For reasons both Macro and Micro we should suspect that this period of unusually low GDP growth will be followed by a period of unusually high GDP growth.
From a disaggregated, but not quite micro, perspective my continuing thesis includes:
- Home construction is unsustainably low
- Household formation is unsustainably low
- Even given (2), (1) is so bad that vacancies are falling and rents are tightening
- Yet, (2) is implicitly caused by (1) because weak construction is depressing employment
Thus there are the makings of a boom stirring. Construction will pick up. This will lead to falling unemployment. This will lead to rising household formation. This will lead to ever more construction.
In a world of high gasoline prices, low crime and weak household balance sheets there is every reason to expect that we will see a historic increase in new urban apartment complexes.
This will be exacerbated by the public school flip that it will set off. Young couples will flood into low crime, cheap transportation and quite frankly the only available housing of the city. They will send their smart well prepared young children to public schools. They will show up at the local PTA. They will lobby the city government for reform.
This will cause a dramatic rise in the performance of city schools, making urban neighborhoods even more attractive. Gentrification will accelerate. The suburbs will reach a tipping point where the schools are worse and the neighborhoods less prestigious. The reversal will intensify as high status becomes associated with raising a family in the city.
In a relatively short time, American cities will have flipped inside out. Or right side out given your perspective. America has always been the outlier here. A flood new skyscrapers will be created.
While the North East corridor is primed for this type of thing given its current built environment, new building permitting may play a vital role. We may be looking at the new urban south. I am thinking Florida, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina. These are places where its still legally possible to raze whole neighborhoods to put up big shinny buildings.
They also have not insignificant urban cores in Tampa, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Charlotte. Austin and Raleigh are much smaller but are hooked up to the fast growing tech industry.
This trend will be enhanced if driverless taxis are approved in the near term as this will take the pressure off of new mass transit construction.
This is of course, over the medium term. Over the longer term we get virtual schools and offices, tiny passengerless car-robots and cheap solar power which may promote a resuburbanization.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Marcelo
This would be quite the boom. Unfortunately I see Scott Sumner’s analysis more realistic (http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=10061). “Pent Up Demand” doesn’t really feel like an engine of economic growth.
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Gepap
I don’t see it. What is the basis for expecting demand for housing to be the same in the future if the wages for the mass of people aren’t keeping up with rising land prices (after all, owning the land the house is on is more important than whatever structure is on it).
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Alex
You are an optimist. I hope you’re right. We also have the coming of Chinese wages losing their competitive advantage to look forward too (after transport and other costs.) Some of those jobs are going to come back and consumption in China will rise. Free trade paying off.
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Lord
Yes, Sumner seems more relevant. The reason for the housing boom is everyone thought they would get rich from it. Now housing is an expense rather than an investment, one that is constrained by incomes. Suggesting the incomes will come from housing is circular reasoning. While housing will cease to be a drag on the economy, after the last boom, it won’t become its engine for a generation. The next boom is never the last.
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Th
I have been waiting patiently for 50 years for my flying car and all I get is a driverless taxi?
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Apex
America is unique because America is unique.
American’s do not want to pack into the inner cities and even if there is a coming apartment boom, I can think of no reason for it to be in the inner cities. And where are these cheap inner cities with low crime? I know of some cheap inner cities in my Metro area in the midwest. I don’t know anyone who thinks these are low crime areas.
The idea that the suburbs and inner cities are going to swap roles on where people want to live, where the crime is not, and where the good schools are seems like a whole lot of Alice in Wonderland with a second helping of Wonderland.
Tuesday ~ July 19th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Gepap
Except Americans did “pack into inner cities” in the period between 1850 and 1950. That was the time when many American cities grew and developed. Amazingly, history did not begin in 1946.
You can even see the development in early TV. For example, the first classic TV sitcom, the Honeymooners, is about a NYC bus driver who lives in an apartment in the “inner city” and the other main protagonist is the super. Heck, even Lucy and Desi lived in a NYC apartment originally, before eventually they moved to the suburbs.
Tuesday ~ July 19th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Apex
There was definitely a huge transition from rural to urban living in that period but as you transition from a rural agriculture society to an urban one you can’t really start with suburbs. So of course you first packed into the inner cities, that’s all there was. It would seem rather odd to start an urbanization trend with a donut hole for no good reason. Even in 1900 America was still 60% rural. It is now only 25% rural.
While there are many Americans who prefer the high density living of the inner city there are many that do not. Perhaps owing partially to our not too distant rural roots. Whatever the cause, we went from rural, into the cities and then expanded out into the suburbs. I would not bet on gas prices pushing large groups of people back into the cities.
The premise of this line of thinking is that apartment complexes are going to be built in the inner cities. That’s not where I see new complexes going up. Just about every complex I see in the inner city is an old piece of crap. The few that are newer are usually condo conversions. All the new complexes go up in the suburbs. I have heard nothing in this argument that indicates why new construction coming on line is going to suddenly shift to the inner city.
Monday ~ July 18th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Dar
hmmm… sounds vaguely like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. I can’t throw a rock without hitting a condo development here in Toronto. Wealthy 2 income, university educated couples own $1M+ homes within 10km of the core. Traffic is so bad that you pay more to avoid 1hr+ each way commutes from the suburbs. House price rises force anyone not willing to pay those prices and not wanting to drive into condos ($300K++) which further fuels the development boom. City schools are generally better than the suburban ones on average although every varies by district. Everyone’s been calling this boom unsustainable for 10 years, yet it paused for only 6 months during the ‘Great Recession’.
Your scenario isn’t entirely unrealistic – especially if $80/barrel oil is a floor.
Tuesday ~ July 19th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Craig
You warm the heart of a city-dweller attempting to buy a new house and rent out the old one. Hope you’re right…