Submitted by born_in_cyberspace t3_zckw2a in dataisbeautiful
Comments
fail-deadly- t1_iyxtw6h wrote
Also, this map bears a striking resemblance to the state population change 2020 map you can find here
https://public.tableau.com/views/PopulationChange2020/Dashboard1?
The states losing population seem to correspond to brown or yellow areas and the states gaining population seem to correspond to the teal and green areas.
zoinkability t1_iyyfhyu wrote
B-b-b-but the post title "More houses are being built in states with growing populations" wouldn't be clickbaity or try to push my political agenda!
rustafarionm t1_iz0clw2 wrote
what agenda?
zoinkability t1_iz0gi14 wrote
“You want to build a house? Not in my state!”
This is a highly editorialized title that is not supported by the data presented (this is starts per capita, which doesn’t measure how responsive the permitting process is to market demand; showing starts per application might get closer).
Such editorialization suggests that OP has an agenda. What agenda? I don’t know for sure but I would hazard a guess that they are trying to paint a picture of some states being unreasonably restrictive of issuing new construction permits, given that title. Too bad they aren’t actually showing data that supports said picture.
Torker t1_iyyreab wrote
Many people check the price of homes before moving states. I check housing prices in California, would move there if they built more houses. Of course the rust belt is different story.
rustafarionm t1_iz0bm78 wrote
I live in the rust belt.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the reason why there is such a small amount of actually two-fold (I suspect the circumstances between California, and say the west coast are quite different).
Here is what Ive observed in PA, regarding housing (in the rustbelt, and is the 5th most populated state)
Most of the high demand areas already have older housing from the post war suburban craze. The high demand areas are limited on space and have a plethora of housing available.
This is due to:
1.Consistent decreasing of total population, over the past several decades, prior to the pandemic
- Lower cost of living, even in counties with a high populous center.
I know that in the pittburgh area, for example, there isnt much room to build new housing.
This is better, in the long run, as building an older home decreases your carbon footprint, over a new purchase.
However, do to many factors, Allegheny co just saw its first population + in many decades.
Edit. I wanted to also add in, that we have alot of empty lots in urban areas as well. However, our more rural areas have also seen an uptick in WFH employees, who are leaving their former HCOL area.
Often times, new permits are so different by county, that it might be more cost effective do build farther away from your commute, depending on the lax nature of the permit requirements.
nine_of_swords t1_iz1be2n wrote
It's more likely that permits are used to estimate population growth. That said, the estimates were noticeably wrong with regards to some states. Alabama, for example had a population estimate for 2020 that was over a 100k under the census count, and while the census number was within the margin of error in the follow up survey (which also basically knocked out all of NY's 2010-2020 population gains), it showed that the census count in Alabama leans more towards being an undercount.
That said, part of it might be that the requirement a permit to build house in Alabama might be a little loose in parts of Alabama. I don't know if you need one in Bibb County, for example, and that's part of one of the biggest metro (albeit the most rural part of that metro).
Cassak5111 t1_iyyhnuo wrote
What sense does "per application" make?
It's not an indicator of the permissivity of housing starts because for the most part zoning rules are well-known and you're simply not going to apply if you know you're not going to be approved.
New2ThisThrowaway t1_iyyliy9 wrote
It would show how many permits are approved vs. rejected. The editorialized comment "Not in My State!" seems to imply an indication of rejection. But that's not the data being shown.
Cassak5111 t1_iyyqxew wrote
That's not helpful information though. My point is if the housing starts are prohibited by zoning laws, they are not going to show up as rejected because no builder would apply in the first place.
rustafarionm t1_iz0dkbz wrote
Take with a grain of salt.
its 'per capita' allegedly.... they need to average it out to make it more comparable between states. also the title is nonsense.
And OP never indicated much, as to how he built the map.
For example, PA is listed as low amounts of permits...but I think thats because there are simply enough older homes available, that new construction is less desirable.
IF thats what OP did, Im assuming he calculated; Permits/residents
But its unclear from the map title alone. And Im not going to comb through their links, because the onus should be on them to clarify their methodology.
