1996 National Average Increases 7 Percent
CHICAGO, Oct. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- After adjusting 1996 residential
construction activity to reflect market size, Naples, Fla., emerged as the
fastest growing U.S. housing market, according to Chicago Title and Trust
Co.'s (CT&T) annual study of housing growth markets. Other top markets include
Las Vegas, Austin, Texas, and Reno, Nev.
The CT&T study ranks the nation's leading housing growth markets by
analyzing growth as a ratio between the number of new units built per 100
existing households. "The study provides a reliable method for tracking which
of the relatively smaller housing markets are growing more rapidly and also
helps identify trends in the larger metropolitan markets," said John Pfister,
vice president, Marketing Research, CT&T.
Residential Growth Ratios
Top 10 Growth Markets
Market '96 Ratio
1 Naples, Fla. 7.54
2 Las Vegas 6.92
3 Austin, Texas 4.56
4 Reno, Nev. 4.12
5 Phoenix 4.08
6 Atlanta 3.82
7 Charlotte-Gastonia, N.C. 3.79
9 Nashville, Tenn. 3.75
8 Fort Myers, Fla. 3.76
10 Raleigh-Durham, N.C. 3.64
Source: Marketing Research Dept.,
Chicago Title and Trust Co.
Top growth markets
Last year, Naples' residential growth ratio was 7.54, an increase of 27
percent from its 1995 ratio of 5.94. "Naples and the entire state of Florida
are able to show larger increases in their respective ratios for two main
reasons. First, the state's base economy is doing well, with employment growth
increasing 3.1 percent in 1996 vs. 1995. In addition, Florida receives a
double shot from two different types of home purchasers, as both retirees and
second home purchasers are attracted to the state," said Pfister.
In addition to Naples, the other top 10 growth markets are shown in the
above chart. Las Vegas, with its 6.92 ratio, eased into a No. 2 ranking after
three consecutive years as the No. 1 growth market. The city's phenomenal
commercial development has been a major factor in its ability to achieve
strong employment and housing market growth.
While there has been some speculation that the growth in Las Vegas may
have peaked, CT&T believes new commercial development and marketing ideas will
continue to abound and related new construction will persist. "There has been
a big push the last few years to develop hotels in Las Vegas that cater to
families. The push has changed this year, but the desire to continue building
has not. The current trend may be hotel developments that cater to high-end
rollers," said Pfister.
With a ratio of 4.56, Austin, Texas, is ranked the third fastest growth
market. "Austin is a high-tech town and a university town - two strengths
that have helped the city prosper in its employment growth," said Pfister. At
one time, the city had approximately 35 percent office vacancy, a number that
has since moved into the single digits.
According to Pfister, the state of Texas as a whole has benefited from the
steady in-migration of both people and companies, as well as an increased
number of manufacturing centers. Other noteworthy cities that ranked well
above the U.S. average of 1.47 include Dallas (3.58 ratio), the financial
capital of the Southwest; San Antonio (1.94); Houston (1.60 ratio), a city
that has successfully recovered from its oil crises; and El Paso (1.71).
"Texas has six major markets that were negatively impacted by the oil crunch.
And while it took a long time to recover, Houston and other oil cities have
changed and diversified into thriving markets," added Pfister.
Residential Growth Ratios
Top 10 States
Market 1996 1995
1 Nevada 6.18 5.84
2 Utah 3.93 3.71
3 Arizona 3.07 3.48
4 Georgia 2.91 2.40
5 Colorado 2.86 2.81
6 Idaho 2.60 2.46
7 North Carolina 2.34 2.83
8 Oregon 2.33 2.34
9 Florida 2.27 2.23
10 South Carolina 2.24 1.86
Source: Marketing Research Dept.,
Chicago Title and Trust Co.
