Do construction costs explain differences in house prices across metro areas?
Core argument: Chicago's house prices are 48% below what building costs predict, while the highest price-to-cost cities are in coastal California, Colorado's Front Range, Florida, Seattle, and Boston, based on nearly 75 years of RSMeans housing cost data.
Nearly 75 years of the RSMeans housing cost data, which capture the costs and margins associated with actually constructing a building, but excludes ancillary and land acquisition costs, has allowed us to examine housing construction cost growth over a long period and across many different metro areas, [and to compare them] with various measures of housing prices. While construction costs [are] a very large fraction of the costs of [new homes], these costs aren’t a particularly strong predictor of [variation in] housing prices overall, especially in the very highest-cost metros and in more recent periods. The highest house price cities (relative to costs) are in coastal California, the Front Range of Colorado, Florida, as well as Seattle and Boston. The lowest relative price cities are various locations in the Midwest and South as well as Philadelphia. Chicago’s prices are 48% less than predicted by building costs. Patterns in both aggregate and cross section data suggest the cost-price relationship is weakening over time, particularly since post-2000. Drivers of this decoupling [include] increasingly binding restrictions that prevent housing supply expansion in high-demand areas.

