Seattle area population growth vs. housing prices
Howdy.
I was having a good conversation with a friend of mine last weekend who bought a house in Seattle in late '04 or '05. He mentioned that he'd heard that the greater Seattle area has been growing in population by 80k a year and while this supposed growth continues happening, he doesn't see home prices dropping much. I made a $1 gentleman's bet with him that they will, and significantly.
To check his facts, I went internet-spelunking and dug up the estimated population for the area from the census bureau (PDF): http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www ... 51tbl2.pdf
Here's the estimated population data for the greater Seattle area for July 1 of each year (with some added calculations from me):
Here's for Seattle city (source: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html):
Are these estimated population numbers from the census bureau bogus? What will 2007's be? Will that be the 80k growth he was talking about? Is my analysis bad?
But the real question is: is this population growth even remotely enough to offset the price declines most of here at Seattle Bubble are expecting (and for me, really really hoping for)?
I was having a good conversation with a friend of mine last weekend who bought a house in Seattle in late '04 or '05. He mentioned that he'd heard that the greater Seattle area has been growing in population by 80k a year and while this supposed growth continues happening, he doesn't see home prices dropping much. I made a $1 gentleman's bet with him that they will, and significantly.
To check his facts, I went internet-spelunking and dug up the estimated population for the area from the census bureau (PDF): http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www ... 51tbl2.pdf
Here's the estimated population data for the greater Seattle area for July 1 of each year (with some added calculations from me):
Date Est. Pop Growth Pct Growth 2000 3,052,567 2001 3,096,715 44,148 1.43% 2002 3,124,793 28,078 0.90% 2003 3,143,272 18,479 0.59% 2004 3,169,146 25,874 0.82% 2005 3,207,892 38,746 1.21% 2006 3,263,497 55,605 1.70%
Here's for Seattle city (source: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2006.html):
Date Est. Pop Growth Pct Growth 2000 564,182 2001 570,287 6,105 1.07% 2002 571,254 967 0.17% 2003 571,264 10 0.00% 2004 572,166 902 0.16% 2005 575,884 3,718 0.65% 2006 582,454 6,570 1.13%
Are these estimated population numbers from the census bureau bogus? What will 2007's be? Will that be the 80k growth he was talking about? Is my analysis bad?
But the real question is: is this population growth even remotely enough to offset the price declines most of here at Seattle Bubble are expecting (and for me, really really hoping for)?
Comments
Thanks much.
Likewise, when a house in the city is replaced with 3 townhomes, that doesn't necessarily increase the supply by two, because a SFH is more desirable than a townhome.
The bottom line is, when decent lots for SFHs in a metro area within a region of reasonable commutes is exhausted, rising population and/or increased popularity will henceforth put upward pressure on prices, to be only somewhat mitigated by additional new units (including townhomes, condos, infill on less desirable remaining lots, and houses in the boonies). Doesn't mean that the upward pressure cannot be swamped by the popping of an overheated market, so prices can still fall.