Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Historical Data: New Home Prices & Expenditures for Existing Properties (1963-Present), Lecture notes of Construction

Historical data from the National Association of Realtors® on new single-family home prices and expenditures for existing residential properties in the United States from 1963 to present. The data is presented in quarterly and annual formats and includes median prices for the U.S., Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions, as well as total and regional expenditures for existing residential properties. The data can be used for economic analysis, housing market research, and other related studies.

What you will learn

  • How have expenditures for existing residential properties changed over time in the U.S. and its regions?
  • What are the median new single-family home prices in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions?
  • What is the historical trend of new single-family home prices in the U.S. and its regions?
  • How have total expenditures for existing residential properties changed over time in the U.S.?

Typology: Lecture notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

attourney
attourney 🇬🇧

3.8

(11)

228 documents

1 / 83

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
March 1996
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
4th Quarter 1995
U.S. Housing
arket
C
onditions
M
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
SUMMARY
The year 1995 was a good year for housing that
followed a great year. Except for 1994 more hous-
ing units were authorized (1,333,000) and started
(1,350,500) than in any other year since 1989. Again,
except for 1994, more existing homes (3,812,000)
were sold than in any year since 1979. Data for the
first 11 months suggest that new home sales in 1995
will fall short of the totals in 1993 and 1994, but
still exceed other years since 1989.
In some important areas, 1995 surpassed 1994.
More multifamily units (243,500) were started than
in any year since 1990. In current dollars residential
fixed investment reached an all-time high of $295.2
billion. Most significantly, the homeownership rate
rose to 64.7 percent, the highest rate since 1982. In
fact, in the past two quarters, the homeownership
rate exceeded 65 percent, a rate not achieved in any
quarter since the fourth quarter of 1981.
The influence of interest rates on housing activity
was clearly demonstrated in 1995, a year that
started slowly but finished strong. Permits, starts,
new home sales, and existing home sales were all
substantially higher in the last 6 months of the
year than in the first 6 months. Interest rates fell
throughout the year; by the fourth quarter, rates
for 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages were 176 basis
points lower than a year earlier.
Specific highlights for the fourth quarter are as
follows:
Permits rose 4 percent in the fourth quarter
compared with the third quarter, while starts fell
1 percent. However, in both cases, the fourth quar-
ter level was significantly higher than the second
quarter.
The absorption rate for multifamily units com-
pleted in the previous quarter fell from 75 to 72
percent. However, 48,200 units were brought onto
the market in the third quarter, substantially more
than in any quarter in the past 2 years.
The National Association of Realtors’® Afford-
ability Index improved by 5 percent, as interest
rates fell, the median income increased slightly, and
the median existing home price decreased slightly.
As U.S. Housing Market Conditions went to press,
the Census Bureau released data on permits and
starts for January 1996. Starts increased over De-
cember, suggesting that the momentum from the
last half of 1995 carried over into 1996. While per-
mits fell, they remained above the 1995 annual
level. However, large month-to-month swings in
these numbers are not unusual, so monthly results
should be read with caution. Further discretion is
suggested by the decline in new home sales from
July through November. Unfortunately, data on
new home sales for December and January will
not be available until the middle of March. These
numbers bear watching because the inventory of
unsold homes now exceeds 7 months.
About the March Issue
This issue would normally have been published in
February and would have contained data for the
fourth quarter; however, the two Federal furloughs
have caused delays in the release of many data
series. We have timed our publication date to allow
for as many complete data tables as possible with-
out delaying too long. As a result we were able to
include fourth quarter or December data for all but
four series—housing units under construction,
housing units completed, prices for new homes,
and new home sales. The next edition scheduled
for release in May 1996 will contain the missing
fourth quarter or December data for these four
series.
Inside
Table of Contents.......................2
National Data.......................... 11
Regional Activity.................... 29
Historical Data........................ 49
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e
pf2f
pf30
pf31
pf32
pf33
pf34
pf35
pf36
pf37
pf38
pf39
pf3a
pf3b
pf3c
pf3d
pf3e
pf3f
pf40
pf41
pf42
pf43
pf44
pf45
pf46
pf47
pf48
pf49
pf4a
pf4b
pf4c
pf4d
pf4e
pf4f
pf50
pf51
pf52
pf53

Partial preview of the text

Download Historical Data: New Home Prices & Expenditures for Existing Properties (1963-Present) and more Lecture notes Construction in PDF only on Docsity!

March 1996

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

4th Quarter 1995

U.S. Housing

arket

C

onditions

M

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

SUMMARY

The year 1995 was a good year for housing that

followed a great year. Except for 1994 more hous-

ing units were authorized (1,333,000) and started

(1,350,500) than in any other year since 1989. Again,

except for 1994, more existing homes (3,812,000)

were sold than in any year since 1979. Data for the

first 11 months suggest that new home sales in 1995

will fall short of the totals in 1993 and 1994, but

still exceed other years since 1989.

In some important areas, 1995 surpassed 1994.

More multifamily units (243,500) were started than

in any year since 1990. In current dollars residential

fixed investment reached an all-time high of $295.

billion. Most significantly, the homeownership rate

rose to 64.7 percent, the highest rate since 1982. In

fact, in the past two quarters, the homeownership

rate exceeded 65 percent, a rate not achieved in any

quarter since the fourth quarter of 1981.

