CRB’s New Housing Construction Tool

CRB Quick Hits logo

Housing is a policy area that has consistently vexed California. Housing affordability has been a persistent concern of residents, one that policymakers have repeatedly sought to address. The National Conference of State Legislatures’ Housing & Homelessness Legislation Database identifies nearly 600 bills over the last five years from California.

Consistent with economic theory, the research makes clear that, on a regional level, increasing housing construction lowers housing costs, yet housing construction in California has persistently lagged behind states such as Texas and Florida. This trend has accelerated in recent years, as California recovered more slowly following the Great Recession and flattening since about 2018, while Texas and Florida continued to see growth.

Graph of Private Housing Permits Authorized by month for California, in gold, Texas, in red, and Florida, in gray, showing the rolling 12-month average of units permitted per month, running from 1988 through 2023. California begins much higher than the two other states in 1988, at about 20,000, with Florida at about 14,000 and Texas about 4,000. California declines substantially, dropping below Florida and Texas by 1995. All three states increase steadily through 2006, with Florida consistently permitting the most units and California and Texas producing similar amounts. All three states decline substantially from about 2006 until 2010. Texas remains the highest and Florida and California fall to similar amounts. All three states climb steadily from 2012 until 2018, when Florida and Texas continue to increase, while California levels off.

The California Research Bureau has received a number of questions over the years relating to housing construction, some of which were previously unanswerable. To address this need, we recently acquired a database of parcel data that will allow us to answer many of these questions. The first tool we have produced is an interactive showing housing construction, by legislative district, over the last 20 years.

We have included several observations made while using this tool and invite California policymakers and their staff to seek more in-depth answers on the questions raised, or to find inspiration for new applications for these tools that will support the Governor and the Legislature in developing better public policy for the people of California.

Residential construction interactive

Over Time

At the highest levels, the dashboard confirms what we already knew. Construction ramped up through the early 2000s, before crashing to a near halt during the Great Recession of 2008 to 2009. Construction levels increased slowly, but steadily, from 2012 through COVID-19’s onset and has generally leveled off since then.

Perhaps the most notable insight in the timeline is the concentration of construction during the pre-recession years. In most years, the Senate District at the 75th percentile of residential units built was roughly double (1.8-2.3x) as many units as the 25th percentile. During the height of the pre-recession years, this was nearly double, with the high construction districts producing four times (3.7-4.1x) more than the low districts. Similarly, during the 2000s, the average district was as much as 50% higher than the median, but since the recession, the difference has disappeared, indicating a much more even distribution.

Notably, not every district follows the same macro trend. Senate District 22, for example, saw only a modest increase in the 2000s but its highest build years occurred from 2018-2020. Or Senate District 10, where every post-recession and COVID-19 era year exceeds the highest pre-recession year.

Across the State

Construction has also largely been concentrated in more inland areas. The Senate District map shows a stripe of light red (moderately low construction) drawn down the Pacific coast, turning to dark red (lowest construction) in Los Angeles and Orange counties, before turning light green (moderately high construction) in most of San Diego County.

The Senate districts with the most residential construction from 2001-2021 are nearly entirely inland:

  1. SD 32, at the southeast corner of the Inland Empire and reaching into northern San Diego and eastern Orange counties, 120,000 units
  2. SD 12, in the southern Central Valley and northern Mojave Desert follows at 104,000 units
  3. SD 19, spanning much of San Bernardino County, 91,000 units
  4. SD 6, covering Sacramento’s eastern suburbs, 90,000 units
  5. SD 38, on San Diego’s northern coast, with 87,000 units, proves the exception

Assembly districts follow a similar pattern:

  1. AD 5, within SD 6, 75,000 units
  2. AD 77, within SD 38, 74,000 units
  3. AD 47, at the southern border of SD 19, 63,000 units
  4. AD 63, at the northern end of SD 32, 61,000 units
  5. AD 32, within SD 12, 60,000 units

Largest, Smallest and Most

The largest homes, on average, were built in the Los Angeles area, with ADs 46, 54, 51, and 55 in the Top 5 for livable square footage, joined by San Mateo County’s AD 21 at No. 4. Los Angeles’ SDs 26, 27, 28, and 24 are the Top 4 among Senate Districts, followed by San Mateo’s SD 13.

The smallest homes, on average, were built in San Diego and Orange counties, AD 77 had the smallest, followed by AD 68 in Orange and AD 78. SD 39 in the same San Diego area had the smallest homes among Senate Districts, followed by Orange County’s SD 34.

The database shows 1.7 million recently built parcels, totaling 2.1 million units and 5.8 million bedrooms, currently assessed at $1.3 trillion ($764,000 average). It can be broken up by district, like the focus of this project, or by communities within a district. The database includes every current parcel of land in California, has more details available than discussed here and can be linked to any other geospatial dataset. All of which leaves us with the question, what do you need to know to support the development of effective policy for the betterment of the people of California?