- A joint study by Enterprise Community Partners and the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, Projecting Trends in Severely Cost Burdened Renters: 2015 – 2025 predicted that, in the coming decade, little would change with respect to 1 in 4 renters being severely rent burdened. The researchers examined a number of factors, including: a predicted 10% population increase, declining homeownership rates, and a predicted rise in demand for rental housing. They also looked at a number of possible scenarios to determine how salary gain and population growth would affect the percentage of severely rent burdened households. Even the most optimistic of scenarios would only result in a 1.4% decrease.
- According to analysis by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Existing Home sales fell by 4.8% from July to August despite slowing price growth and a slightly lower interest rate. On the other hand NAR points out that Existing Home sales are 11% higher than August of last year.
- The Turner Center for Housing innovation at U.C. Berkley has released analysis entitled Housing Highlights from the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) which culls the housing related data from the ACS which is released by the Census Bureau and provides statistical trend charts relating to homeownership, cost and vacancy rates. The Turner Center’s analysis finds, among other things homeownership continuing to slide it is now at 63.1% following its peak in 2006 when it was at 67.3%. But it also finds that the overall housing cost burden is at its lowest point following the bubble.
- According to a recent study by Zillow student debt only reduces chances of homeownership for non-graduates.
Tag Archives: severe rent burden
Renting in America’s Largest Cities
Following up on an earlier graphic they produced, the NYU Furman Center and Capital One have issued a report, Renting in America’s Largest Cities. The Executive Summary reads,
This study includes the central cities of the 11 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. (by population) from 2006 to 2013: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.
The number and share of renters rose in all 11 cities.
The rental housing stock grew in all 11 cities from 2006 to 2013, while owner-occupied stock shrank in all but two cities.
In all 11 cities except Atlanta, the growth in supply of rental housing was not enough to keep up with rising renter population. Mismatches in supply and demand led to decreasing rental vacancy rates in all but two of the 11 cities in the study’s sample.
The median rent grew faster than inflation in almost all of the 11 cities in this study. In five cities, the median rent also grew substantially faster than the median renter income. In three cities, rents and incomes grew at about the same pace. In the remaining three cities, incomes grew substantially faster than rents.
In 2013, more than three out of every five low-income renters were severely rent burdened in all 11 cities. In most of the 11 cities, over a quarter of moderate-income renters were severely rent burdened in 2013 as well.
From 2006 to 2013, the percentage of low-income renters facing severe rent burdens increased in all 11 cities in this study’s sample, while the percentage of moderate-income renters facing severe rent burdens increased in six of those cities.
Even in the cities that had higher vacancy rates, low-income renters could afford only a tiny fraction of units available for rent within the last five years.
The typical renter could afford less than a third of recently available rental units in many of the central cities of the 11 largest U.S. metro areas.
Many lower- and middle-income renters living in this study’s sample of 11 cities could be stuck in their current units; in 2013, units occupied by long-term tenants were typically more affordable than units that had been on the rental market in the previous five years.
In six of the cities in this study, the median rent for recently available units in 2013 was over 20 percent higher than the median rent for other units in that year, indicating that many renters would likely face significant rent hikes if they had to move. (4)
While this report does an excellent job on its own terms, it does not address the issue of location affordability, which takes into account transportation costs when determining the affordability of a particular city. It would be very helpful if the authors supplemented this report with an evaluation of transportation costs in these 11 cities. This would give a more complete picture of how financially burdened residents of these cities are.
