Real Estate Data for the Rest of Us

articles about “Demographics

Population Growth is Back in Clobbered Metros

Population growth in markets “clobbered” by the housing crisis – like Phoenix, Orlando, and Las Vegas – is speeding up but is well below the hypergrowth of the bubble years

This morning the U.S. Census released population estimates for 2012. Among large metros, Austin grew fastest in the past year:

Fastest Growing Large Metros

# U.S. Metro % Population Change,
2011-2012
1 Austin, TX

3.0

2 Orlando, FL

2.2

3 Raleigh, NC

2.2

4 Houston, TX

2.1

5 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

2.0

6 San Antonio, TX

1.9

7 Phoenix, AZ

1.8

8 Denver, CO

1.8

9 Charlotte, NC

1.7

10 Nashville, TN

1.7

Among metros with at least one million population.

The slowest-growing large metros this past year were concentrated in the Midwest and upstate New York, with three – Cleveland, Buffalo, and Hartford – actually losing population. One “clobbered” metro, Detroit, is on the list of slowest-growing large metros: Several fast-growing metros were “clobbered” during the housing bust–which we define as having price drops of more than 30% peak-to-trough and a vacancy rate of at least 7% during the crisis, including Orlando and Phoenix. Another clobbered metro, Las Vegas, ranks 11th after Nashville in fastest population growth. Many of the fastest-growing metros, though, had a relatively mild housing crisis, like Austin, Raleigh, and Houston.

… continue reading

0 comments
America’s Most Irish Towns Visualization Preview

Check out the full infographic

America’s Most Irish Towns

The suburbs around Boston and other Northeastern metros are the capitals of Irish America. Those are also the areas where home-searchers from Ireland are looking today

On St. Patrick’s Day, everyone is Irish. But what about the rest of the year? Twenty-two million Americans — 7.2% of the population – say their “primary ancestry” is Irish, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. Another 13.5 million Americans claim at least some Irish ancestry, bringing the total to 35.5 million Americans — 11.6% of the population — with at least partial Irish ancestry. If that sounds low, remember that Ireland’s population today is just 6.4 million – 4.6 million in the Republic of Ireland and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland. So there are more than 5 times as many Americans with at least partial Irish ancestry as there are people who live in Ireland.

Irish-Americans are strongly concentrated in the Northeast. The percentage of people with primary Irish ancestry tops out at 20% in the Boston metro area, followed by Middlesex County, MA (west of Boston) and Peabody, MA (north of Boston). The top six metros are all in Massachusetts or upstate New York:

America’s Most Irish Metros

# U.S. Metro % Irish ancestry
1 Boston, MA

20.4%

2 Middlesex County, MA

16.9%

3 Peabody, MA

15.8%

4 Albany, NY

15.6%

5 Syracuse, NY

15.0%

6 Worcester, MA

14.8%

7 Camden, NJ

14.8%

8 Philadelphia, PA

14.2%

9 Long Island, NY

13.1%

10 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ

13.0%

Among 100 largest metros. Primary Irish ancestry only.

Irish-Americans are at least 5% of the population in most counties across the U.S., and 10% or more in most of New England, New York state, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and other smaller counties across the country. At the other extreme, Miami is just 1% Irish:

U.S. Map of Where Irish-Americans Live

America’s Top Irish Neighborhoods
Even though Irish-Americans make up just 5% of the New York metro population overall– less than the national average and only one-quarter the share in Boston – the neighborhood with the highest percentage of Irish-Americans is Breezy Point /Rockaway Point in Queens (ZIP code 11697). Most recently, this neighborhood is known for having had significant Hurricane Sandy damage:

America’s Top Irish Neighborhoods

#

ZIP code

Neighborhood

Area

% Irish ancestry

1

11697

Breezy Point /
Rockaway Point

Queens,
New York, neighborhood

54.3%

2

11569

Point Lookout

Long Island South Shore suburb

45.6%

3

10965

Pearl River

New York northern suburb

43.4%

4

60655

Mount Greenwood

Chicago Southwest Side neighborhood

40.7%

5

02081

Walpole

Boston southern suburb

40.0%

6

19022

Crum Lynne

Philadelphia western suburb

39.2%

7

02190

South Weymouth

Boston South Shore suburb

38.6%

8

02351

Abington

Boston South Shore suburb

38.1%

9

02050

Marshfield

Boston South Shore suburb

37.5%

10

02191

North Weymouth

Boston South Shore suburb

37.4%

Primary Irish ancestry only.

