最近的一項研究表明,有難以負擔的住房市場,也有“高不可攀”的住房市場,其中四個位于加州。
加州查普曼大學(Chapman University)和加拿大前沿公共政策中心(Frontier Center for Public Policy)聯合發布的年度《Demographia國際住房負擔能力報告》顯示,住房危機是向上流動的障礙,而加州面臨著極其嚴重的階層分化風險。
查普曼大學的喬爾·科特金(Joel Kotkin)寫道:“相對于收入而言,高房價對我們的家鄉加利福尼亞州產生了明顯的封建化影響,主要受害者是年輕人、少數族裔和移民。限制性住房政策可能被包裝成進步政策,但從社會角度來看,其影響可能更應被定性為倒退。”
報告指出,“城市遏制政策”旨在限制城市無序擴張和增加人口密度。報告解釋說,這導致土地價格上漲,進而導致房價大幅上漲。
增加人口密度的趨勢是為了減少對汽車和高速公路的依賴,改善交通堵塞,使社區更適合步行。報告稱,盡管這些政策的初衷是好的,但卻導致城市控制范圍內的土地價格比控制范圍外的土地價格高出8到20倍。
在確定可負擔性時,該報告考察了澳大利亞、加拿大、中國、愛爾蘭、新西蘭、新加坡、英國和美國的94個市場,比較了各地的房價中位數與收入中位數。
房價收入比低于3被認為是可負擔的,而房價收入比越高,就表明負擔能力越差。9或以上的比率被標記為“高不可攀”。在這一類別的11個城市中,有4個位于加州。
1. 香港(16.7)
2. 悉尼(13.8)
3. 溫哥華 (12.3)
4. 圣何塞 (11.9)
5. 洛杉磯 (10.9)
6. 檀香山(10.5)
7. 墨爾本 (9.8)
8. 舊金山 (9.7)
9. 阿德萊德 (9.7)
10. 圣地亞哥 (9.5)
11. 多倫多(9.3)
報告還警告稱,住房危機對中產階級的生存構成了威脅,并指出高昂的住房成本降低了生活水平,加劇了貧困。
報告稱:“中產階級被圍困的主要原因是土地成本的上升。為了遏制城市擴張,土地已經實行了定量配給,供不應求的局面推高了房價。”
報告指出,所有“高不可攀”的城市都遵循有利于增加人口密度的城市規劃政策,并建議各大城市開放土地供應,以降低住房成本。
在美國房地產市場,20萬美元的首套房的消失體現了負擔能力日益惡化。這使得許多千禧一代試圖升級到改善房,以容納不斷擴大的家庭規模。
但潛在買家一直在反對高房價,導致市場上有更多待售房產,要價降低。
在關鍵的春季銷售季,這種態勢得到了印證。由于需求疲軟,春季銷售季正悄然結束。(財富中文網)
譯者:中慧言-王芳
最近的一項研究表明,有難以負擔的住房市場,也有“高不可攀”的住房市場,其中四個位于加州。
加州查普曼大學(Chapman University)和加拿大前沿公共政策中心(Frontier Center for Public Policy)聯合發布的年度《Demographia國際住房負擔能力報告》顯示,住房危機是向上流動的障礙,而加州面臨著極其嚴重的階層分化風險。
查普曼大學的喬爾·科特金(Joel Kotkin)寫道:“相對于收入而言,高房價對我們的家鄉加利福尼亞州產生了明顯的封建化影響,主要受害者是年輕人、少數族裔和移民。限制性住房政策可能被包裝成進步政策,但從社會角度來看,其影響可能更應被定性為倒退?!?/p>
報告指出,“城市遏制政策”旨在限制城市無序擴張和增加人口密度。報告解釋說,這導致土地價格上漲,進而導致房價大幅上漲。
增加人口密度的趨勢是為了減少對汽車和高速公路的依賴,改善交通堵塞,使社區更適合步行。報告稱,盡管這些政策的初衷是好的,但卻導致城市控制范圍內的土地價格比控制范圍外的土地價格高出8到20倍。
在確定可負擔性時,該報告考察了澳大利亞、加拿大、中國、愛爾蘭、新西蘭、新加坡、英國和美國的94個市場,比較了各地的房價中位數與收入中位數。
房價收入比低于3被認為是可負擔的,而房價收入比越高,就表明負擔能力越差。9或以上的比率被標記為“高不可攀”。在這一類別的11個城市中,有4個位于加州。
1. 香港(16.7)
2. 悉尼(13.8)
3. 溫哥華 (12.3)
4. 圣何塞 (11.9)
5. 洛杉磯 (10.9)
6. 檀香山(10.5)
7. 墨爾本 (9.8)
8. 舊金山 (9.7)
9. 阿德萊德 (9.7)
10. 圣地亞哥 (9.5)
11. 多倫多(9.3)
報告還警告稱,住房危機對中產階級的生存構成了威脅,并指出高昂的住房成本降低了生活水平,加劇了貧困。
報告稱:“中產階級被圍困的主要原因是土地成本的上升。為了遏制城市擴張,土地已經實行了定量配給,供不應求的局面推高了房價?!?/p>
報告指出,所有“高不可攀”的城市都遵循有利于增加人口密度的城市規劃政策,并建議各大城市開放土地供應,以降低住房成本。
在美國房地產市場,20萬美元的首套房的消失體現了負擔能力日益惡化。這使得許多千禧一代試圖升級到改善房,以容納不斷擴大的家庭規模。
但潛在買家一直在反對高房價,導致市場上有更多待售房產,要價降低。
在關鍵的春季銷售季,這種態勢得到了印證。由于需求疲軟,春季銷售季正悄然結束。(財富中文網)
譯者:中慧言-王芳
There are unaffordable housing markets, and then there are “impossibly unaffordable” markets, four of which are in California, a recent study said.
The housing crisis represents an obstacle to upward mobility, and the Golden State risks suffering from especially acute stratification, according to the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability report, which was produced by Chapman University in California and the Frontier Center for Public Policy in Canada.