If they were mapping percentages of permits/rejections That would be a bit more fitting of the title. But ultimately more information is needed.
[deleted] t1_iyypirs wrote
[deleted]
PoopieButt317 t1_iyyctjs wrote
More importantly"private", what does that mean, what is inured, exuded by that? Single house?
chouseva t1_iyx2a5s wrote
Per capita isn't the right approach. Little kids aren't in the market for a new home. Either use households or the adult population.
The quote in the subtitle is misleading, as it implies that NIMByism is why the number of permits are what they are. Based on the HOUST data in FRED, the growth in housing starts post-2008 crisis has been strong.
Growth rates would have made more sense.
stevez28 t1_iyxcipd wrote
The number of kids per family doesn't vary that widely. It's the same in most states (~1.9), except it's just a touch higher in the Mormon corridor and slightly lower in the northeast.
hiricinee t1_iyxhuwn wrote
Notable too that in those places the data seems to skew the opposite way, as in while the number of people per household goes up, the per capita new constructions also goes up, instead of being depressed by the bigger relative denominator.
RedditUser91805 t1_iyxy7y4 wrote
Per Capita isn't the right approach, but per household is also the wrong approach. Household size is effected by, well, the number of housing units. A state that has historically suppressed the number of housing units will have higher housing production per household than a state with equivalent population and housing production that historically hasn't suppressed housing units.
Adult population is a better approach
Personally, I'd measure change in housing stock relative relative to change in adult population (completions - demotions) / change in population 18+
Bewaretheicespiders t1_iyy6s2z wrote
There isnt a hugely significant statistical deviation of household size per state. Utah and District of Columbia are outliers, but all other states are fairly close to the 2.54 person per household average for the country.
jigga19 t1_iyz0oli wrote
I’m curious relative to available housing. If houses are available, building more houses seems a waste. Also, what about teardowns? Ive lived in several areas where it was common to buy a house for the land, raze the existing house - which is surprisingly cheap! - and build a new, updated house. Where does this fit in?
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyxak5j wrote
I’m glad others have had similar thoughts; when I saw the title my initial question was “this is the supply, what is the demand?”
guy999 t1_iyxx9ds wrote
there is tons of demand in california.
mtcwby t1_iyyl5i6 wrote
California through code, permits, labor and utility hookups has added an enormous bill onto new houses in the most populated areas. Demand suffers when the basic cost of building goes over 800K.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyy6zdf wrote
Demand for housing absolutely, but I don’t happen to know how many people in California are trying to build new single family homes
corgis_are_awesome t1_iyy7du3 wrote
Because they can’t?
mtcwby t1_iyylfl6 wrote
Because the cost of doing so doesn't meet the affordability of those who need houses. The cost to build is through the roof in the SF bay area. Even if it's approved and zoned for it. Developers don't put out that much money to lose money. At least not more than once.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyy7qi6 wrote
I’m not asking why. I’m wondering what the demand for this class of housing is, because this data on its own doesn’t really describe anything. Different demographics will have different intrinsic demands per capita, and I’m just asking the question.
corgis_are_awesome t1_iyy7y7j wrote
The demand is through the roof, as evidenced by the fact that a single family home costs over a million dollars in CA…
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyyaje0 wrote
That’s not necessarily a causal relationship. Come on, we’re on a data and science focused sub. I’m saying the picture here is incomplete. You can determine very little from this particular chart on its own. I’m suggesting that OP maybe correct for variable demand using some empirical data, which will paint a more interesting and complete picture. I don’t know anything about California. I’m not arguing it’s a perfect state, and I don’t know how what I’ve said could be misconstrued as such. I’m trying to be a good steward of the data, and prevent those with preconceived ideas of what this extremely specific datum means from misunderstanding or misrepresenting it. Honestly, touch some grass and then take a good look at this thread.
LoveThieves t1_iyzwpxt wrote
There is “Always” a demand to live in a nice weather, protected area vs shitty weather, bad neighborhood but the issue is about long term investment and return.