… continue reading

0 comments

Why Do People Leave California?

Neither jobs nor rich people are fleeing California -- but the middle class and the poor are. The exodus slowed down during the recession, but now that home prices are rising again, more people will leave the state.

Jed Kolko, Chief Economist
February 12, 2013

A constant debate in California politics is whether jobs and people are leaving the state. This week, in fact, Texas Governor Rick Perry is in California, trying to lure businesses to his state. He won’t have much luck because jobs rarely move: in a typical year, just 25,000 jobs move out of California, and 16,000 jobs move in, out of an economy of 18 million jobs. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of people move in and out of California each year. Who are they, and why do they move?

Who Moves In and Out?
Here are the basic facts. In 2011, 562,000 people left California, and 468,000 came, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. That means 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. Out-migration reached its peak in 2005, when 160 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. The California exodus rose with the housing bubble and subsided in the recession. Lower home values in 2008-2011 made California more affordable, encouraging in-migration and discouraging out-migration, as well as pushing some California borrowers underwater, further discouraging out-migration.

HomePrices_Migration_California

Who leads the charge out of California? Even though California’s richer residents face high tax rates, lower-income households are more likely to leave. From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.

… continue reading

0 comments

Looking for Love in All the Right Places

If you’re hoping to find love this Valentine’s Day, here’s where you should go to improve your odds.

Jed Kolko, Chief Economist
February 11, 2013

In Washington, D.C., women often complain about the lack of available men. On the other hand, “Man Jose” gets that nickname for having too few available women for the men of Silicon Valley. But is it fact or fiction? In love, as with real estate, it’s better to get the inside scoop before you start your search.

To figure out where the gender ratio is most skewed in each direction, we went right to the data. We know from our consumer survey about love and housing that not all singles are equally in demand, at least when it comes to dating. Among unmarried adults, 62% prefer to date someone who lives alone; only 14% prefer to date someone who lives with other people. Perhaps living alone sends the right signal about independence and availability – or perhaps living alone just makes dating easier (does anyone really want to hear their mom ask, “Honey, can I make you and your friend some pancakes?”).

Whatever the reason, we get it: so we looked at the ratio of men living alone to women living alone in order to assess the dating scene. We also subtracted estimates of the gay and lesbian population in order to focus on men and women interested in dating someone of the opposite sex; check out our Welcome to the Gayborhood post if that’s news you can use. Finally, we excluded people older than 65 since differences in life expectancy skew the gender ratio in the later years. (Just ask my grandfather, who was very popular in the Miami Beach coffee shop scene back in the day.) How did we do this? See the methodology at the end of this post.

Where the Boys Are
Women looking for single men should try their odds in Vegas, where the ratio of men living alone to women living alone is the highest among the 100 largest metros: 1.34. That’s four men for every three women. San Jose, it turns out, also has plenty of men to choose from, with 1.23 men for every woman. Several warm spots – Honolulu, Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL, and Miami – also skew toward men (remember we’re not including those 65+), as do some mid-size metros around the country, like Worcester and Tacoma.

# U.S. Metro # of men living alone per woman living alone
1 Las Vegas, NV

1.34

2 Honolulu, HI

1.27

3 Palm Bay-
Melbourne-Titusville, FL

1.26

4 Gary, IN

1.23

5 San Jose, CA

1.23

6 Salt Lake City, UT

1.21

7 Miami, FL

1.20

8 Worcester, MA

1.19

9 Allentown, PA-NJ

1.19

10 Tacoma, WA

1.18

Among 100 largest metros, excluding those with few singles living alone.

