Single-Family Residential Construction Slowed in the Suburbs in Q1 of 2022

According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Home Building Geography Index (HBGI) for Q1 of 2022, single-family residential home building slowed in the suburbs, with most other regional areas following suit. This decrease follows the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and home buyers’ preferences to live in the suburbs easing.

The report indicates that economic challenges, coupled with supply-chain headwinds, have slowed the pace of single-family residential construction across all regional submarkets. The impact was most noticeable in high-cost areas like large metro suburban counties, where growth declined year-over-year from 18.7% in Q1 of 2021 to 5.2% in Q1 of 2022.

In contrast, large metro core counties experienced the smallest growth reduction for that period, a -0.7 percentage point decline to 8.8%. Micro counties were the only submarket to post an increase in the growth rate from the first quarter of 2021, a 3.9 percentage point increase to 16.7%.

Changes in market share also reflected the slowdown of large metro suburban counties’ single-family construction. On a four-quarter moving average, year-over year basis, large metro suburban counties’ single-family construction’s market share dropped from the first quarter of 2021 by -1.3 percentage points to 24.8%. Large metro core counties’ market share dropped by -0.3 percentage points to 16.6%.

All other regions, which can be grouped as “lower-density submarkets,” captured the above market share decreases. Large metro areas’ outlying counties’ market share increased the most, by 0.5 percentage points to 9.6%; and non-metro, non-micro counties increased the least, by 0.1 percentage points to 4.2%. It deserves noting that the latter category has historically maintained this market share, only wavering by -0.1 percentage points downward in most quarters.


FEA compiles the Wood Markets News from various 3rd party sources to provide readers with the latest news impacting forest product markets. Opinions or views expressed in these articles do not necessarily represent those of FEA.