States to watch
The top 10 states with the fastest growing markets are noted in the chart
at right. Nevada leads all states with a ratio of 6.18, which is 36.4 percent
above its nearest rival, Utah. Pfister attributes much of Nevada's growth to
Las Vegas. Employment growth increased 8.2 percent in 1996 vs. 1995 for Las
Vegas, and Reno experienced 3.2 percent employment growth for the same time
period. "Where there is development, there are jobs, and where there are
jobs, there are people eager to purchase homes," said Pfister.
The top three ranking states of Nevada, Utah and Arizona continue to take
advantage of their close proximity to California. With an abundance of
affordable housing available nearby, many Californians have chosen to migrate
to these states in recent years.
As for California, Pfister expects that housing growth will come with
exploding force in the near future. "There is definitely an unfulfilled
demand for housing in California. Forecasters have been doubling new
construction in California from one year to the next, and while the housing
explosion hasn't happened yet, California is poised to come back some time
soon," said Pfister. Of all California markets, only Sacramento (1.49) is
above the U.S. average of 1.47.
Another state to watch is North Carolina, whose ratio ranked seventh.
"With an abundance of mid-sized cities, North Carolina is diversified and
offers a lot of room for growth," said Pfister. The state attracts permanent
residents and vacationers alike, with its unique blend of beaches, pine tree-
shaded golf courses and mountainous terrain. Pfister explained that the state
has done well over time because cities like Charlotte-Gastonia (3.79),
Greensboro (2.16) and Raleigh-Durham (3.64) did not overbuild during the last
recession. The state's unemployment rate of 3 percent also is a strong
indicator of its strength. Currently, Raleigh boasts the lowest unemployment
in the country, at 1.6 percent.
Consecutive Ratio Increases
Ten markets have boasted increases in ratios each year since 1991:
Market '96 Ratio
Austin, Texas 4.56
Phoenix 4.08
Nashville, Tenn. 3.75
Dallas-Fort Worth 3.58
Colorado Springs, Colo. 3.11
Portland, Ore. 2.89
Memphis, Tenn. 2.51
Grand Rapids, Mich. 2.21
Greensboro, N.C. 2.16
Kansas City, Kan. and Mo. 1.93
Source: Marketing Research Dept.,
Chicago Title and Trust Co.
National perspective
Nationally, the residential growth ratio increased by 7 percent to 1.47 in
1996, from 1.37 the previous year. Last year's ratio was below the 1.91
national average (based on data from 1970 - 1996) but ranked as the fifth
highest for the last 10 years. Of the 89 markets shown on the charts that
follow, 55 are at or above the 1996 U.S. average, while 34 are below. "The
reason for this disparity is that large markets tend to be slower growth
markets," explained Pfister.
Growth has continued to occur during a period of time when household
formations have been at their lowest in decades. "Household formations will
begin to increase in the near future, and as this happens, housing starts will
increase, as will the residential growth ratios," said Pfister.
The Chicago Title and Trust Family of Companies is the source of real
estate services, providing title insurance, escrow and closing services, as
well as valuation, credit and flood certification products through a network
of more than 300 offices and approximately 3,700 agents nationwide. The CT&T
Family - including Chicago Title Insurance Co., Ticor Title Insurance Co. and
Security Union Title Insurance Co. - together issues approximately one in
every four title insurance policies in the United States with annual gross
revenues in excess of $1.3 billion. Chicago Title and Trust Co. also is the
parent company of Chicago Title Flood Services Inc. of Arlington, Texas;
Chicago Title Credit Services Inc. of Kingston, N.Y.; and Chicago Title -
Market Intelligence Inc. of Hopkinton, Mass. CT&T is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Alleghany Corp. (NYSE: Y).
Chicago Title and Trust Co.
