Is Recent Multifamily Housing Data Reliable?
The trustworthiness of federal data regarding multifamily housing construction is coming under unprecedented scrutiny, with leading analysts expressing doubt over the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest figures. Last month, the Census Bureau reported 42,000 multifamily starts, the second-highest July in nearly four decades; June’s tally ranked among the five busiest Junes since the late 1980s. These eye-popping numbers have sparked skepticism and concern among industry professionals, who argue that the reality on the ground does not match what government figures suggest.
Industry Voices
Private sector analysts and housing economists have been frank in their assessment. Jay Parsons, a rental housing economist, shared a blunt reaction on his Rent Roll podcast regarding the Census report: “This does not pass the sniff test. If you think there’s even a chance these numbers are true, find an executive from any apartment developer or builder in the country and tell them with a straight face that multifamily starts are rebounding at historically strong levels. See if they don’t laugh at you.”
Parsons is not alone. Ryan Davis of Witten Advisors said the July figures were “laughable,” while Chris Nebenzahl from John Burns Research & Consulting told Multifamily Dive the Census data “doesn’t represent what we are seeing.” Jay Lybik of Continental Properties told the publication that “the numbers don’t make a lot of sense.”
Supporting the skepticism is private-sector data. YieldPro noted that Yardi Matrix shows 2025 starts are roughly level with 2024 and remain well below historic peaks. Parsons pointed out that both RealPage and CoStar find apartment starts at their lowest levels in 12 to 13 years, stretching back to the post-financial crisis era.
The American Institute of Architects’ Billings Index and the National Multifamily Housing Council’s developer surveys corroborate this trend, showing no sign of a construction rebound. “If construction really were ramping up, developers and REITs would be reporting it. Instead, MAA Communities and AvalonBay, two of the nation’s largest apartment REITs, both say new starts are significantly below historical averages,” Parsons said.
The gap cannot be easily dismissed as statistical noise. While some macroeconomists attribute it to volatility, critics believe this reflects persistent problems with the Census construction start series. Greg Willett, chief economist at LeaseLock, states, “The construction starts series always has been an egregiously bad data set.” RealPage chief economist Carl Whitaker warned this might be “the tip of the iceberg for continued degradation of government data sources,” attributing issues to chronic underfunding and outdated methodology.
However, it’s not a unanimous view. Robert Dietz, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, still regards Census data as the “gold standard,” suggesting the recent gains might be concentrated in smaller markets that private data sets overlook. Despite this minority stance, most industry voices remain unconvinced, especially since even Census/HUD’s own long-run series suggests softness, and the July surge stands out as an anomaly in otherwise declining trends.
As Parsons pointed out, inflated construction data could have real policy consequences. Overstated numbers may give lawmakers a false sense of accomplishment regarding housing supply and reduce urgency for future interventions. There’s concern that this could convince the Federal Reserve that high interest rates aren’t denting construction, despite evidence to the contrary.
Political Pressure and Erosion of Trust
Beyond methodological concerns, the possibility of political manipulation further complicates trust in government data—an issue echoed in recent commentary from respected housing analyst Ivy Zelman. In a wide-ranging interview with Walker & Dunlop’s Willy Walker, Zelman was asked about the surprising strength in federal housing start data. She noted, “The start data was surprising to us. We were expecting a pullback. Permits were flat, and we’re down year over year. We’re expecting starts to be down 8% this year, and we’ve been seeing builders pull back on starts, given all the spec inventory… We don’t really expect whatever blip in the market that might have shown an increase in single family to be sustained.”
Zelman’s skepticism regarding Census numbers reflects a broader reservation among analysts who rely on federal figures to inform investment and policy decisions.
More pointedly, Zelman addressed the reliability of government economic data in politically charged environments. She described concerns that policymakers, armed with anomalous data, might enact ill-informed policy changes or delay necessary intervention. The interview also touched on the implications of leadership changes, with Zelman acknowledging, “I think it’s going to be a combination of tariffs… will be inflationary in the home improvement market, but we’ll see continued offsets in new construction. It could be slightly inflationary and probably leads to keeping rates higher for longer, at least stubbornly high on the long end of the curve, if those tariff increases continue to hit the market.”
Her remarks highlight an underlying worry: that trust in official data can erode when figures defy both market realities and private-sector analysis, especially in a polarized political climate. This skepticism, she notes, can undermine the confidence of investors, regulators and the broader public in official metrics, risking “bad policy” built on faulty information.
The ongoing controversy surrounding recent multifamily housing data reveals a serious disconnect between public and private-sector reporting. While figures from the Census Bureau suggest strong activity, the weight of industry opinion and private data tell a different story—one of cooling construction, cautious outlooks and skepticism about methodology. As housing experts like Ivy Zelman warn, persistent anomalies and questions of political pressure threaten not only policymaking but the very integrity of federal statistics.