Housing Recovery (Q1 2012 to Q4 2013)

Recently there has been a national housing recovery in the United States (Q1 2012 to Q4 2013).  Like the housing bubble there have been price increases in nearly all urban areas, even Detroit (see map below). Not one metro lost value although 4 metros increased by less than 2 percent according to the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) data set of 100 metro areas.

 

Housing_Prices_2012_2013

This is unlike the housing crash, and stagnation (see this post and this story) that varied by region and metro area. The magnitude of the increases are not a great as during the bubble, the largest increase was 48 percent vs 98 percent during the bubble and no less than 30 metros had increases of more than 48 percent. Few think we are headed for any type of housing price correction in the near future. Though some believe we are starting another housing bubble no one really knows of course [1]. Foreclosures have experienced as steep decline nationally according to RealtyTrac decreasing 26 percent in 2013 from the previous year [2]. This was a six year low. In total 1.04 percent of all homes were foreclosed on compared to the historic rate of 1 percent. The peak of rate foreclosures was 2.8 percent in 2010 [2].

Price increases have been particularly prominent in areas that were hit hard with foreclosures in Sun Belt States of Florida, Navada, California, and Arizona.  Lower increases tended to be in urban areas in the East Central portion of the United States that did not experience the bubble to the same degree. Of hard hit states only Florida continue to have high foreclosure rates 8.8 percent according to corelogic may 2013 report [2]. Other states in the NY metro have high rates 5.0 % for NJ and 4.1 % for NY, Two states hit hard by the crash, California and Arizona, had modest foreclosure rates both around 1 percent while Nevada still had a high rate of 4.1 percent [2]. The two big losers during the national price stagnation (Q1 2009 – Q1 2012) Boise and Las Vegas both rebounded as well [2]. They both lost 25 percent during the National stagnation (see this post) and Las Vegas went up 48 percent during the recovery number 1, and Boise went up 31 percent, number 8 on the list. Seattle also rebounded after losses during the stagnation of 18 percent gain to 23 percent in the this price recovery. Texas Metros continued there increase as they did almost amazingly through the bubble, crash, and stagnation (very well behaved!).

Housing_Prices_FromBubble

 

After all the change in prices and foreclosures in the past 10 years problematic metro areas still had higher increases than the rest of the country when the dust settled. Of the top gainers from 2003 only Honolulu and Washington, DC  metro did not have a wave of foreclosures. Cities in the South and West like Las Vegas and LA, and Florida such as Fort Lauderdale and Boca Raton had the largest gains the last 10 years and also the largest price crashes (see table below) and foreclosure rates.

NAME recovery stagn crash bubble from2003
Urban Honolulu, HI 19.3% −2.5% 0.7% 75.9% 93.4%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA 30.8% −5.3% −36.4% 88.4% 77.5%
Bakersfield, CA 31.2% −10.4% −46.4% 97.9% 72.3%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 39.4% −6.0% −49.4% 87.7% 71.6%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 41.9% −14.9% −39.6% 83.7% 71.0%
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL 31.3% −4.6% −43.6% 82.5% 65.7%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 12.7% 11.5% −27.1% 67.1% 64.2%
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL 22.5% −2.6% −41.2% 83.2% 61.9%
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL 36.0% −14.2% −41.8% 81.3% 61.3%
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA 24.7% −2.3% −28.8% 66.4% 60.0%
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 48.8% −25.7% −49.8% 82.8% 56.1%

 

1. http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/02/06/housing-bubble-housing-recovery/

