The State of the U.S. Housing Market, Explained

A mishmash of fundamentals and unpredictable consumer behavior make forecasting a tricky business.

By
92
A new home is in the process of being built in the Harvest Green neighborhood on Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2023, in Richmond, Texas.(Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

U.S. consumers have been pessimistic about the housing market all year and show no signs of changing their opinions.

According to a national housing sentiment survey commissioned by Fannie Mae, only 14 percent of consumers say now is a good time to buy a home—a new low for the survey. But consumer sentiment is just one feature of a landscape where rising inflation and fluctuating interest rates intersect with global events and supply chain upheavals.

How has the housing market changed since COVID-19?

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. housing market was strong. Historically low mortgage rates and rising house prices had persisted for years, coinciding with a long period of under-building. The upshot was a market with lots of sales activity and limited supply.But COVID-19 changed that. After initial lockdown disruptions in early 2020, the market quickly rebounded with intensified demand.

This was especially true in suburban areas, spawning a phenomenon termed the “donut effect” (when prices go down in city centers but go up in surrounding suburbs). Fueling it were remote work arrangements and consumer preferences for more space, along with indicators of an 18 percent jump in people seeking to relocate to different metro areas. This surge in demand, coupled with historically low mortgage rates, created a highly competitive market, particularly for luxury homes and second properties.Then inflation roared into the picture like a pot boiling over: High consumer demand, expansive government stimulus injecting massive capital into the marketplace, tangled supply chains, labor shortages, soaring energy costs—all stirring up the highest inflation in over four decades. This led the Federal Reserve to cool things off by raising interest rates, causing mortgage rates to surge. The stream of homeowners trading up for something better slowed to a trickle given the pain of swapping a 3.5 percent mortgage rate for 7 percent (known as mortgage rate lock-in)—a pain that was absent in January 2022 and the norm by November. Prospective buyers, looking at that same 7 percent pain, decided to keep renting instead.

What’s the current status of the housing market?

As rate increases have tapered off, the housing market presents a curious mix of standoff and musical chairs. Higher mortgage rates have slowed home sales to a crawl, on track this year to hit their lowest point since 2008. Initially, home prices dipped too, but with supply being so low in 2023 they began to climb again.

This backdrop paints the current, somewhat paradoxical landscape of the U.S. housing market:

  • Low Market Activity: It’s a peculiar standoff—sales are down as buyers and sellers seem to be waiting for each other to make the first move. The result? A market caught in a loop of hesitation, amplified by high prices and mortgage rates/lock-in. (Even those luxury homes everyone was previously clamoring for are gilded cages now).
  • High Home Prices: Contrasting with the sales slowdown, home prices are on an upward trek, spurred by the ever-present shortage of housing supply. (There are efforts to address the supply problem, and much discussion of the problem of NIMBYism and other related factors that cause the shortage to persist. Much of this is difficult to solve, however, when the path to correcting it is different for each state or city, with often broad misunderstanding of and opposition to what would help).
  • Mixed Rental Market: The rental arena is a mixed bag. Nationally, rent prices seem to be dropping this year, but they might be on the rise more recently and certain cities have seen substantial increases, reflecting a patchwork of local economic dynamics.

The market seems to be in a holding pattern, with participants eagerly monitoring the possibility of major shifts in broader market indicators (e.g. major zoning law changes that allow more building, notable inflation/rate shifts). In the meantime, with existing sales down, month-to-month changes in new home sales get lots of attention as they now make up over 15 percent of the market. Deriving meaning from a single-month metric can be akin to reading tea leaves though—particularly when the metric has been so volatile in recent months.

New single-family home sales have fluctuated greatly in recent months.

What should we make of this heading into 2024?

Facing a deluge of housing forecasts, one wonders which, if any, one should heed. The answer is virtually none.

Housing market forecasts can resemble predictions for next month’s weather—educated guesses with a shaky track record. The market is an equation made from summing “fundamentals” (e.g. interest rates, supply-demand seesaws) and the unpredictable tides of human behavior.

During the 2007-08 Great Recession, for example, people’s beliefs had more sway over house prices than actual market fundamentals. Economists Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University suggest that what we thought was a housing bubble bursting was more of a “negative bubble,” driven by sheer panic over shadow banking. Put differently, a panic caused a reverse bubble that artificially deflated prices for a time.

