Posted by: Josh Lehner | July 7, 2015

Graph of the Week: Housing Costs

This edition of the Graph of the Week highlights the relationship between home prices and new home construction across the 50 largest metros in the country. (Original graph idea from Jed Kolko, formerly of Trulia.) It comes out of some work Tim Duy and I did recently in a different venue but is important to highlight. In essence, expensive housing markets do not build much new construction. Portland, along with other popular cities like Denver and Seattle, are right on the middle of the curve, essentially indicating that we’re adding just enough housing to keep affordability at a somewhat manageable level. These regions are keeping their heads above water, but just barely.

Find an interactive version of the graph here.


In talks I have been framing this as the choice we face. Either the region builds enough homes and apartments to keep affordability from getting worse, or watch as the region slides into the unaffordable category. I realize many already find Portland unaffordable. Using the benchmark of 30% of income spent on housing as the threshold, 37% of homeowners spend more on their mortgage and 52% of renters do likewise (2013 ACS data.) A relatively new line of research, new to me at least, is focusing on 45% of income spent on housing and transportation costs as affordable. To the extent that a household can afford to spend more on rent given they live close to work, or have good public transit or other mode options, this makes sense. Similarly, housing is generally more inexpensive on the outskirts of the metro, but transportation costs are generally higher as well given longer commutes. The worst problems arise when both categories are high for a given household.

Finally, such a high level look leaves to the side many different and important facets of the housing discussion, from land use policy and zoning to neighborhood character and gentrification. All of these are important topics should Oregonians want to have the conversations, but also lie largely outside the realm of economics or supply and demand. However supply and demand goes a long way toward explaining today’s level of housing affordability as discussed previously (HERE and HERE, e.g.)



  1. Can you link to the original data? I’d love to find Nashville on that.

  2. […] relative to demand, particularly from a housing affordability perspective. See the recent post on home prices across the 50 largest MSAs, or the four part series on housing in Portland. Also, see this post for a more complete discussion […]

  3. […] the numbers. See here for more on new building relative to population growth. Also, stay tuned for more housing analysis in the near future.Below is a similar chart for each of the state’s other major metropolitan areas. We have […]

  4. […] our office’s forecast. The one item that was somewhat new, was the following graph. I updated previous work I did with University of Oregon’s Tim Duy on home prices and new home construction across the largest metros in the country. This is updated […]

  5. […] along with other fast growing places like Denver and Seattle, have historically been able to build just enough housing to keep prices from reaching the levels seen in the most expensive markets. With population growth […]

  6. […] life. However we also know a key reason is the low levels of supply or lack of new construction. As Tim Duy and I wrote a few years back, expensive cities don’t built much housing, for a variety of macro reasons in addition to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: