[filoleg]

That link you shared is counting the number of units build per 1k existing units.

Given how dense and populated NYC is (aka how many existing units there are), this metric isn't as meaningful. I believe the grandparent comment was talking about the raw number of units.

Actually, go to the bottom of the page you shared and look at the section titled "Full results", then sort by "Total new housing units authorized". Sadly, you will need to do some quick manual work to parse the results, because it sorts numbers as strings rather than as actual numbers. But you can clearly see from there that NYC is #1 in terms of raw numbers of new housing units. And that's data from 2021, and afaik NYC only increased those numbers significantly in the past 4 years.

[mrDmrTmrJ]

"# of new homes / # of people"

Is the only way to access if new home construction will affect prices. NYC is chronically underbidding.

[asdff]

Raw numbers are meaningless when the rate of home building relative to job growth is what defines prices.

[filoleg]

Sure. What was the rate of homebuilding to job growth in NYC and other major metro areas in the US?

I am not trying to be snarky, I actually agree with you. I just simply don't have that data on hand right now. But I am aligned with you in suspecting that the rate of home building to job growth would be a better indicator of the real housing market change (as opposed to the ratio of new residential units/1k residents or, to a lesser degree, raw numbers of new residential units).

[asdff]

It is even more accurate to consider job growth in terms of income growth. Job growth could very well go negative but if it means replacement of a working population with one of higher income, that also contributes to upward pressure on prices from this high income job growth.

Even worse for the supply side crunch is that this high income population is not like the previous population in the sense that they aren't as sensitive to this given price level. So demand based responses to price increases aren't seen until the prices are truly bewildering due to the amount of disposable income available for some of these workers that could be spent on housing.

[aegypti]

Here’s data from 2021-2025 using https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/index.html

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA

~21 million people

2021: 59,383 total units

2022: 60,602

2023: 41,674

2024: 61,159

2025: 6,777

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX

~7.5 million people

2021: 69,007 total units

2022: 75,786

2023: 68,336

2024: 65,296

2025: 11,057

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

~8 million people

2021: 74,617 total units

2022: 77,501

2023: 66,725

2024: 72,319

2025: 9,836

Using Houston alone, NYC is not #1 in raw numbers and in 2025 so far is only permitting 60% as many units as a CBSA 3x smaller than it.

I don’t know if HOU/DFW are the CBSAs pumping out the most units nationally though, they just came to mind.

[redwood]

Houston in Dallas who can simply expand externally into new land are hardly a proxy for a land real estate constrained city like New York that has to build vertically

And how is their mass transportation going? As if houses alone are all that matters.

[aegypti]

Surely it's not so simple when New York City is building more housing supply that essentially any other American city

can clearly see from there that NYC is #1 in terms of raw numbers of new housing units

Are the original goalposts, housing supply alone is an important factor in the price of housing though fwiw.