“High housing prices, relative to incomes, are having a distinctly feudalizing impact on our home state of California, where the primary victims are young people, minorities, and immigrants,” wrote Chapman’s Joel Kotkin. “Restrictive housing policies may be packaged as progressive, but in social terms their impact could be better characterized as regressive.”
The report points to “urban containment policies” that are meant to limit sprawl and increase density. Those have resulted in higher land prices, which have translated to dramatically higher home prices, it explained.
The trend toward increasing density was geared toward reducing reliance on cars and freeways, improving gridlock, and making neighborhoods more walkable. But the report said while such policies were well intentioned, they resulted in land prices being eight to 20 times higher in urban containment boundaries than outside of them.
In determining affordability, the report looked at 94 markets in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the U.K., and the U.S., comparing the median home price in each location against the median income.
A price-to-income ratio of 3 and below was deemed affordable, with higher ratios corresponding to worsening levels of unaffordability. A ratio of 9 or above was labeled “impossibly unaffordable.” Of the 11 cities in that category, four of them are in California.
1. Hong Kong (16.7)
2. Sydney (13.8)
3. Vancouver (12.3)
4. San Jose (11.9)
5. Los Angeles (10.9)
6. Honolulu (10.5)
7. Melbourne (9.8)
8. San Francisco (9.7)
9. Adelaide (9.7)
10. San Diego (9.5)
11. Toronto (9.3)
The report also warned that the housing crisis poses an existential threat to the middle class, noting that high housing costs have reduced standards of living and increased poverty.
“The middle-class is under siege principally due to the escalation of land costs,” it said. “As land has been rationed in an effort to curb urban sprawl, the excess of demand over supply has driven prices up.”
The report pointed out that all of the “impossibly unaffordable” cities follow urban planning policies favoring more density, and recommended that cities open up the availability of land to reduce housing costs.
In the U.S. housing market, the worsening affordability problem has been exemplified by the disappearance of the $200,000 starter home. That’s left many millennials trying to upgrade to bigger homes to accommodate their growing families out in the cold.
But prospective buyers have been revolting against high home prices, resulting in more properties sitting on the market unsold and lower asking prices.
That dynamic has played out during the critical spring selling season, which is winding down with a whimper amid weak demand.