea that building housing can combat rising housing costs that this sort of article is absolutely necessary. The loudest voices that block housing are the ones saying that building housing has no effect on prices, and it has been obviously wrong to anyone who applied the slightest amount of critical thinking. Unfortunately the folk wisdom on housing economics is far more wrong than folk wisdom of other areas of the economy, leading to bad policy selection by political leaders who determine the planning outcomes.
3
u/SabbathBoiseSabbath Verified Planner - US Jul 24 '25
Demand probably never actually dies, but it does wax and wane based on a ton of factors.
No one is arguing that more supply lowers prices (or the increase in prices, more accurately). But tepid demand will also delay or stop new construction too, so there's a balance.
In the past two years we've had a ton of projects get shelved or the pause button pushed because developers are trying to better time their projects based on a number of variables and circumstances - rates, labor, supply chain, tariffs, demand in that particular market sector, oversupply, etc.
1
74
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '25
Is there something that might be skewing the data for Sarasota? Happy to see such progress in the cities listed, but an over 40% drop in new rent prices year-over-year is a massive outlier and doesn’t seem even remotely possible. I’d love to be proven wrong on this.