Other research echoes this boom-bust-rebound saga, though noting a return to market basics over the long haul. In other words, over a shorter term the market’s dance is often driven primarily by public whims. In the longer term, it’s the traditional forces of supply, demand, inflation, and interest rates that call the shots. (For an engaging seven-minute explanation of housing economics, check out this video at Marginal Revolution University). 

Forecasting, then, is a complex juggling act. It’s about more than just grasping global dynamics like wars, pandemics, supply chain challenges, and inflation swings. Forecasters also need to predict how people and companies will respond to emerging trends like remote work or the AI revolution. And, of course, there’s always a local real estate soap opera layered on top as well. The “Amazon Effect” in Arlington, Virginia, is a prime example: A single corporate move can flip a market on its head, then flip it back.

Thus, accurate forecasts must correctly anticipate world events, macro market fundamentals, crowd behavior, and local market specifics. Given this, it’s no surprise that even the experts are often wrong. In today’s housing market, a blend of low activity, high prices, and mixed rental trends creates a perplexing scenario. Buyers are navigating a tightrope between seizing deals with steep costs and waiting for a market cooldown that may never come. Sellers, while benefiting from scarce inventory, grapple with the constraints of rate lock-in. This intricate landscape fuels a continuous effort among both buyers and sellers to pinpoint the “right” time for market moves, a pursuit reminiscent of trying to time the stock market, where even robust, evidence-based strategies are often ignored in favor of efforts to control the uncontrollable.

92
By
Comments (92)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    BloggerBarbie

    I watched the video. Very interesting. Not unknown material, but well-presented. (I do think that San Francisco's prohibition on a lot of tall building is probably a good idea, given the earthquakes. Which is why I think it would be a really good idea for big businesses to, I don't know, not center themselves in an earthquake prone city with limited housing.)

    I feel like a lot of this can be laid at the feet of companies all moving to the same cities. I get it, there's status in doing business in Seattle instead of Buffalo, but you know... at some point, the model becomes unsustainable, and I think we've gotten there. Let's say that, for some reason, every widget maker in the country felt it just HAD to do business in, I don't now, Fargo. Suddenly, everyone who makes widgets has to move to Fargo. It booms, and at first, there's housing, but the widget companies are super successful, and more and more of them move in. Maybe they think there's synergy in having all the CEOs be able to lunch together or something. At any rate, Fargo becomes an It destination for the widget crowd. Only now, the people who aren't in widgets have a hard time making rent. But some of the small businesses are booming--people have to eat at a small number of restaurants (or at least, a limited number). One restaurant is serving 5 major widget companies in the neighborhood. The widget uniform store is constantly backed up. The lines are amazing.

    Meanwhile, down route 29 in Sioux Falls, there are no jobs, and the local restaurants are all closing. Houses are standing empty. Workers who could be trained to design widgets are wandering around since the last Whatsis factory closed.

    If one of those widget companies moved down there, the economy in Fargo would be fine. It has lots of widget companies left, and the restaurants are still crowded at lunchtime. But now, Sioux Falls also has a company. And the employees of that company patronize shops and restaurants in Sioux Falls. So instead of one thriving economy, there are two. Plus, there are empty houses for people to move into. And that synergy of noon meetings among the CEOs, if that's what's going on... what the hell, it's 2024, almost. Get on Zoom.

    But no. Instead, we're trying to force more people into the same handful of places.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I wonder what effect immigration has had on housing prices. The US population has grown about 40 million (roughly the size of California) from 2000-2022. Immigration was a huge chunk of that growth.

    I'd think that level of growth would put heavy pressure on home prices as well.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      I sometimes ask, when people mention that immigrants are "needed," "Where are they going to live?" If it's hard to buy or rent a house or afford an apartment for, say, Sons B and C, imagine how hard it is for people with no legal status in the United States. A child or grandchild who is a citizen can be helpful.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      squarooticus

      I believe that's 4 million. 40 million would take you back to 2005-2006. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        I had a typo. it's 2000-2020. from about 281 to 331 million. I corrected my original post, thanks for catching it.

        Collapse
  3. Bobby Picciotti

    Throughout the comments I've seen similar ideas discussed already but I wanted to link to the organization Strong Towns (https://www.strongtowns.org/housing). They have a lot to say on how to structure and build communities and approach it from a classically conservative perspective. Among other things they tend to focus on the current very spread out suburban model as being inherently unsustainable. They view this from both an economics perspective (such communities tend to lack sufficient tax income for the long term maintenance of their infrastructure) and a community perspective (the modern suburban building model tends to cause people to divest from their community rather than ie know their neighbors, etc.).