Also “nice areas” don’t want new homes or type of multi family residences built around them and created ordinances to prevent it because it ruins their home values and creates more traffic, pollution and crime.
It’s a “I was here first” mentality to make sure an area stays protected and controls a market instead of letting the market decide on its own. Like socialism for the rich with gated communities and deciding the politics of a city versus the market.
Big_Forever5759 t1_iyy9i9a wrote
Yeah, Americans in general have a fear of buying an apartment and more so in California. So everything is single family homes and sprawls of it.
DazedWithCoffee t1_iyyb0hx wrote
You could argue that the data here says otherwise, given how incomplete this datum is. What if all the demand was fulfilled by high density housing? Now we both know that this isn’t the case, but that’s only because the homeless problem in. California is well documented.
New2ThisThrowaway t1_iyymer1 wrote
Well, they could. Just not in the desirable locations that are already populated. Any new units in those areas are multi-story buildings and not represented in this visualization.
JusticeForScizor t1_iz0ixx8 wrote
demand requires you to be both willing and able to purchase something
corgis_are_awesome t1_iz0mhkt wrote
There are plenty of people who are both willing and able, as evidenced by the constantly climbing prices and sales.
But if it’s 1000% harder to do a new build due to the government not issuing permits, and due to red tape from NIMBY people, then it’s easier to buy than to build.
It SHOULDN’T be that way, though. The people who already own homes want their properties to keep appreciating in value, and they know that the best way they can ensure that continues is to prevent new builds.
This isn’t rocket science
REO_Studwagon t1_iyyis4y wrote
Uh, that’s our main clients and we’re very busy. Tens of thousands of new units going in around my town.
imnotsoho t1_iyypu5q wrote
There are houses being built all over the Sacramento area. One of the more affordable urban areas of the state. Also lots of apartments.
Malvania t1_iyy7u5d wrote
California is likely the exception to the rule for the chart. Nee York doesn't have new housing starts because it has no space for them. Generally, the Northeast is also losing people, so there isn't a need for new starts, whereas Texas and Florida have people moving there, requiring more starts
Yank_of_Jamin t1_iyyeix1 wrote
New York is more than just the city, there’s more space for new houses than you might think.
Malvania t1_iyyf1ju wrote
That would be the parts of the state that are having people move away.
Yank_of_Jamin t1_iyyfar9 wrote
Sure, myself being one of those that left. I’m just saying it’s reasonable to assume more new houses are being built where there’s space for them than in the city where as you said earlier, there is no space.
Late_Advice_9793 t1_iyyk805 wrote
Where did you move
Aaron_Hamm t1_iyyndb1 wrote
But if you move away, and everyone else is generally, housing doesn't get built because it's not needed...
SE_SHO_hw t1_iyyued4 wrote
There is plenty of space for housing, both in the city and the wider state. Hell, you can get lots more housing in Manhattan! The population of Manhattan actually peaked around 1900-1910, before we could build nearly as vertically as we can today.
glmory t1_iz4mne2 wrote
Most of New York doesn’t look like Manhattan. Therefore plenty of room for new housing.
cichlidassassin t1_iyyplsj wrote
*Tons of demand in specific areas
Karlosbubi t1_iz0xth9 wrote
But only in the cities, where can't build a new house as easily
[deleted] t1_iz027qd wrote
[removed]
jamkoch t1_iyx9yjp wrote
Aren't most of the building permits in Florida from hurricane damage?
New2ThisThrowaway t1_iyyo17j wrote
I was thinking the same thing. But this data is for new units. The number of homes completely destroyed by hurricanes is relative low compared to these numbers. Most homes are damaged, not destroyed.
I couldn't find exact stats, but it looks like fewer than 10,000 homes destroyed by hurricanes in FL this year. That's .00046 per capita. Not negligible, but also probably wouldn't change these numbers much.
rustafarionm t1_iz0dz2i wrote
90% of Ft Myers Beach was destroyed from this last hurricane
My cousins place, all that was left was a foundation.