The influence of interest rates on housing activity

was clearly demonstrated in 1995, a year that

started slowly but finished strong. Permits, starts,

new home sales, and existing home sales were all

substantially higher in the last 6 months of the

year than in the first 6 months. Interest rates fell

throughout the year; by the fourth quarter, rates

for 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages were 176 basis

points lower than a year earlier.

Specific highlights for the fourth quarter are as

follows:

n Permits rose 4 percent in the fourth quarter

compared with the third quarter, while starts fell

1 percent. However, in both cases, the fourth quar-

ter level was significantly higher than the second

quarter.

n The absorption rate for multifamily units com-

pleted in the previous quarter fell from 75 to 72

percent. However, 48,200 units were brought onto

the market in the third quarter, substantially more

than in any quarter in the past 2 years.

n The National Association of Realtors’®^ Afford-

ability Index improved by 5 percent, as interest

rates fell, the median income increased slightly, and

the median existing home price decreased slightly.

As U.S. Housing Market Conditions went to press,

the Census Bureau released data on permits and

starts for January 1996. Starts increased over De-

cember, suggesting that the momentum from the

last half of 1995 carried over into 1996. While per-

mits fell, they remained above the 1995 annual

level. However, large month-to-month swings in

these numbers are not unusual, so monthly results

should be read with caution. Further discretion is

suggested by the decline in new home sales from

July through November. Unfortunately, data on

new home sales for December and January will

not be available until the middle of March. These

numbers bear watching because the inventory of

unsold homes now exceeds 7 months.

About the March Issue

This issue would normally have been published in

February and would have contained data for the

fourth quarter; however, the two Federal furloughs

have caused delays in the release of many data

series. We have timed our publication date to allow

for as many complete data tables as possible with-

out delaying too long. As a result we were able to

include fourth quarter or December data for all but

four series—housing units under construction,

housing units completed, prices for new homes,

and new home sales. The next edition scheduled

for release in May 1996 will contain the missing

fourth quarter or December data for these four

series.

I n s i d e

Table of Contents .......................

National Data .......................... 11

Regional Activity .................... 29

Historical Data ........................ 49

Summary 2

Table 15 FHA Unassisted Multifamily Mortgage Insurance Activity: 1980–Present ....................................... 65 Table 16 Mortgage Originations, 1– Family Units by Loan Type: 1970–Present ....................................... 66 Table 17 Residential Mortgage Originations by Building Type: 1970–Present ......... 67 Table 18 Mortgage Originations, 1–4 Family Units by Lender Type: 1970–Present ....................................... 68 Table 19 Net Acquisitions, 1–4 Family Units by Lender Type: 1970–Present ....................................... 69 Table 20 Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures Started: 1984–Present ....................................... 70 Table 21 Expenditures for Existing Residential Properties: 1968–Present ....................................... 71 Table 22 Value of New Construction Put in Place, Private Residential Buildings: 1974–Present ...................... 72 Table 23 Gross Domestic Product and Residential Fixed Investment: 1959–Present ....................................... 73 Table 24 Net Change in Number of Households by Age of Householder: 1971–Present ................ 74 Table 25 Net Change in Number of Households by Type of Household: 1971–Present ................... 75 Table 26 Net Change in Number of Households by Race of Householder: 1971–Present ................ 76 Table 27 Total U.S. Housing Stock: 1970–Present ....................................... 77 Table 28 Rental Vacancy Rates: 1979–Present ....................................... 78 Table 29 Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder: 1982–Present ............ 79 Table 30 Homeownership Rates by Region and Metropolitan Status: 1983–Present ........................... 80 Table 31 Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity: 1983–Present ............... 81 Table 32 Homeownership Rates by Household Type: 1983–Present ......... 82

Southwest ............................................... 39 Spotlight on: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ............................................ 39 Great Plains ............................................ 41 Spotlight on: Lincoln, Nebraska ......... 42 Rocky Mountain .................................... 42 Spotlight on: Grand Junction, Colorado .............................................. 43 Pacific ..................................................... 44 Spotlight on: San Jose, California ....... 45 Northwest .............................................. 46 Spotlight on: Portland-Vancouver, Oregon-Washington ............................ 47

Historical Data ................................. 49

Table 1 New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized: 1959–Present ........ 49 Table 2 New Privately Owned Housing Units Started: 1959–Present ............... 51 Table 3 New Privately Owned Housing Units Under Construction: 1969–Present .... 52 Table 4 New Privately Owned Housing Units Completed: 1968–Present ......... 53 Table 5 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Shipments, Residential Placements, Average Prices, and Units for Sale: 1974–Present ....................................... 54 Table 6 New Single-Family Home Sales: 1963–Present ....................................... 55 Table 7 Existing Single-Family Home Sales: 1968–Present ............................. 56 Table 8A New Single-Family Home Prices: 1963–Present ........................... 57 Table 8B Existing Single-Family Home Prices: 1968–Present ........................... 58 Table 9 Housing Affordability Index: 1970–Present ....................................... 59 Table 10 Market Absorption of New Rental Units and Median Asking Rent: 1970–Present ....................................... 60 Table 11 Builders’ Views of Housing Market Activity: 1978–Present ........... 61 Table 12 Mortgage Interest Rates, Average Commitment Rates, and Points: 1972–Present ....................................... 62 Table 13 Mortgage Interest Rates, Points, Effective Rates, and Average Term to Maturity on Conventional Loans Closed: 1982–Present .......................... 63 Table 14 FHA, VA, and PMI 1–4 Family Mortgage Insurance Activity: 1968–Present ....................................... 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ..................................................... 1 Regional Perspective ................................ 3 Measuring the Performance of Our Cities .................................................... 3 Cities within their regional context ....... 4 Patterns of urban decentralization .......... 7 Reasons for observed structural changes .................................................. 7 Distributional effects of structural changes .................................................. 8 Summary .................................................. 9