    Their view is one of an increased focus on local, incremental change rather than massive top down policy. They also tend to one less, rather than more government interference.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Patrick Aris

      I agree with Mudskipper that on first glance this doesn't seem particularly conservative, but I keep reading on and I think it actually is. It's important to detach the mechanisms of change from the outcomes; we might associate criticism of suburbs and cars with the left and therefore be skeptical of all similar criticism, but it's really the use of government force to address these problems that we should think of as left wing, not the criticism itself. It's refreshing and intriguing that Strong Towns seems to make similar critiques without seeking big government solutions. It's nice to be reminded that you can have a 'progressive' outlook (i.e. not being inherently resistant to change) while still applying conservative principles in pursuit of a solution. Thanks for sharing!

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Is it their approach or their goals that you see as classically conservative? Because many liberals have been advocating against the suburban model for some time now, mostly from an environmental and healthy community perspective.

      In the San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding areas, new construction is strongly tilted away from the class suburban model to dense infill construction. Many of these new homes/condos are still fairly expensive because market demand is for decent square footage and amenities. But they are less expensive for the square footage and they are creating more housing more efficiently.

      The state has also been encouraging ADUs. The most recent change is law allowing an ADU to be bought and sold like a condo, and not just rented out. A city still needs to opt-in to allowing this, but it is start.

      Collapse
      1. Bobby Picciotti

        I think it's a bit of both. On the goals side I certainly agree that criticism of a car-centric suburban building pattern is associated with a liberal perspective; however, I think on evaluation there are strong conservative arguments in opposition to it as well and that tends to be what Strong Towns advocates. A few common points they'll raise are:
        1. The car-centric building pattern is the new model (mostly post WW2), whereas a pedestrian focused building pattern is the historic norm.
        2. A pedestrian focused model tends to create more small, locally owned, businesses as opposed to consolidating around a few big box stores.
        3. A car-centric model tends to be economically unsustainable. Building such developments tend to be dependent on federal grants and as infrastructure hits end of life the local tax base isn't sufficient to rebuild the infrastructure.
        4. The car-centric model is brought about by laws the enforce it. (ie mandated single family zoning, minimum lot sizes, parking minimums, etc.) Along with government investment in some forms of infrastructure (ie the interstate) over others (ie railways).
        5. Walkable design patterns tend to result in people knowing their neighbors better and lead to a stronger connection to ones local community.

        All of those points in my mind are classically conservative: built it like we did in the past, pro-small local business, keeping the government economically accountable, less government interference in building patterns, knowing your neighbors. On the whole I think they make a strong argument that a walkable building pattern is at its core a conservative model and that a car focused building pattern is the progressive one (even if a progressive model started 70+ years ago feels like the ways its always been at this point).

        Their approach certainly also rings conservative to me. They have a strong focus on a bottom-up rather than top-down approach, empowering local governments to build what is appropriate for their community, and removing red tape for small scale iterative changes rather than having an expensive large scale project.

        I'd encourage you to peruse their site, they'll certainly present their arguments better than I would!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          I'm always surprised by what conservatives on this site claim are conservative values (as in opposition to liberal values). I keep finding myself saying "Wait...when did that become particularly conservative?" I am also bemused by how much navel-gazing conservatives do over what is conservative. I don't think we liberals spend nearly the same amount of time trying define and curate liberalism.

          But back to the topic at hand. As someone who was alive during much of the 70+ years you refer to and who watched The Valley of Heart's Delight evolve into Silicon Valley, I find the idea that a car-focused, suburban model was somehow a progressive value to be bizarre. I actually wouldn't label as either conservative or progressive, but if you forced me to make a choice, I'd say it was conservative. It was a classic case of the free market at work. People wanted to live in the suburbs. Developers wanted to make money catering to their desires. And city/county governments (local control, y'all) were quite happy to facilitate the suburban sprawl that both businesses and residents wanted. As for the people who wanted to buy those bright, new, shiny suburban houses? Most of them were members of the professional and managerial classes. They were people like my middle-class parents who bought a brand new tract home in what was once an apricot orchard. Back then, if you were a member of the professional middle class, likely as not you were Republican and considered yourself a conservative. Every person I knew in my suburban neighborhood had parents who voted Republican and were conservative. Sure, it was a new mode of living, but it was driven by folks who had pretty traditional values overall and who thought living in suburbia would actually enhance and support those values.