The most lopsided ratios, however, are not in these large metros. The ratio of men to women is above 2 in Williston, ND, Gillette, WY, and Rock Springs, WY. Each of these smaller metros is the center of a male-dominated industry: Williston is at the heart of the North Dakota oil boom, and Gillette and Rock Springs are Wyoming mining towns. In fact, rural areas and smaller metros generally have a higher ratio of men to women.

All the Single Ladies
Women outnumber men in the big three power centers of the Northeast: Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York. The ratio is highest in the Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick metro, which is just over the Maryland border from Washington, D.C. Nine of the 10 metros with the highest ratio of women to men are in the East: Oakland is the only exception.

# U.S. Metro

# of women living alone per man living alone

1 Bethesda-Rockville-
Frederick, MD

1.20

2 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV

1.12

3 Boston, MA

1.09

4 New York, NY-NJ

1.07

5 Raleigh, NC

1.07

6 Richmond, VA

1.06

7 Atlanta, GA

1.06

8 Baltimore, MD

1.04

9 Peabody, MA

1.04

10 Oakland, CA

1.03

Among 100 largest metros, excluding those with few singles living alone.

The ratio of women to men tends to be highest in larger metros. None of the smaller metros are skewed toward women nearly as much as Williston, ND, is skewed toward men, but Napa, CA, and Santa Fe, NM, are two of the small metros with the highest ratio of women to men.

Uptown Girl, East End Boys
Billy Joel and the Pet Shop Boys – who otherwise couldn’t be more different – were both onto something. Billy Joel’s New York City had an uptown girl and a downtown man; the Pet Shop Boys sang of London’s West End girls and East End boys. The data back them up. In every big metro, there are neighborhoods where men outnumber women and neighborhoods where women outnumber men, as these maps make clear:

Singles in New York City

… continue reading

0 comments

In a Barbie World: The Rise of Single Women Homeowners in America

How unusual is Barbie, demographically speaking? She’s pretty special today – but almost unheard-of when she first became a homeowner in 1962.

Jed Kolko, Chief Economist
February 7, 2013

Barbie is a young, single woman who lives in a house she owns. Let’s momentarily ignore the fact that her home is listed for $25 million exclusively on Trulia, and acknowledge that owning a house in the first place — “Dreamhouse” mansion or not — is very unusual for young women today. And it was even rarer when she originally became a homeowner in 1962. Looking back over the decades at how unusual Barbie is, demographically speaking, shows how broad social changes and the recent housing boom and bust have affected the living situations of young women.

Using U.S. Census data from 1960 to 2011 (the latest available; see note at end of post), we calculated the share of young women, aged 25 to 34, who are “living like Barbie” in that they:

  1. Are single and have no kids
  2. Are the “head of household” — Census-speak for the person who is named a home’s owner, buyer, or renter (as opposed to living in someone else’s home, like parents)
  3. Own their home (as opposed to rent)
  4. Live in a single-family detached house (as opposed to a townhouse or condo)

In 2011, 1.6% of young women shared Barbie’s living situation in all these ways. Here’s how we arrived at that. In the 25-34 year old age group, 31% of women were single and had no kids. Among these single women with no kids, approximately one-third were the “head of household.” The rest were living in someone else’s home (such as their parents). That means 11% of young women were single with no kids and the “head of household.” Of that 11%, approximately one quarter owned their home, and the rest rented. Among the homeowners in this group, a little more than half owned a single-family, detached house, as opposed to owning a townhouse or condo. That’s how we calculated that 1.6% of young women in 2011 had a living situation similar to Barbie.

That may sound low, but the world has come a long way. Rare as it is today for young women to own a home, it was almost unheard of in 1960, one year after Barbie was introduced and two years before she became a homeowner. Back then, just 0.1% of young women owned a home – around one in a thousand. That means Barbie’s living situation was 15 times more common in 2011 than in 1960 – as the chart below shows.

Percentage of Young Women Living Like Barbie

… continue reading

0 comments