National Data .................................... 11

Housing Production .................................. 11 Permits ................................................... 11 Starts ....................................................... 12 Under Construction ............................... 12 Completions ........................................... 13 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Shipments ............................................ 13

Housing Marketing ................................... 14 Home Sales ............................................. 14 Home Prices ........................................... 15 Housing Affordability ............................ 16 Apartment Absorptions ......................... 16 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Placements .......................................... 17 Builders’ Views of Housing Market Activity .................... 18

Housing Finance ....................................... 19 Mortgage Interest Rates ......................... 19 FHA 1–4 Family Mortgage Insurance ............................................. 20 PMI and VA Activity ............................. 20 Mortgage Originations by Loan Type, 1–4 Family Units ...................... 21 Residential Mortgage Originations by Building Type ................................. 22 Mortgage Originations by Lender Type, 1–4 Family Units ...................... 23 Delinquencies and Foreclosures ............ 24

Housing Investment ................................. 25 Residential Fixed Investment and Gross Domestic Product ..................... 25

Housing Inventory .................................... 26 Housing Stock ........................................ 26 Vacancy Rates ........................................ 27 Homeownership Rates ........................... 27

Regional Activity ............................ 29

New England .......................................... 30 Spotlight on: Danbury, Connecticut ......................................... 30 New York/New Jersey ........................... 31 Spotlight on: Elmira-Corning, New York ............................................ 32 Mid-Atlantic ........................................... 33 Spotlight on: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ....................................... 34 Southeast ................................................ 35 Spotlight on: Huntsville, Alabama ............................................... 36 Midwest .................................................. 37 Spotlight on: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota ............................................ 38

Summary 4

Figure 1. City and Suburban Population Growth by Region, 1980–1990 (percent)

Northeast Midwest South West

Percent Change

City Suburb

0.4 (^) - 4.

Source: The State of the Nation's Cities: America’s

Changing Urban Life, Norman J. Glickman et al., Center

for Urban Policy Research, Spring 1996.

Figure 2. City and Suburban Employment Growth by Region, 1980–1990 (percent)

Northeast Midwest South West

Percent Change

City Suburb

Source: The State of the Nation's Cities: America’s

Changing Urban Life, Norman J. Glickman et al., Center

for Urban Policy Research, Spring 1996.

documenting fluctuations around the long-run

urban trend. The comprehensive array of variables

is divided into six categories: employment and eco-

nomic development; demographic factors; housing

and land use; poverty and income distribution; fiscal

conditions and the public sector; and social, envi-

ronmental, health, and other factors. The exhaus-

tive list of variables helps to measure cities’ perfor-

mance along any number of dimensions, such as

health, poverty, crime, unemployment, education,

and racial integration.

One innovative feature of the data set is that for

most variables it provides measures for central cit-

ies and for either their surrounding suburbs or the

entire metropolitan area. This feature will help re-

searchers at HUD, CUPR, and elsewhere to com-

pare the performance of central cities with that

of their surrounding areas. Important insights can

be gleaned from such comparisons. For example,

one can begin to infer reasons for the disparities be-

tween a city and its suburbs by comparing a suburb

that is doing well with a neighboring central city

that is deteriorating. A second innovation of the

database is an index of dissimilarity—a barometer

of racial segregation—that measures the proportion

of a metropolitan area’s residents that must move

to achieve perfect racial integration.

This article is divided into five sections. The first

section describes cities within their regional con-

text. The second section focuses on decentraliza-

tion patterns, including the “Edge City.” The third,

fourth, and fifth sections discuss urban trends, the

distributional effects of these trends among cities,

and the recent performance of cities in general.

Cities within their regional

context

From 1980 to 1990, the Northeast and Midwest

regions—the Frostbelt—were population and em-

ployment losers relative to the rest of the country.

Figures 1 and 2 show that Midwestern cities lost

4.2 percent of their population during the decade,

while the population in Northeastern cities grew

by only 0.4 percent. In both regions suburban em-

ployment growth was more than 50 percent greater

than in the cities.

Cities in the Northeast and Midwest also suffered

severe population and employment losses. Accord-

ing to Table 1, Pittsburgh lost 12.8 percent of its

population and 9.7 percent of central-city jobs.

Detroit’s population and central-city employment

shrunk by 14.6 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

Other Frostbelt cities, such as Buffalo; Newark,

New Jersey; Chicago; Cincinnati; Kansas City,

Missouri; and St. Louis, suffered significant losses

in population and/or central-city employment.

