Many of you are probably acutely aware that the cost of lumber has risen dramatically over the last year. Builders are building and many people seem interested in renovating their home right now -- so demand is outstripping supply. But here is a chart from Fortune, with data from Random Lengths, showing you just how wild things have gotten. Back in April 2020, lumber was going for about $358 per thousand board feet, according to this data. As of the beginning of this month, the number had jumped to $1,048, which represents an all-time high and a 193% year-over-year increase. Who knows where pricing will go next, but the National Association of Home Builders is estimating that current pricing has added about $24,000 to the price of a typical new single-family home in the US.
Back in the old days, and by the old days I mean the 1980s, there were a handful of ways in which you were likely to get rich. You either inherited it, or you made it in oil or real estate. The Forbes list of the 100 richest Americans was first published in 1982 and, at that time, 60 of the people on this list had inherited their wealth. Of the 40 new fortunes on the list, about 60% were primarily related to oil or real estate. If you couldn't inherit your money, these two industries were a good place to start.
But as Paul Graham explains in this recent essay about " how people get rich now ," this is no longer the case. On the 2020 list, there were 73 new fortunes, but only 4 stemmed from real estate and only 2 stemmed from oil. As you might imagine, today's biggest driver is what we call tech and, more specifically, it is people founding tech companies (there are also a couple of examples of early employees doing very well). Of the 73 new fortunes last year, approximately 30 came from tech, including 8 of the top 10 fortunes on the list.
Given how many people are starting new companies today (it has become easier and cheaper) and given how many of these companies are quickly growing to big valuations (things are scaling faster), it is perhaps tempting to think about this period of time as being entirely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many young people getting rich by starting their own company. And never before have we seen such inequality.
However, Graham argues in his essay that this period of time is the default. What we saw in the second half of the 20th century was actually an anomaly. Indeed, if you go back to the end of the 19th century, the richest people in the US were mostly people who were starting their own companies and taking advantage of new technologies, such as that of mass production.
His claim is that for the most part it wasn't really viable to start your own company in, say, the 1960s. Instead, most people simply went to work for a big company that had some sort of oligopolistic positioning in the market. And it turns out that was pretty good for maintaining a strong middle class. Less people were getting fabulously rich. I'd like to see some more data points around entrepreneurship and wealth during this era. But regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the dominant sources of wealth have changed.
London has a breed of specialist developers that are known as rooftop or airspace developers. What these developers do is build on top of existing and occupied buildings -- mostly residential. Firm examples include Upspace and Apex Airspace . According to this recent WSJ article , the city is also making moves to relax regulations so that more of these top-ups can be completed.
Brokerage Knight Frank estimates that in central London alone there are probably 23,000 buildings that could support a few extra floors, resulting in upwards of 41,000 new homes. I have done early feasibility studies for similar projects here in Toronto and they're not simple to execute. But building structures are typically constructed with a factor of safety and so, in some/most cases, you can build a little on top without doing any additional reinforcing. (Note: I am not a structural engineer.)
In any case, the benefits of airspace projects are obvious. You're creating additional supply in a tight housing market like London. Similar to Toronto's laneway housing program, it's not going to completely solve the larger problem of affordable housing. But every bit of new housing helps, regardless of where it lands on the spectrum of affordability.
One of the drawbacks, which is the headline of the above WSJ article, is that penthouse residents are getting demoted in the process. They're going from penthouse to sub, or sub-sub, or sub-sub-sub penthouse. They also need to endure a bit of construction right above them. Cry me a river?
But what is also important to point out is that there are lots of buildings out there which are facing capital expenditure shortfalls. They have maintenance and repair demands that simply aren't adequately funded. Adding additional floors can be a way for these buildings to generate that cash and, in some cases, residents are even partnering with airspace developers to share in some of the profit upside.
Not surprisingly, these sorts of arrangements are seemingly being met with a fair bit of support. Because in these instances, your options are basically as follows: Either you cut a repairs and maintenance check right now or you support a bit of development and then hopefully you'll be the one receiving a check in the future. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of this, not just in London, but in cities all around the world.