          Nowadays, their children and grandchildren in Silicon Valley are mostly liberal and many have soured on the suburban model. People--mostly liberals because we're are talking about Silicon Valley here--will pay more for less house to live in the pre-World War II neighborhoods that surround the remaining small town centers. They do so for the walkability, the unique and diverse character of these neighborhoods, and the sense of community/place that you don't get in suburbia. In the small coastal community where I now live, people live here for much the same reasons. It has a strong sense of community, history, and place. Much of it is very walkable. Small businesses abound because people here like and support small businesses. I know a lot of people with pets, for example, and they all shop at a locally owned pet food store because they want to support a locally owned store. When an LA company bought a local shopping center, people were up-in-arms over their decision to boot some local businesses and replace them chain stores.

          So, no, I don't see their approach as particularly conservative as opposed to liberal. Perhaps it is a case of just plain people seeing the same issues and problems with suburban sprawl.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        BloggerBarbie

        I wouldn't necessarily say Strong Towns is inherently conservative or progressive. I watch and read a lot of their stuff and agree, generally, with their complaints--lack of transit, ridiculous zoning, parking lot deserts, and so on. The argument against it is often, "Well, people buy what they want and vote with their wallets about what kinds of communities to have!" but in a lot of places, there's not really an option--if you want Job B, you have to live in City A, and what's available in City A is Housing style X.

        That said, a lot of what Strong Towns advocates, as attractive as it is (nice walkable neighborhoods with good public transit and attractive multi-use buildings) tends toward super expensive upper-upper-middle-class tenancy... which leads to displacement of people who can no longer afford these repaired neighborhoods, and that's a consequence that they brush off whenever I bring it up. (Also, pointing out that people who have had to own cars and paid for them because their cities don't have proper transit are not going give up said cars and their convenience if the city later improves transit, unless that improvement is real. Eg, it can't be a question of going from "entirely useless" to "minimally useful at some times of day in some neighborhoods." If you can't get back and forth to work at the hours you actually work and without spending a lot longer than you do driving--my commute by bus would take an hour, while it's a ten minute drive--then it's not going to be a workable scheme, and people will still need to drive to the walkable pedestrian neighborhoods, which means keeping those eyesore parking structures, and... yeah.)

        Basically Strong Towns is a very well-meant group and I think they're right about trying to start working on rebuilding actual neighborhoods to support the creation of those little platoons--down with atomization!--but, like a lot of idealistic organizations, they don't always have the strongest grip on reality--political, economic, or psychological.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    squarooticus

    At this point, where even in the middle of nowhere (see: Campton, NH) house prices have doubled over the past 5 years, the only way back from the brink is to artificially goose supply to the point that every entity that currently regards housing as an investment (including individuals and rental investment groups) capitulates and goes away. A dysfunctional housing market in the other direction---one in which there was, say, a 15% vacancy rate---would have its own problems, but at least one of them would not be high housing prices.

    All people, rich and poor, should be able to buy housing nearly anywhere in the US except for the densest urban centers for a little over land value + construction cost, and that land value should be roughly zero in rural areas. Until that is the case, the housing market will continue to produce Marxists.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BloggerBarbie

      I'm a professional working full time, and I walk by little tiny one-story houses and think, "I will never be able to afford it." And I'm in my 50s; if I can't afford it now, I never will be able to. Then I go home to my shoebox apartment, now shared with my mother because they raised her rent from $900-odd to $1400-odd in one year and she couldn't afford to live alone--which meant me giving up my one-bedroom place to help meet the cost of her 2 bedroom place--and just despair. I've looked at real estate prices in cheaper towns, but the librarian salaries tend to go down to a point where it would still not be feasible. (I think they've valued the job at "Can afford a single bedroom and utilities, unless they insist on living someplace like Boston, in which case, Ha-ha-ha.")

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Exactly how are you going to get land values down to roughly zero in rural areas? Because in many cases, the land value is NOT zero: farm land, timber land, and ranch land is productive and worth something.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        squarooticus

        "Roughly."