On the other hand, the South and West regions—the

Sunbelt—performed very well. The population of

the average city in the South and West grew by 6.

percent and 18.6 percent, respectively. Average city

5 Summary

Central City Suburbs

Population Employment Median Income Population Employment Median Income

  • Table 1. Change in Population, Employment, and Median Household Income, 1980–
    • Northeast 0.4 9.0 4.0 13. City Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank
    • Boston, MA 2.0 45 12.8 37 46.8 1 6.2 59 14.9 56 34.6
    • Buffalo, NY -8.3 66 -0.2 55 0.5 59 -2.7 69 6.9 68 2.6
    • Burlington, VT 3.8 38 19.5 25 23.3 13 17.7 30 38.6 22 31.4
    • Hartford, CT 2.5 43 0.0 53 21.2 16 7.5 51 15.0 55 28.7
    • Manchester, NH 9.5 29 16.2 28 28.8 8 27.4 17 41.2 20 36.3
    • New York, NY 3.5 39 11.6 39 35.7 4 1.7 65 10.2 65 33.7
    • Newark, NJ -16.4 74 -4.1 64 34.8 5 0.4 67 10.0 66 31.4
    • Philadelphia, PA -6.1 60 4.3 49 17.7 24 7.9 50 21.2 42 24.1
    • Pittsburgh, PA -12.8 72 -9.7 70 -2.5 63 -5.7 70 0.8 71 -5.8
    • Portland, ME 4.5 36 18.6 26 37.2 3 15.9 33 32.8 23 32.5
    • Providence, RI 2.5 42 5.2 48 22.0 14 6.6 58 15.1 54 25.5
    • Midwest -4.2 10.4 8.7 17.
    • Chicago, IL -7.4 65 -2.3 60 8.3 37 9.1 46 16.2 50 10.4
    • Cincinnati, OH -5.6 58 -0.3 57 4.4 47 7.4 53 20.3 43 7.5
    • Cleveland, OH -11.9 70 -14.8 72 -8.5 72 -0.5 68 4.7 69 -0.2
    • Columbus, OH 12.1 24 24.1 21 13.2 27 9.7 45 19.2 46 11.2
    • Des Moines, IA 1.1 48 6.9 46 0.7 58 13.1 37 25.1 34 3.8
    • Detroit, MI -14.6 73 -15.0 74 -15.5 74 1.7 66 13.7 59 2.2
    • Fargo, ND 20.7 17 28.8 15 -6.5 69 3.9 63 13.6 60 -3.0
    • Indianapolis, IN 4.4 37 13.6 34 5.8 44 7.3 54 22.0 39 6.2
    • Kansas City, MO -4.0 55 10.6 40 6.2 42 18.8 28 27.0 32 5.8
    • Milwaukee, WI -1.3 51 -3.9 62 -7.1 71 5.7 60 14.0 58 1.3
    • Minneapolis, MN -0.1 50 12.5 38 11.2 29 21.9 25 31.6 24 11.6
    • Omaha, NE 6.9 32 15.4 30 3.6 49 4.3 62 16.5 49 6.3
    • Sioux Falls, SD 23.9 12 35.1 10 2.8 51 -8.6 72 4.2 70 5.2
    • St. Louis, MO -12.4 71 -6.7 69 6.5 41 6.9 56 16.8 48 8.3
    • Toledo, OH -6.1 61 -0.3 56 -3.4 66 7.2 55 21.3 41 2.0
    • Wichita, KS 8.9 30 7.4 44 2.6 52 11.5 41 14.7 57 4.8
    • South 6.1 9.3 26.7 39.
    • Atlanta, GA -7.3 64 0.2 52 24.3 10 41.9 8 57.8 7 25.4
    • Austin, TX 34.7 5 39.9 8 8.9 33 58.9 2 80.6 1 12.3
    • Baltimore, MD -6.5 62 2.8 50 18.3 21 16.5 32 29.6 30 21.6
    • Birmingham, AL -6.5 63 -3.9 61 1.2 56 8.2 49 19.8 45 7.3
    • Charleston, NC -10.4 68 -13.8 71 -6.9 70 -6.1 71 -2.7 72 -11.0
    • Charlotte, WV 25.9 9 34.5 11 18.7 20 16.6 31 24.5 36 17.2
    • Columbia, SC -3.1 54 7.5 43 18.1 22 15.0 35 26.4 33 15.8
    • Dallas, TX 11.4 25 10.0 41 6.8 40 45.0 7 53.2 10 9.9
    • El Paso, TX 21.2 16 26.8 17 3.9 48 39.6 10 62.0 5 1.9
    • Fort Worth, TX 16.2 22 15.2 31 9.3 31 50.8 4 58.5 6 9.1
    • Houston, TX 2.2 44 -4.7 67 -10.4 73 45.9 6 49.8 11 -5.4
    • Jackson, MS -3.1 53 -4.2 65 -0.9 61 24.9 20 41.9 18 8.7
    • Jacksonville, FL 17.4 21 38.2 9 19.5 18 49.7 5 47.9 13 22.0
    • Little Rock, AR 10.9 26 17.1 27 7.3 39 6.7 57 17.6 47 7.7
    • Louisville, KY -9.8 67 -4.0 63 3.4 50 3.7 64 15.2 52 2.7
    • Memphis, TN -5.6 59 -0.7 58 1.8 55 35.8 12 67.4 4 12.2
    • Miami, FL 3.4 40 -4.9 68 -3.7 67 23.4 21 28.6 31 8.9
      • Davidson, TN 7.2 31 15.5 29 8.8 35 25.7 19 40.9 21 13.7 Nashville-
    • New Orleans, LA -10.9 69 -14.9 73 -1.4 62 5.6 61 8.3 67 -4.7
      • City, OK 10.3 27 9.2 42 2.0 54 12.3 38 15.1 53 1.7 Oklahoma
    • San Antonio, TX 19.1 19 27.4 16 4.6 46 28.4 16 43.7 14 8.5
    • Tampa, FL 3.1 41 14.6 32 16.5 25 33.2 13 54.4 9 21.2

7 Summary

its southern location. Boston was certainly helped

by the development of high-technology industries

in and around the city, particularly along Route 128.