Their swiming pool had a couch in it.
And there was 2 washers and 2 dryer units sitting on the foundation where their house once was.
Neither of the wash/dryer units was theirs.
LoveThieves t1_iyzxami wrote
1 major hurricane every 4 years is a Florida stat that makes cheaply built homes the worst investment. Might as well live in dessert area on the West
oblivision t1_iyxlbg8 wrote
ITT: people jumping through hoops to avoid saying that California's NIMBY policies are part of the cause of high housing costs
[deleted] t1_iyy0bjh wrote
[deleted]
calguy1955 t1_iyy248u wrote
Really? It seems I’m always seeing comments and statistics about how people are fleeing California for Texas. Maybe that’s why there aren’t as many houses being built. As far a NIMBYism goes the state recently passed a law allowing anyone with an existing house to be able to build a second one on the same lot or to convert their garage to an apartment and prohibits local governments from stopping it.
crooked-v t1_iyyz91g wrote
>It seems I’m always seeing comments and statistics about how people are fleeing California for Texas. Maybe that’s why there aren’t as many houses being built.
You've got the cause and effect reversed there. People have been leaving California in droves because housing there is wildly, insanely expensive.
calguy1955 t1_iz0zrzx wrote
That’s one reason. As other people have pointed out the whole map is misleading. According to it 40,500 new dwellings were built in South Carolina and 130,000 were built in California so I guess we’re not doing that bad.
[deleted] t1_iz1uq0e wrote
[deleted]
calguy1955 t1_iz1v6da wrote
I know that, but if so,many people are supposedly fleeing to the greener pastures of the south why are we building more houses than them?
[deleted] t1_iz1wghv wrote
[deleted]
calguy1955 t1_iz28g03 wrote
The comment was “people have been leaving in droves”. If that is true then that should balance out the natural growth from kids growing up and needing housing. Some locations in the state are very expensive, just like exclusive locations in every state, but much of the state is no more expensive than any state. We all don’t live in Malibu and Carmel.
teamongered t1_iyxa07w wrote
Might be more interesting to visualize this by county instead of state if the data is available.
[deleted] t1_iyycfml wrote
[removed]
Inariameme t1_iyxao4g wrote
Ooo ooo
By County
By County!
BeginnersValue t1_iyyarur wrote
A few counties are missing, but here is roughly the same thing by county. LINK
skunkwoks t1_iyxe91f wrote
Is it because permits are not issued, or because people can’t afford to build?
lost_in_life_34 t1_iyy5tqk wrote
in NYC some new housing developments have to be approved by the city council and many have to go through local community boards that hate most new housing
​
the construction costs aren't that high compared to the legal and other costs of having new housing approved
RunningNumbers t1_iyy6w24 wrote
You ever see the wall of permits that new constructions in NYC?
Like a 6 foot wall of permits.
lost_in_life_34 t1_iyy78y9 wrote
yep
​
and then the people who live in the area will record the work and complain to the city for a stop work order
RunningNumbers t1_iyy6olb wrote
Permits are not issued because the regulatory hurdles to build make it so costly to build
rustafarionm t1_iz0e2rw wrote
No one knows. apparently OP doesnt exist
jeremiah1142 t1_iyygq24 wrote
Unit of measure is bad. When everything is 0.00XX…. Dude….
Sir_K_Nambor t1_iyycklk wrote
Not every place requires permits. Isn't this typically a requirement for more urban areas?
The_Grizzly- t1_iyz7l92 wrote
Is that why California has so many homeless people?
MeepM3rp t1_iz0yqut wrote
A lack of affordable housing is a not the only reason but it is a major contributing factor.
glmory t1_iz4mwgd wrote
Yes. Decades of under building has resulted in a situation where you need family who bought decades ago or a really good job to not be homeless.
rustafarionm t1_iz0e96u wrote
no thats not why.
Areas that have a year long temperate climate, tend to have a higher homeless population
AVDLatex t1_iyx0rmn wrote
I bet that would align with population increases in those green states.