2. http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-may-2013.pdf

 

appendix: List by gain in Housing Recovery in the US housing Market. FHFA

NAME recovery stagn crash bubble from2003
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 48.8% −25.7% −49.8% 82.8% 56.1%
Stockton-Lodi, CA 43.8% −6.7% −57.7% 64.2% 43.6%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 41.9% −14.9% −39.6% 83.7% 71.0%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 39.4% −6.0% −49.4% 87.7% 71.6%
Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, CA 39.2% 0.5% −43.9% 42.6% 38.4%
Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA 38.3% −13.0% −41.3% 54.5% 38.5%
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL 36.0% −14.2% −41.8% 81.3% 61.3%
Boise City, ID 31.5% −25.9% −14.8% 57.7% 48.4%
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL 31.3% −4.6% −43.6% 82.5% 65.7%
Bakersfield, CA 31.2% −10.4% −46.4% 97.9% 72.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA 30.8% −5.3% −36.4% 88.4% 77.5%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 29.6% −15.8% −14.1% 12.3% 12.0%
Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia, MI 29.6% −8.9% −36.3% −1.1% −16.8%
San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco, CA 29.5% −2.8% −10.1% 24.2% 40.8%
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI 28.3% −0.9% −34.6% 3.3% −3.8%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 27.9% 7.3% −31.2% 38.2% 42.3%
Fresno, CA 26.4% −14.7% −41.0% 79.6% 50.2%
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 26.3% 1.2% −34.1% 47.5% 40.8%
North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 25.5% −5.4% −45.9% 77.1% 51.3%
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA 24.7% −2.3% −28.8% 66.4% 60.0%
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA 23.9% −18.1% −5.2% 48.8% 49.3%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 22.7% −1.6% −35.9% 60.2% 45.3%
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL 22.5% −2.6% −41.2% 83.2% 61.9%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 22.1% −22.3% −32.4% 78.2% 45.6%
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 22.1% 0.7% −53.1% 83.5% 53.2%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 21.8% −15.2% −6.0% 52.7% 53.3%
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 21.8% 2.1% −4.0% 9.8% 29.8%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 20.7% 6.0% 7.1% 15.7% 49.5%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 20.1% −14.4% −32.0% 71.9% 45.6%
Salt Lake City, UT 19.7% −10.5% 0.6% 40.7% 50.4%
Urban Honolulu, HI 19.3% −2.5% 0.7% 75.9% 93.4%
Tucson, AZ 19.2% −24.5% −20.6% 66.3% 40.4%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 18.9% −9.6% −19.4% 19.7% 9.7%
Tacoma-Lakewood, WA 17.8% −18.1% −16.4% 54.2% 37.5%
Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 17.4% −5.0% 0.1% 27.1% 39.7%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 17.3% −12.5% 5.7% 17.4% 27.8%
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 17.0% −18.1% −7.5% 47.1% 38.6%
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 15.7% 0.2% 3.4% 10.4% 29.8%
Austin-Round Rock, TX 15.7% 4.0% 12.2% 17.9% 49.7%
Silver Spring-Frederick-Rockville, MD 15.7% −2.7% −24.4% 65.4% 54.0%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 15.2% −1.9% −16.5% 5.8% 2.6%
Colorado Springs, CO 14.3% −5.6% −7.9% 18.7% 19.5%
Jacksonville, FL 14.2% −16.2% −23.8% 59.8% 33.9%
Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights, IL 14.1% −17.7% −14.8% 30.1% 11.6%
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA 14.1% −3.7% −10.1% 16.1% 16.3%
New Orleans-Metairie, LA 12.9% 0.8% −9.7% 35.2% 39.3%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 12.7% 11.5% −27.1% 67.1% 64.2%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 11.8% −4.0% −10.6% 13.9% 11.1%
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 11.5% 0.4% 2.4% 10.1% 24.4%