New Orleans, on the other hand, never recovered

from the oil-based recession of the 1970s. It failed

to develop a replacement engine to drive economic

growth and encourage people to remain in or relo-

cate to the area.

Patterns of urban

decentralization

Prior to World War II, and for nearly three decades

thereafter, U.S. industry enjoyed an insular domes-

tic market and dominance abroad. However, foreign

industrial competition grew increasingly stiff during

the 1970s. The automobile industry is a perfect il-

lustration. Abetted by the OPEC oil shocks, foreign

automakers were able to sell their cheaper, more

reliable, and more fuel-efficient vehicles to Ameri-

can consumers. By the 1990s, one of every four ve-

hicles in the United States was produced abroad.

Foreign manufacturers made similar inroads in the

steel, textiles, and consumer electronics industries.

To meet the decreased demand for domestic prod-

ucts, American firms downsized their domestic

operations, displacing hundreds of thousands of

workers.

Many of the losses in American manufacturing

are attributable to the cost advantage of foreign

producers by the ready supply of cheaper, nonunion-

ized, low- or semiskilled labor. In their efforts to

be more cost competitive, domestic producers have

begun to build plants or subcontract manufacturing

overseas, exacerbating the loss of less skilled jobs

in the United States, particularly in its cities.

Manufacturing jobs have decentralized, moving

out of central cities. Services, which by their nature

cannot be imported, and high-skilled professional

jobs, in which the United States has a comparative

advantage, have moved in. Services and high-skilled,

high-technology jobs have also grown in the sub-

urbs, far removed from the cities that experienced

the greatest manufacturing job losses.

As jobs and population left the central city, retailers

followed, filling shopping malls and creating “Edge

Cities”—highly developed retailing centers located

far from traditional downtown areas. With mer-

chandise and other urban amenities now closer

to where they live, suburban shoppers abandoned

many centrally located stores. Inevitably, urban

retailers either curtailed their operations or went

out of business, further depleting the withering

urban job base.

Reasons for observed

structural changes

Residential suburbanization has been an ongoing

process in the United States since World War II.

Indeed, there is a “natural evolution theory” of

suburbanization, which postulates: As incomes

grow, people will be willing to spend more on

spacious homes, larger yards, and the concomitant

higher commuting costs. So, over time, one would

expect to observe larger numbers of people residing

in suburbia, independent of other socioeconomic

phenomena. There is presently a debate in the lit-

erature as to whether urban problems (such as

crime and poverty) have accelerated the rate of

suburbanization, but the evidence is far from con-

clusive. The only certainty is that the United

States is becoming increasingly suburban and

has been moving in that direction for decades.

Manufacturing and service jobs have also been

moving to the suburbs over the past 25 years. As

discussed above, a major reason is the availability of

skilled labor: As well-trained workers increasingly

reside in the suburbs, businesses have located their

operations there. In addition, suburban land is often

cheaper, regulations are less strict, and transporta-

tion is less costly and time consuming. Another

advantage is that firms that locate in the suburbs

risk no potential environmental liability left by a

previous polluter.

Global factor-price equalization is the cause of

many of the job losses in Northern and Midwest-

ern cities. In other words, American manufacturers

cannot pay real wages substantially greater than

those being paid by foreign firms and remain price

competitive. One wage-reducing response to for-

eign competition is to relocate production to lower

wage/less unionized areas. Domestically, this has

been accomplished by the movement of manufac-

turing facilities, particularly to the sparsely union-

ized South. Internationally, producers have moved

their production to low-wage countries. Both Ford

and General Motors, for example, now have plants

in Mexico.

Labor-saving technological change is yet another

way that firms can reduce labor demand and labor

costs. Both increases in worker productivity and

Summary 8

automation—the outright replacement of human

workers with machines—have been successfully

introduced. For its most routine tasks, such as

spot-welding chassis assemblies, the auto industry

now uses robots. In banking the automated teller

machine has assumed the most routine tasks that

bank tellers used to perform. In short, low- and

semiskilled labor is increasingly being replaced by

lower cost machinery in both manufacturing and

services.

Distributional effects

of structural changes

Foreign competition and labor-saving technological

change have combined to slow the demand for labor

and with it, the growth in real wages. Real average

hourly earnings exhibited no significant growth

from 1966 to 1994. In fact, measured in constant

1982 dollars, the $7.52 average hourly wage of 1966

is slightly higher than its $7.42 counterpart of 1995.^2

For urban workers who depend on hourly wage jobs

for a living, they have not increased their earning

power. Measured in 1994 dollars, real median family

income, which now incorporates more two-earner

families, has shown little increase, growing only

slightly from $37,319 in 1976 to $38,782 in 1994. 3

These figures conceal a stunning redistribution of

income between skill categories and income classes.