[deleted] t1_iyxphi6 wrote
[removed]
WorldTallestEngineer t1_iyxs3qm wrote
We need to legalize affordable housing!
glmory t1_iz4mzre wrote
And housing for normal people!
tan_blue t1_iyyasqc wrote
Pet Capita is a weird measurement to use. If there are a lot of housing units available, they wouldn't be adding a lot more. And "housing unit" also refers to apartments, not just houses. This map isn't really displaying any useful info.
PoopieButt317 t1_iyycl65 wrote
Qhat is "privatel" mean. Not corporate? Individuals? I don't get what this is telling of.
JimBeam823 t1_iyyt0vh wrote
This is the real reason why people are moving to Texas, Florida, and the Carolinas. Not some Culture War bullshit.
thurst777 t1_iyzhs0n wrote
Ok, but what is the authorized to requested ratio?
Is this a reflection of people requesting to build their own house, or to pay someone else to build them a house? Big difference in the two.
InsuranceToTheRescue t1_iz0wqeb wrote
Just to clarify, by housing units do you mean individual residential structures or actual living units available? Like if a developer builds a 24 unit condo building and sells them all off, does that count as 24 housing units or just 1?
[deleted] t1_iyx8y5w wrote
[removed]
bigorangemachine t1_iyxx19g wrote
Well flordia gotta sell all that low laying land lol
rustafarionm t1_iz0ekgl wrote
florida has been perpetually growing forever. Its constant construction.
​
Thats why they have high permits, they have a ton of vacation rentals
bigorangemachine t1_iz0omv4 wrote
Ya but the insurance is a mess. The only one insuring homes is the state. It's a disaster waiting to happen once the sea level rise takes hold.
tc2007 t1_iyy9gtn wrote
Let's first free up all the empty houses sold to corporate investors, foreign nationals etc.
anonkitty2 t1_iz1pqyp wrote
In my area, many developers get one permit to build an entire development. Thus, several hundred houses in Kansas are missing, as the areas in eastern Kansas with capita do get new single - family housing developments, and get several dozen houses per development. They even throw in schools, parks, and community centers.
YourWiseOldFriend t1_iyx9pxi wrote
Mind you, this happens in a vast country that has more than enough room to build a home for every individual citizen and it wouldn't even look crammed.
If every human on the planet got 100m^(2) of space, which is more than ample for anyone, with at most requiring two story buildings, the state of Texas alone would be enough to house all of humanity.
Refusing a building permit, in a state like Alaska is insanity.
alcesalcesg t1_iyybm6g wrote
The state of alaska has no building permit requirement. Some, but not all, municipalities have their own
tpa338829 t1_iyxf5r6 wrote
But what about preserving all the open space!!!
^ half sarcasm half not.
I totally agree with you. But some places in Alaska shouldn’t be built on. However, near me, a 334 badly needed units were denied and the land was made conservation land. It’s a freaking defunct oil field!
born_in_cyberspace OP t1_iyx0quy wrote
Tools: datawrapper, LibreOffice, GIMP
Data sources:
- https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/statemonthly.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population (2020)
This is a reupload to fix the post title.
leighsly211 t1_iyxw7rm wrote
Out of curiosity, I wanted to know how many of those permitted units were in multi-unit structures.
Traditional-Let7900 t1_iyxb51d wrote
Wish Texas cost more so fuckers would quit moving here
hobbitdude13 t1_iyxs2q5 wrote
But I thought Texas was supposed to be this grand, wonderful, well-run state! Who wouldn't want to move there, start a family, and freeze to death in the winter?
Traditional-Let7900 t1_iyxylv1 wrote
It’s horrible don’t move here
hobbitdude13 t1_iyy0l0j wrote
You couldn't pay me to move to that GOP-led shithole.
Traditional-Let7900 t1_iyyailk wrote
Better then a crime infested democratic ran dump
Doover__ t1_iyyjv1t wrote
ah yes, famously crime infested New England, yup murder capitol of the world here in Boston
Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_iyx386n wrote
It's not fixed because you're still doing per Capita and not per application...