        There's plenty of land in the US that is not currently put to productive use, or that is plentiful enough for a particular purpose (e.g., logging), that it can't command a high price.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Karrie Tracy

      The last sentence is exactly what I see happening among the first-time home buying generation who can’t find a way forward in this market - even with dual professional incomes. It is so discouraging on many levels.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        squarooticus

        The market we have is one in which one side views housing justice as "high values are part of my retirement plan" and the other views it as "high values are proof that the economy is rigged". That first group doesn't understand the degree to which those high valuations depend on large-scale rental investment, both traditional and AirBNB/VRBO, and the latter group doesn't bother to understand economics at all. It's all a bit maddening.

        Edit: And I want to add, those young people wouldn't be wrong about the marketing being rigged: it's actively rigged by incumbents who want values high and rising, and vote that way. They're wrong about what will fix it, but they're not wrong that the housing market is actively manipulated to benefit current owners over everyone else.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CynthiaW

          This is very much like Ed West's analysis about the housing market in England.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            squarooticus

            This is what you mean?

            https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/the-myth-of-londons-empty-homes

            Good article.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Karrie Tracy

    It seems to me that average incomes over the past 20-30 years have changed little but housing costs for persons who did not buy their home years ago and must now rent or buy in this market have significantly increased so that the ratio of housing expense-to-income has significantly worsened.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Karrie Tracy

    I have heard rumors from younger family members more savvy than I about online internet-based things that there are corporate buyers (like Zillow and private capitol groups and publicly-traded investment groups) who are purchasing residential homes to use as long-term residential rentals in an artificially high market that is price-controlled by the volume buyers and as short-term vacation rental investment properties through the VRBO and Air B&B rental platforms which are not residential though they are still counted in residential inventory instead of hospitality inventory. Both scenarios are designed to maximize investor profits (ROI) rather than support a sane housing market. There are many impacts on the traditional home owner housing market with both scenarios - especially in attractive urban and suburban areas. Housing seems to be an essential commodity in the American capitalist system that is being impacted by new - and as yet unaknowledged if not unrecognized - forces and factors that is making the market less free and artificially high in a way that makes home ownership unaffordable if not impossible to access for many hard-working people.
    —-
    The jobs supported by the mortgage industry are drying up. My sister - a long-time experienced loan processor in a popular urban area - is struggling to make ends meet because new loan activity is so dismal and she is paid by her closed loan volume.

    Collapse
  7. Token Liberal

    Interest rates and pandemics certainly make a difference, but hovering over all of this is good old supply and demand. We have not built enough housing to meet demand, so prices go up. A big part of this is government regulation, primarily local zoning. Communities require large lots and limit apartment construction. The only way to economically build a home on a large lot is to make it an expensive one. Ultimately, if we want more people to be able to afford rents and mortgages, we need to build, build, build.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I think it’s so many factors it’s hard to pin down. Right now, for example, rents in our college town (always higher, especially the closer you get to the university) are almost double what we were paying just two years ago. Obviously we have space issues and zoning issues and regulations- but we also have apartments being built all over- except they’re geared toward college students who either have the finances (a lot of wealthy international students) or are going in with automates for a four bedroom place with shared common areas. That leaves it harder to find places to rent for families with enough space at a reasonable price. Housing is higher already, but thanks to pandemic, zoning, and supply and demand the prices are crazy. In another city, the variables would be different (for the same price we are paying for a two bedroom, temporary apartment we’re renting now we had a four bedroom home rented in the last city we lived in)
      Only thing that seems the same are high prices for family homes

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Karrie Tracy

        Those college students you mentioned often have student loans paying for their high rent housing - That may get forgiven in future years. All on the tax-payer dime. Somebody kept that money - the property owner - often a corporate entity whose primary purpose is ROI not affordable housing. It seems to me there will eventually be a housing glut as the US falls below replacement population numbers and the current home owners age out of ownership. The problem will then go upside down from where it is today.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Possibly. I think population is supposed to decline in 2100- by then, we will probably have very different problems.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Whit Waldo

    Having recently dipped my toes in the housing market and reluctantly recoiling, I expect another factor preventing younger people from buying a home is that nearly all mortgage originators I found are merely Fannie Mae/Mac resellers, including the credit unions, meaning that there's no negotiating the mortgage standards. If one is employed in a traditional W-2 job, great, no problem accepting your income as stated on a recent paycheck. If you're self-employed and paid via a 1099, no mortgage originator will accept your stated income without at least a one-year (and most require a two-year) working history. So while my wife and I fortunately have sufficient income to pay for a home in this market, not a single bank we spoke with would recognize a penny of her 1099 income, rendering us ineligible to apply for at least a year.