As unskilled labor saw its earnings decline, skilled

workers reaped large increases. From 1975 to 1992,

nominal average earnings doubled for high school

dropouts, rose 2.5 times for high school graduates,

nearly tripled for holders of bachelor’s degrees, and

tripled for holders of advanced degrees. During the

same period, the consumer price index increased

2.5 times, meaning only those with college degrees

and beyond increased their real earnings. In 1992

the holder of a bachelor’s degree earned an average

annual wage of $32,269, 72 percent more than a

high school graduate. Over a worklife the annual

difference translates to $600,000 more for a college

graduate (for example, $1.421 million vs. $821,000).

According to income categories, between 1979 and

1989, the average real incomes of families in the

lowest quintile fell by 2.1 percent, while the in-

comes of families in the top quintile rose by 13.

percent.

The redistribution of income away from those with

less education and wealth has exacerbated urban

poverty. American cities harbor a disproportionate

share of the Nation’s poor and poorly educated

citizens. Therefore, when earnings of the poor and

undereducated slip, cities bear the brunt. A com-

parison of the proportions of city and suburban

populations in poverty confirms this fact. In 1990

in the Northeast, 19.9 percent of the average city’s

population lived in poverty. The average city in

the Midwest, South, and West had 20.8 percent,

19.7 percent, and 15.6 percent, respectively, of its

population living in poverty. The corresponding

numbers for each region’s suburbs were: 6.8 per-

cent for the Northeast, 6.3 percent for the Midwest,

9.3 percent for the South, and 9.3 percent for the

West.

While well-paying manufacturing jobs have disap-

peared from cities, affordable housing remains

concentrated in older urban cores. The location of

affordable housing away from centers of suburban

job growth has trapped the poor and minorities in

central cities, removed from economic opportunity.

These trends have also fostered income and racial

polarization: Middle and upper income Americans

work and reside in suburbia, while a predominantly

African-American and Hispanic underclass crowds

the inner city. According to the 1990 Index of Dis-

similarity calculated in HUD’s new data set, for the

average large metropolis of the Northeast and the

Midwest, two-thirds of the population would have

to be moved to achieve perfect racial integration,

73.4 percent and 69 percent, respectively. For the

South 64.4 percent and for the West 50.3 percent

of the population would have to move to achieve

racial integration. More importantly, for the North-

east and the Midwest, the percentages for 1990

exceeded their 1970 counterparts, confirming an

increase in racial polarization.

Summary 10

U.S. Housing Market Conditions is published quarterly by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Henry G. Cisneros ..................................................................................................................................................................... Secretary Michael A. Stegman ....................................................................... Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research Frederick J. Eggers ........................................................................................................ Deputy Assistant Secretary, Economic Affairs Paul A. Leonard ....................................................................................................... Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy Development Duane T. McGough ........................................................................................ Director, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division David E. Shenk ............................................................................................................. Director, Economic Market Analysis Division Katherine L. O’Leary ............................................................................................................... Director, Research Utilization Division Ronald J. Sepanik .............................................................................. Deputy Director, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division Bruce D. Atkinson ................................................................................................................................................................... Economist Stacy Jordan ............................................................................................................................................................................. Economist Sue George Neal ...................................................................................................................................................................... Economist Randall M. Scheessele ............................................................................................................................................................. Economist Edward J. Szymanoski ............................................................................................................................................................. Economist Vanessa Void-Taylor ............................................................................................................................. Research Utilization Specialist Robert R. Callis ..................................................................................................................................................... Bureau of the Census

HUD Field Office Economists who contributed to this issue are:

New England: John R. Reilly ........................................................................................................................................................ Boston Danbury: Michael W. Lackett ..............................................................................................................................................Boston New York/New Jersey: Paul M. Bannett ................................................................................................................................ New York Elmira-Corning: William Coyner ....................................................................................................................................... Buffalo Mid-Atlantic: Frances A. Kenney ........................................................................................................................................... Richmond Philadelphia: Jan L. Vagassky .................................................................................................................................... Philadelphia Southeast: Bette L. Almand ......................................................................................................................................................... Atlanta Huntsville: Donald R. James ...................................................................................................................................... Birmingham Midwest: Joseph P. McDonnell .................................................................................................................................................. Chicago Minneapolis-St. Paul: Rodney E. Johnson ................................................................................................................. Minneapolis Southwest: Linda L. Hanratty .................................................................................................................................................. Ft. Worth Oklahoma City: Kenneth W. Altizer .................................................................................................................... Oklahoma City Great Plains: Donald J. Gebauer ........................................................................................................................................... Kansas City Lincoln: James P. Laakso ..................................................................................................................................................... Omaha Rocky Mountain: James A. Coil ................................................................................................................................................... Denver Grand Junction: George H. Antoine ................................................................................................................................... Denver Pacific: Robert E. Jolda ....................................................................................................................................................... San Francisco San Jose: Pamela J. Leong ......................................................................................................................................... San Francisco Northwest: Pamela R. Sharpe ....................................................................................................................................................... Seattle Portland-Vancouver: Thomas E. Aston ............................................................................................................................ Portland

11 National Data

National Data

H OUSING PRODUCTION

Permits*

P ermits for the construction of new housing units rose 4 percent in the fourth quarter of 1995 to a seasonally

adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 1,437,000 units, 3 percent lower than in the fourth quarter of 1994. The January

