spdrun, are you arguing that increases in population don’t require additional housing?
I don’t think there’s any question that many areas were over-built for their current populations. The last real economic study I did (and got paid for!) almost 10 years ago predicted that same conclusion. That was 2004. But for at least 20 years, changes in sales of new homes v. existing moved almost identically. Through boom and bust. But for more than the last 4 years, new home sales have been roughly half of what would have been necessary for that track to continue. New home construction lingered at it’s lowest level in 50 years. For 4 years. It just rose in the last 90 days to the lowest levels reached 30 years ago. Yet population growth and more importantly, new household formation have continued.
There probably are still some areas that are over-built. More houses than are necessary. But not everywhere. And current construction levels, though a full third higher than the bottom of the trough, are still a third of the peak construction and would still require a 50% increase to get to average construction levels of the last 50 years.
You make some good points about the type of construction needed. I’m not a big fan of huge homes either. But that doesn’t mean that all new home construction is bad. Some of it is needed. People gotta live somewhere.