Residential Growth Ratios
Major Metropolitan Areas - 1996
1996 New 1996
Residential Number of
Residential Growth Ratios
Units Households 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
Total-United States 1,464,000 99,627,000 1.47 1.37 1.50 1.33 1.25 1.07
1 Naples, Fla. 5,700 75,600 7.54 5.94 6.21 5.43 6.60 5.16
2 Las Vegas 32,200 465,100 6.92 6.81 6.80 5.55 4.30 6.01
3 Austin, Texas 17,800 390,600 4.56 3.11 2.92 2.42 1.84 1.06
4 Reno, Nev. 4,900 118,800 4.12 2.87 3.13 2.38 2.02 1.71
5 Phoenix 40,200 986,000 4.08 3.97 3.78 2.84 2.41 .83
6 Atlanta 49,300 1,291,000 3.82 3.89 3.40 3.02 2.81 2.20
7 Charlotte-Gastonia,
N.C. 18,700 493,100 3.79 2.89 2.97 2.38 2.16 1.92
8 Fort Myers, Fla. 5,900 157,000 3.76 3.25 3.51 3.47 2.69 2.42
9 Nashville, Tenn. 15,900 424,300 3.75 2.65 2.56 2.10 1.78 1.52
10 Raleigh-Durham,
N.C. 14,500 398,100 3.64 3.63 4.10 2.92 2.66 2.25
11 Dallas-Fort Worth 39,800 1,110,600 3.58 2.17 2.13 1.66 1.47 1.34
12 Boise City, Idaho 4,500 134,700 3.34 3.54 5.17 5.20 3.33 2.33
13 Salt Lake City 13,000 391,900 3.32 2.81 2.34 2.43 1.79 1.40
14 Pensacola, Fla. 4,660 142,800 3.26 2.14 2.41 2.15 2.48 1.61
15 Colorado Springs,
Colo. 5,500 177,100 3.11 2.80 2.31 2.29 1.96 0.87
16 Jacksonville, Fla. 11,600 375,600 3.09 2.29 2.36 2.08 2.09 2.13
17 Orlando, Fla. 16,400 537,100 3.05 3.09 3.32 3.29 3.00 3.31
18 Portland, Ore. 19,300 668,100 2.89 2.79 2.70 2.23 2.01 1.82
19 Sarasota, Fla. 6,400 236,300 2.71 2.21 2.30 2.10 1.92 1.64
20 Memphis, Tenn. 9,800 391,100 2.51 2.38 2.02 2.01 1.78 1.47
21 Indianapolis 14,400 575,500 2.50 2.44 2.21 1.82 2.01 1.55
22 Fort Lauderdale,
Fla. 14,900 598,100 2.49 2.26 2.74 2.22 1.63 1.24
23 Albuquerque, N.M. 6,200 250,200 2.48 2.80 2.73 1.84 1.33 0.93
24 Denver, Colo. 18,000 744,900 2.42 2.30 2.35 1.90 2.03 1.17
25 Seattle 21,100 880,100 2.40 1.55 1.55 1.56 2.32 1.86
26 West Palm Beach,
Fla. 9,800 415,400 2.36 2.58 2.90 2.26 2.16 2.08
27 Columbus, Ohio 12,500 551,200 2.27 2.00 2.22 1.99 1.85 1.62
28 Omaha, Neb. 5,600 251,100 2.23 1.61 1.33 1.64 1.51 1.26
29 Grand Rapids, Mich. 7,900 358,100 2.21 1.93 1.90 1.39 1.31 0.93
30 Greenville, S.C. 7,400 336,700 2.20 1.83 1.87 1.49 1.19 0.96
31 Tucson, Ariz. 6,600 301,700 2.19 2.32 3.02 2.30 1.63 1.05
32 Columbia, S.C. 3,900 180,200 2.16 2.02 2.14 1.95 1.92 1.71
32 Greensboro, N.C. 9,700 448,800 2.16 2.06 1.85 1.79 1.65 1.41
34 Tacoma, Wash. 4,800 239,700 2.00 2.05 2.38 2.41 2.45 1.95
35 San Antonio 9,900 510,900 1.94 1.60 1.90 1.24 0.82 0.44
36 Kansas City Metro,
Kan. 12,400 642,000 1.93 1.79 1.76 1.55 1.53 1.23
37 Daytona Beach,
Fla. 3,500 184,900 1.89 2.02 1.90 2.13 1.75 2.10
38 Washington, D.C. 31,500 1,675,200 1.88 1.78 1.99 1.91 1.62 1.27