1996 level is 1,373,000 (SAAR) and the annual estimate for 1995 is 1,333,000 units, 3 percent below the 1994

annual estimate. One-unit permits, at 1,077,000 units, were up 3 percent from the previous quarter and up 2

percent from a year earlier. The January 1996 estimate is 1,045,000 units (SAAR) and the annual estimate for

1995 is 999,100 units, 6 percent below the 1994 annual estimate. Multifamily permits (5 or more units in struc-

ture), at 292,000 units, were 9 percent above both the third quarter and the same quarter the previous year. The

1995 annual estimate is 268,600 units, 11 percent above the 1994 annual estimate. The January 1996 estimate

is 259,000 (SAAR), 15 percent below the December 1995 estimate.

*Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Units in thousands.

**This change is not statistically significant.

Source: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

TOTAL 1,437 1,376 1,393 + 4 - 3

ONE UNIT 1,077 1,043 1,059 + 3 + 2

TWO TO FOUR 68 65 66 + 5** + 4**

FIVE PLUS 292 268 268 + 9 + 9

13 National Data

Certificateof Occupancy^ Completions*

Housing units completed in the fourth quarter of 1995, at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,325,000 units,

were 3 percent above the previous quarter, but 4 percent below the same quarter last year. ( Note: The quarterly

value is based on data for October and November only. ) (Both changes are statistically insignificant.) Single-

family completions, at 1,038,000 units, were 2 percent above the previous quarter and 11 percent below the

year-earlier rate. Multifamily completions, at 252,000 units, were 8 percent above the previous quarter and 34

percent above the same quarter last year.

CertificateOccupancyof Latest

Quarter =

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

TOTAL 1,325 1,282 1,378 + 3** - 4**

ONE UNIT 1,038 1,016 1,159 + 2** - 11

TWO TO FOUR 36 34 31 + 4** + 15

FIVE PLUS 252 232 188 + 8** + 34

*Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Units in thousands.

**This change is not statistically significant.

Sources: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; and Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development =Entries for “Latest Quarter” are based on October and November data only. December data were unavailable due to the partial

shutdown of the Federal Government.

Manufactured (Mobile)

Home Shipments*

S hipments of new manufactured (mobile) homes to dealers were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of

334,000 units in the third quarter of 1995, 3 percent above the previous quarter and 12 percent over the rate a

year earlier.

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

MANUFACTURERS’ 334 325 277 + 3 + 12

SHIPMENTS

*Components may not add to totals because of rounding. Units in thousands. These are HUD-code homes only, and do not include manufactured housing units built to meet local building codes, which are included in housing starts figures.

Source: National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

National Data 14

EXISTING 4,020 4,090 3,760 - 2 + 7

HOMES SOLD

FOR SALE 1,450 1,800 1,380 - 19 + 5

MONTHS’ 4.5 5.2 4.3 - 13 + 5

SUPPLY

Home Sales*

HOUSING MARKETING

SOLD

S ales of new single-family homes totalled 666,000 units at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) in October

and November of 1995, 9 percent below the previous quarter and about the same as in the fourth quarter of

1994. The number of new homes for sale at the end of November 1995 numbered 375,000 units, up 7 percent

from the last quarter and 11 percent over the final quarter last year. At the end of November, inventories repre-

sented a 7.2 months’ supply at the current sales rates, 12 percent above the end of the previous quarter and 9

percent above the final quarter of the previous year.

Sales of existing single-family homes reported by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®^ for the

fourth quarter of 1995 totalled 4,020,000 (SAAR), down 2 percent from the third quarter’s level, but 7 percent

above the fourth quarter of 1994. The number of units for sale at the end of the fourth quarter fell to 1,450,000,

19 percent below the previous quarter, but 5 percent above the fourth quarter of 1994. At the end of the fourth

quarter, there was a 4.5 months’ supply of units, 13 percent below the previous quarter and 5 percent above the

fourth quarter of 1994.

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

SOLD

New Homes

NEW HOMES 666 722 659 - 9 —

SOLD

FOR SALE 375 352 338 + 7 + 11

MONTHS’ 7.2 6.4 6.6 + 12 + 9

SUPPLY

Existing Homes

Latest

Quarter =

*Units in thousands. =New home entries for “Latest Quarter” are based on October and November data only. December data were unavailable due to the

partial shutdown of the Federal Government.

Sources: New: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; and Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Existing: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

National Data 16

H ousing affordability is the ratio of median family income to the income needed to purchase the median-priced

home based on current interest rates and underwriting standards, expressed as an index. The NATIONAL ASSO-

CIATION OF REALTORS ®^ composite index value for the fourth quarter of 1995 showed that the family earning

the median income had 129.3 percent of the income needed to purchase the median-priced existing home. This

figure is 5 percent above the third quarter of 1995 and 2 percent above the fourth quarter of 1994. This increase is

the result of a 2-percent decrease in the median home price used in the series, a 20-basis-point interest rate drop,

and a 1-percent rise in median family income during the last quarter. The fixed-rate index improved from both

the third quarter of 1995 and the fourth quarter of 1994. The adjustable-rate index rose by 6 percent from the

previous quarter, but fell by 1 percent from the rate a year ago.