    So not only do houses cost 2-3x what they did last time interest rates were this high (and locally, new construction prices have risen a ridiculous 45-70% since March 2023, even as many of those houses have sat unoccupied and unsold since late last year), but younger people may not even be able to apply for a mortgage because they lack a traditional employment history.

    Given just how wild the local market is here, I'm skeptical of any nationwide forecast since they simply can't take into account all the differentiating factors at the macro and micro levels.

    Collapse
  9. Michael Meek

    Yeah forecasting is hard. But the financial firm Pretium estimates there is 4-5MM unit housing shortage nationwide.

    There also are also depressing local mismatches between where jobs are and where housing at a reasonable price is available.

    Vanity Fair had a nutty example about how some town in Montana that was popular wealthy was going to allow temporary housing in a local park.

    The price of local housing and distance from everywhere else made it too hard to fill the jobs taking care of the wealthy residents (not to mention other jobs).

    Collapse
  10. MathewA

    Something missing from this analysis is what's going to happen as baby boomers start downsizing and/or getting rid of 2nd homes.

    Current home prices are plainly unrealistic. Eventually more supply's going to come online and bring them back down to earth. Because bottom line people actually need to be able to pay the mortgage, that's just not possible for most people right now

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      I know of three baby boomer couples who have moved recently. At least when it comes to square footage, they have not downsized. They have upsized.

      Collapse
    2. Ttpphotos

      I am in the RE industry and have 3 aging parents. Ageing in place is the preferred option. They should downsize but the incentives to stay and the available options are keeping them where they are. My in lawas live in Irvine, great schools, and have a 4 bedroom home. Getting them to leave is difficult though the home would clearly be better as a family home rather than two 80 yos. The market is bonkers and runs on emotion not logic.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Karrie Tracy

        Developing “downsize” incentive programs for retired persons alongside first time homebuyer affordability programs for younger persons might help the market right-size. It seems the country is in a new purchasing era with outdated lending rules and program needs. I suspect the housing volume is adequate, just not accessible to those who need it.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Jeff Younger

        I live in an area that by Florida standards (not California’s!) is somewhat pricey. As one of the few upscale areas in my county NOT subject to the whims of a HOA, local zoning allows for the construction (and subletting) of a guest/carriage home or garage apartment. A few neighbors use this as an income source (particularly during the winter months when snowbirds are willing to pay ridiculous seasonal rental rates), but a number have used these guest quarters to move in a family member or caretaker for an elderly homeowner, and in some cases the elderly resident has moved into a guest house purpose-built to accommodate an elderly resident who may have mobility issues (particularly if the main house has upstairs bedrooms or is not wheelchair-friendly). We have a large shed in our backyard that we may convert to a carriage house (or replace with a pre-fab unit). There’s no way I’d even be able to consider this option if my property were subject to the authoritarian diktats of a megalomaniacal HOA führer.

        Collapse
        1. Kalo

          Yes this is a great model- flexible throughout the life of the homeowner.

          Collapse
        2. Ttpphotos

          We are exploring that option as we also do not have a HOA and strange but true Ca is pretty liberal in allowing ADUs. The challenge is they do not want to leave their home. There is a significant Cap Gains issue, but underlying all of it is emotion. My points is that some of the swings are emotional and not rational. Getting people to downsize or right size isn't just a rational issue. Similar to explaining to your aging parent they shouldn't drive anymore.

          Collapse
      3. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

    3. Avatar photo
      Porouke

      They've been doing that for more than a decade. We bought our house in late 2011 from a boomer couple who were downsizing and moving to Florida.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      I don’t think they will be much downsizing. What the point when the new mortgage on the smaller place will cost as much as the old mortgage.

      Collapse
      1. MathewA

        Baby Boomers downsizing would most likely own their home free and clear. And if they are downsizing are probably going to make money on the transaction.

        Also, they might be moving from independent living to a retirement home or community.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CynthiaW

          "Baby Boomers downsizing would most likely own their home free and clear."

          It depends on when they "upsized." A remarkable number of people/couples buy the biggest, most expensive house of their lives after their children have moved out, perhaps because this coincides with their peak earning years.

          Collapse
Load More