Boston, MA 11.2% −0.9% −13.3% 18.1% 15.1%
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 11.0% −2.7% −5.3% 12.2% 15.3%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 11.0% −1.0% −5.6% 8.5% 12.9%
Birmingham-Hoover, AL 10.1% −7.6% −3.5% 23.1% 22.2%
Richmond, VA 10.0% −12.8% −5.5% 44.4% 36.2%
Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ 10.0% −14.4% −8.9% 45.8% 32.6%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 9.8% −9.4% −11.6% 63.0% 51.8%
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI 9.7% −16.5% −14.2% 21.1% 0.2%
Gary, IN 9.7% −3.9% −7.7% 17.2% 15.3%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 9.6% −0.2% 8.6% 22.9% 40.8%
Akron, OH 9.2% −4.2% −11.5% 6.1% −0.3%
Columbus, OH 9.1% −2.5% −5.0% 10.6% 12.1%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 8.9% −11.7% −5.4% 22.7% 14.5%
St. Louis, MO-IL 8.9% −8.3% −7.3% 21.6% 14.8%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 8.8% 5.4% 6.5% 15.9% 36.7%
Cleveland-Elyria, OH 8.7% −5.0% −15.6% 6.6% −5.3%
El Paso, TX 8.5% −5.1% −0.8% 36.0% 38.6%
Wichita, KS 7.8% −9.1% 5.2% 11.2% 15.1%
Worcester, MA-CT 7.8% −10.6% −16.4% 20.4% 1.2%
Kansas City, MO-KS 7.5% −5.6% −5.3% 12.2% 8.7%
Montgomery County-Bucks County-Chester County, PA 7.4% −6.6% −5.5% 37.3% 32.6%
Elgin, IL 7.2% −23.8% −13.0% 26.1% −3.5%
Baton Rouge, LA 7.2% −2.0% 6.4% 27.0% 38.6%
Greensboro-High Point, NC 7.2% −10.0% 1.5% 11.4% 10.1%
Newark, NJ-PA 7.1% −12.0% −11.2% 42.0% 25.8%
Pittsburgh, PA 7.0% 6.5% 3.3% 14.4% 31.2%
Knoxville, TN 7.0% −6.8% 3.9% 27.5% 31.6%
New Haven-Milford, CT 6.8% −15.4% −8.2% 35.4% 18.6%
Raleigh, NC 6.8% −2.6% 4.4% 17.2% 25.8%
Dayton, OH 6.5% −5.8% −9.1% 10.5% 2.1%
Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 6.4% −2.2% 4.4% 13.8% 22.4%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 6.3% −5.3% −6.5% 11.3% 5.8%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 6.1% −15.0% −7.8% 68.5% 51.8%
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 5.9% 0.0% −1.9% 13.8% 17.7%
Albuquerque, NM 5.9% −9.6% −4.5% 45.0% 36.8%
Oklahoma City, OK 5.5% 1.1% 4.4% 19.4% 30.4%
Nassau County-Suffolk County, NY 5.3% −9.4% −11.0% 39.5% 24.5%
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 5.3% −13.6% −8.6% 45.2% 28.2%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 4.8% −12.7% −14.6% 34.4% 11.9%
Philadelphia, PA 4.4% −2.9% −0.3% 53.2% 54.5%
New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ 4.3% −9.9% −9.2% 44.5% 29.7%
Rochester, NY 3.9% −1.1% 3.6% 13.1% 19.5%
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 3.3% 1.2% −0.5% 19.7% 23.7%
Syracuse, NY 2.9% −0.3% 1.4% 20.9% 24.9%
Tulsa, OK 2.7% 0.5% 6.0% 11.3% 20.4%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 2.3% −1.3% −1.5% 46.8% 46.3%
Camden, NJ 2.3% −12.6% −11.4% 49.1% 27.3%
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1.8% −8.3% −5.3% 28.9% 17.1%
Winston-Salem, NC 1.4% −5.8% 2.9% 10.9% 9.4%
Columbia, SC 1.3% −6.7% 0.5% 21.2% 16.3%
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 1.3% −6.1% −15.3% 33.8% 13.8%

 

Advertisements

About Matthew Mulbrandon

I really like maps, as I am a geographer, and with the help of my more artistic partner I make cool maps. My focus in work and education has been centred on urban problems particularly housing and transportation. I have built and am working on several agent-based housing models. I am also interested in developing innovative ways to combat urban congestion using buses and electric kick scooters. Also it has led me to more theoretical pursuits such as how we determine if a model or methodology is sound (epistemology). How individuals relate to their social and built environment and their resulting interactions (social theory). Cities and really all our institutions are made of people with all their issues, virtues, and dreams and cannot be discounted when examining policy or predicting behaviours.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s