Cellar dweller
Which comes first, people or houses? Massachusetts ranked a pitiful 48th in the increase of its housing supply from 2000 to 2004, but since the state ranked 44th in population growth, it can be argued that supply isn’t that far behind demand. Nationally, there were 6.8 million additional units for a population growth of 12.2 million, or one new house for every 1.8 new citizens. Here, there were 50,000 additional units for a population growth of 67,000, or one new house for every 1.4 new residents. The idea of a housing crunch may seem all the more puzzling when one looks at population change among 25- to 44-year-olds. (Over the course of this age category, homeownership rates rise from roughly one-third of the population to more than two-thirds.) All but four states recorded a loss of residents in this prime homebuying cohort, as members of the baby boom generation have moved into middle age; in Massachusetts, the decrease amounted to 215,000 people. Considering that the nation’s under-25 population rose by only 1.6 percent over the same period and actually fell by 0.8 percent in Massachusetts, will housing construction eventually lead to a housing glut?
Not necessarily. Housing demand is partially fuelled by an increase in single-person and childless households, the result of people marrying later and living longer. In Massachusetts, we must also ask whether a tight housing market is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, is the small number of new homes a cause, rather than a symptom, of our stagnant population? The paucity of new homes in Massachusetts, along with Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island, may keep property values high, but they may also make it tougher to attract people who are hoping to own a home. It’s notable that Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania all saw their 25-44 populations drop by more than 10 percent and are still building houses at a much faster pace than we are. But job growth has been sluggish in almost every state during the first half of this decade, so it’s hard to tell whether more—and presumably more affordable— housing can boost a state’s economy. If the Rust Belt’s economy surpasses that of the Northeast over the next few years, we’ll have an answer.INCREASE IN TOTAL HOUSING STOCK, 2000-04
Rank | State | Increase in housing units | % change in housing units | % population change | % change age 25-44 |
1. | Nevada | 148,989 | 18.0 | 16.8 | 9.2 |
2. | Arizona | 269,042 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 2.2 |
3. | Georgia | 390,811 | 11.9 | 7.8 | 0.3 |
4. | Colorado | 202,448 | 11.2 | 7.0 | -2.2 |
5. | Utah | 80,134 | 10.4 | 7.0 | 6.1 |
6. | Florida | 706,319 | 9.7 | 8.8 | -6.1 |
7. | Idaho | 50,949 | 9.7 | 7.7 | -2.3 |
8. | North Carolina | 337,744 | 9.6 | 6.1 | -3.6 |
9. | Texas | 689,171 | 8.4 | 7.9 | -0.9 |
10. | South Carolina | 137,096 | 7.8 | 4.6 | -5.6 |
11. | Virginia | 212,395 | 7.3 | 5.4 | -6.8 |
12. | Delaware | 24,376 | 7.1 | 6.0 | -4.9 |
13. | Minnesota | 146,749 | 7.1 | 3.7 | -8.3 |
14. | Tennessee | 155,627 | 6.4 | 3.7 | -5.1 |
15. | Washington | 155,541 | 6.3 | 5.3 | -5.8 |
16. | Indiana | 158,292 | 6.3 | 2.6 | -9.1 |
17. | Wisconsin | 142,645 | 6.1 | 2.7 | -10.0 |
18. | South Dakota | 19,413 | 6.0 | 2.1 | -12.3 |
19. | New Mexico | 44,961 | 5.8 | 4.6 | -8.0 |
20. | Oregon | 82,657 | 5.7 | 5.1 | -5.1 |
21. | Kentucky | 91,853 | 5.2 | 2.6 | -6.6 |
22. | New Hampshire | 28,647 | 5.2 | 5.2 | -10.0 |
23. | Arkansas | 60,161 | 5.1 | 3.0 | -7.2 |
24. | Mississippi | 59,288 | 5.1 | 2.0 | -6.3 |
25. | Missouri | 122,337 | 5.0 | 2.8 | -8.0 |
26. | Iowa | 60,446 | 4.9 | 1.0 | -11.6 |
27. | Maryland | 105,050 | 4.9 | 4.9 | -8.5 |
28. | Nebraska | 35,074 | 4.9 | 2.1 | -10.1 |
29. | Hawaii | 22,331 | 4.8 | 4.2 | -12.8 |
30. | Alabama | 95,117 | 4.8 | 1.9 | -7.8 |
31. | California | 590,152 | 4.8 | 6.0 | -4.1 |
32. | Kansas | 53,719 | 4.7 | 1.7 | -10.1 |
33. | Michigan | 198,766 | 4.7 | 1.8 | -10.7 |
34. | Illinois | 208,442 | 4.3 | 2.4 | -8.2 |
35. | Alaska | 10,570 | 4.1 | 4.5 | -11.8 |
36. | Louisiana | 72,685 | 3.9 | 1.0 | -8.9 |
37. | Wyoming | 8,783 | 3.9 | 2.6 | -11.2 |
38. | Oklahoma | 58,356 | 3.9 | 2.1 | -7.3 |
39. | North Dakota | 11,136 | 3.8 | -1.2 | -14.6 |
40. | Ohio | 183,680 | 3.8 | 0.9 | -11.6 |
41. | Maine | 24,766 | 3.8 | 3.3 | -12.2 |
42. | Vermont | 9,909 | 3.4 | 2.1 | -13.2 |
43. | New Jersey | 104,465 | 3.2 | 3.4 | -10.1 |
44. | West Virginia | 22,318 | 2.6 | 0.4 | -11.1 |
45. | Pennsylvania | 135,978 | 2.6 | 1.0 | -14.4 |
46. | Montana | 10,629 | 2.6 | 2.7 | -11.8 |
47. | Connecticut | 28,436 | 2.1 | 2.9 | -13.6 |
48. | Massachusetts | 50,068 | 1.9 | 1.1 | -10.8 |
49. | New York | 140,052 | 1.8 | 1.3 | -9.6 |
50. | Rhode Island | 6,468 | 1.5 | 3.1 | -10.2 |
US Total | 6,766,796 | 5.8 | 4.3 | -7.9 |
Source: US Census Bureau (www.census.gov). Note: Figures are rounded up to one decimal place, and there are no ties in the rankings.