s

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

s

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

Source: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

COMPOSITE 129.3 122.9 126.6 + 5 + 2

INDEX

FIXED-RATE 126.6 120.5 114.1 + 5 + 11

INDEX

ADJUSTABLE- 139.4 131.5 140.3 + 6 - 1

RATE INDEX

Housing Affordability

APARTMENTS 48.2 36.0 29.5 + 34 + 63

COMPLETED*

PERCENT 72 75 82 - 4** - 12

ABSORBED

NEXT

QUARTER

MEDIAN RENT $665 $662 $595 — + 12

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

*Units in thousands. **This change is not statistically significant. Sources: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; and Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development

Apartment Absorptions

There were 48,200 new, unsubsidized, unfurnished, multifamily (5 or more units in structure) rental apart-

ments completed in the third quarter of 1995, up 34 percent from the previous quarter and up 63 percent from

the third quarter of 1994. Of the apartments completed in the third quarter of 1995, 72 percent were rented

within 3 months (the absorption rate). This absorption rate was a statistically insignificant 4 percent below

the previous quarter and 12 percent below the same quarter last year. The median asking rent for apartments

completed in the third quarter was $665, about the same as the previous quarter and 12 percent higher than a

year earlier.

17 National Data

Manufactured (Mobile)

Home Placements

Homes placed on site ready for occupancy in the third quarter of 1995 totalled 294,000 at a seasonally ad-

justed annual rate, up 1 percent from the previous quarter and up 5 percent from the third quarter of 1994. The

number of homes for sale on dealers’ lots at the end of the third quarter totalled 95,000 units, 13 percent above

the previous quarter and 30 percent above the same quarter the previous year. The average sales price of the

units sold in the third quarter was $36,570, up 4 percent from the previous quarter and 9 percent higher than

the year-earlier price.

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

PLACEMENTS* 294 292 280 + 1** + 5

ON DEALER 95 84 73 + 13 + 30

LOTS*

AVERAGE SALES $36,570 $35,070 $33,630 + 4 + 9

PRICE

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

*Units in thousands. These are HUD-code homes only, and do not include manufactured housing units built to meet local building codes, which are included in housing completions figures.

**This change is not statistically significant.

Sources: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce; and Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development

19 National Data

HOUSING FINANCE

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mortgage interest rates for all categories of loans fell from the last quarter, as they did from last year. The

contract mortgage interest rate for 30-year, fixed-rate, conventional mortgages reported by Freddie Mac was

7.34 percent in the fourth quarter, 34 basis points lower than the previous quarter and 76 basis points lower

than the same quarter last year. Adjustable-rate mortgages in the fourth quarter were going for 5.65 percent,

20 basis points below the previous quarter and 53 basis points below the same quarter last year. Fixed-rate,

15-year mortgages, at 6.87 percent, were down 32 basis points from last quarter and 174 basis points from the

same quarter last year. The FHA rate fell 33 basis points during the quarter and 150 basis points from the same

quarter last year.

%

CONVENTIONAL 7.34 7.68 9.10 - 5 - 19

FIXED-RATE

30-YEAR

CONVENTIONAL 5.65 5.85 6.18 - 3 - 9

ARMS

CONVENTIONAL 6.87 7.19 8.61 - 5 - 20

FIXED-RATE

15-YEAR

FHA 7.67 8.00 9.17 - 4 - 16

FIXED-RATE

30-YEAR

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

Sources: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development

%

National Data 20

P rivate mortgage insurers issued 268,800 policies or certificates of insurance on conventional mortgage loans

during the fourth quarter of 1995, down 6 percent from the third quarter, but up 11 percent from the fourth

quarter of 1994; these numbers are not seasonally adjusted. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reported

the issuance of mortgage loan guaranties for 63,100 single-family properties in the fourth quarter of 1995, down

4 percent from the previous quarter and down 23 percent from the final quarter of 1994.

PMI and VA Activity*

FHA 1–4 Family Mortgage Insurance*

Applications for FHA mortgage insurance on 1–4 family homes were received for 215,000 ( not seasonally ad-

justed) properties in the fourth quarter of 1995, down 15 percent from the previous quarter, but up 54 percent

from the fourth quarter of 1994. Endorsements or insurance policies issued totalled 150,500, down 5 percent

from the third quarter of 1995 and down 11 percent from the fourth quarter of 1994. Endorsements for refinanc-

ing moved up to 18,600, up 36 percent from the third quarter of 1995, but down 36 percent from a year earlier.

Loans

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Loans^ Same Quarter

Previous

Year

APPLICATIONS 215.0 251.7 139.6 - 15 + 54

RECEIVED

TOTAL 150.5 159.0 168.9 - 5 - 11

ENDORSEMENTS

PURCHASE 131.9 145.3 140.0 - 9 - 6

ENDORSEMENTS

REFINANCING 18.6 13.7 28.9 + 36 - 36

*Thousands of properties. Source: Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development

TOTAL PMI 268.8 287.0 242.7 - 6 + 11

CERTIFICATES

TOTAL VA 63.1 65.8 82.4 - 4 - 23

GUARANTIES

Latest

Quarter

Previous

Quarter

% Change

From Previous

Quarter

% Change

From

Last Year

Same Quarter

Previous

Year

*Thousands of loans. Sources: PMI-Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; VA-Department of Veterans Affairs