39 Birmingham, Ala. 6,200 336,900 1.84 1.65 1.48 1.51 1.23 1.15
40 Melbourne-Titusville,
Fla. 3,400 185,300 1.83 1.54 2.28 2.33 2.30 2.06
41 Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minn. 18,200 1,031,400 1.76 1.76 1.77 1.93 1.86 1.46
42 Richmond, Va. 6,300 359,800 1.75 1.68 1.85 1.94 1.73 1.58
43 Madison, Wis. 2,700 155,200 1.74 2.30 2.63 2.68 2.47 2.07
44 El Paso, Texas 3,500 205,200 1.71 1.40 1.98 1.48 1.52 1.05
45 Louisville, Ky. 6,400 384,700 1.66 1.52 1.68 1.58 1.58 1.36
46 Cincinnati 9,800 602,200 1.63 1.52 1.70 2.02 2.03 1.71
47 Houston 21,200 1,328,900 1.60 1.44 1.56 1.15 1.38 1.32
47 Tampa-St. Petersburg,
Fla. 14,700 921,600 1.60 1.51 1.64 1.39 1.26 1.28
49 San Francisco-
Oakland 10,400 665,100 1.56 0.91 0.96 0.54 0.63 0.66
50 Middlesex-Somerset,
N.J. 6,000 389,000 1.54 1.35 1.21 1.09 1.18 0.87
51 Charleston, S.C. 2,800 183,200 1.53 1.30 1.47 1.55 1.90 1.55
52 Norfolk, Va. 8,300 555,400 1.49 1.60 1.66 1.86 1.52 1.49
52 Sacramento, Calif. 8,400 563,000 1.49 1.37 1.61 1.31 1.60 1.75
54 Wilmington, Del. 3,000 202,600 1.48 1.55 1.78 1.68 1.69 1.40
55 Monmouth-Ocean, N.J. 5,700 388,900 1.47 1.27 1.58 1.24 1.17 0.94
56 San Jose, Calif. 7,700 540,500 1.42 0.68 0.78 0.61 0.60 0.74
57 Stockton, Calif. 2,390 170,100 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.69 1.76 1.36
58 Milwaukee 7,600 547,400 1.39 1.17 1.31 1.33 1.61 1.30
59 Atlantic City, N.J. 1,750 127,100 1.38 1.03 1.43 0.95 0.87 0.80
60 Fresno, Calif. 3,900 284,300 1.37 1.79 1.94 1.83 1.88 1.68
61 St. Louis, Mo. 13,000 963,600 1.35 1.20 1.40 1.19 1.13 0.90
62 Bakersfield, Calif. 2,700 203,400 1.33 1.70 1.62 1.76 2.36 1.82
63 Oklahoma City 5,100 389,700 1.31 1.09 1.12 1.11 1.04 0.78
64 Augusta, Ga. 2,100 163,500 1.28 1.23 1.68 1.67 1.81 1.63
64 Baton Rouge, La. 2,600 202,700 1.28 1.00 1.26 1.08 0.99 0.63
66 Riverside-San Bernardino,
Calif. 12,500 987,200 1.27 1.12 1.34 1.36 1.70 1.81
67 Chicago 34,900 2,774,200 1.26 1.19 1.23 1.14 1.02 0.86
68 Tulsa, Okla. 3,600 291,900 1.23 1.24 1.11 1.08 1.02 0.78
68 Detroit 19,800 1,607,000 1.23 1.14 1.12 0.95 1.03 0.97
70 Baltimore 11,000 919,800 1.20 1.25 1.42 1.47 1.75 1.27
71 Anaheim, Calif. 10,400 875,300 1.19 0.97 1.50 0.74 0.71 0.81
72 Boston 16,500 1,426,300 1.16 1.05 1.18 1.01 0.74 0.52
73 Vallejo-Fairfield,
Calif. 1,900 168,200 1.13 0.84 1.21 1.20 1.47 1.43
74 Ventura, Calif. 2,400 228,000 1.05 1.02 1.17 0.67 0.80 1.04
75 Santa Rosa, Calif. 1,520 164,300 0.93 1.38 1.63 1.26 1.34 1.51
76 Miami 6,600 718,600 0.92 2.08 1.62 1.32 1.20 1.12
77 New Orleans 4,300 482,800 0.89 0.79 1.10 0.77 0.73 0.56
78 Cleveland 7,400 856,700 0.86 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.81 0.70
79 Philadelphia 14,900 1,818,100 0.82 0.74 0.82 0.85 0.73 0.64
80 Honolulu 2,300 283,800 0.81 1.63 1.69 1.24 1.63 1.59
81 Providence-Pawtucket,
R.I. 2,700 340,600 0.79 0.76 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.78
82 San Diego 7,000 940,100 0.74 0.73 0.77 0.64 0.70 0.89
83 Hartford, Conn. 3,060 423,000 0.72 0.62 0.76 0.75 0.72 0.54
84 Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y. 5,500 864,300 0.64 0.48 0.56 0.44 0.47 0.45
85 Pittsburgh 6,000 957,000 0.63 0.59 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.63
86 Newark, N.J. 3,700 690,800 0.54 0.60 0.73 0.48 0.47 0.37
87 Buffalo, N.Y. 2,300 461,500 0.50 0.41 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.72
88 New York 11,800 3,211,100 0.37 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.20
89 Los Angeles 8,600 3,023,300 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.54
Chicago Title and Trust Co.
Residential Growth Ratios
Historical U.S. Averages
Number of Residential
Housing Starts Households Growth Ratio
1933 (Record Low) 93,000 28,000,000 0.33
1944 (World War II) 141,800 38,500,000 0.37
1925 (Record High) 938,000 23,000,000 4.07
1970 1,434,000 63,401,000 2.26
1971 2,052,000 65,200,000 3.15
1972 2,357,000 67,300,000 3.50
1973 2,045,000 69,100,000 2.96
1974 1,338,000 70,600,000 1.90
1975 1,160,000 72,000,000 1.61
1976 1,537,000 73,500,000 2.09
1977 1,987,000 75,300,000 2.64
1978 1,990,000 77,100,000 2.58
1979 1,740,000 78,800,000 2.21
1980 1,320,000 80,300,000 1.64
1981 1,100,000 81,500,000 1.35
1982 1,060,000 82,500,000 1.28
1983 1,700,000 84,200,000 2.02
1984 1,750,000 85,700,000 2.04
1985 1,745,000 87,300,000 2.00
1986 1,807,000 88,700,000 2.04
1987 1,617,000 89,700,000 1.80
1988 1,490,000 90,850,000 1.64
1989 1,382,000 92,295,000 1.50
1990 1,193,000 93,500,000 1.28
1991 1,015,000 94,500,000 1.07
1992 1,200,000 95,669,000 1.25
1993 1,280,000 96,391,000 1.33
1994 1,457,000 97,101,000 1.50
1995 1,360,000 98,990,000 1.37
1996 1,464,000 99,627,000 1.47
Average 1970-1996 1.91
Record highs and lows
Historically, the most active year for new housing was 1925, when 4.07
new units were built for every 100 existing households. The low point
was reached eight years later in 1933, when the national average dropped
to 0.33. Looking at the past two and one-half decades, the ratio reached
a high of 3.50 in 1972 and fell to a low of 1.07 in 1991. The national
average from 1970-1996 is 1.91.
SOURCE Chicago Title & Trust Co.
 back to top
CONTACT:
Amy Beckman Sekili, 312-223-2459, or Kathleen
Graves, 312-223-2462; for technical information, John Pfister,
312-223-2310, all of Chicago Title & Trust Co.
|
