The Making of Modern Jamaica | 2000–2010: The New Housing Market

• Private housing development surged as Jamaica’s economy stabilised.
• Hurricane Ivan struck Jamaica in September 2004, destroying thousands of homes.
• Gated communities proliferated across St Andrew and St Catherine.
• NHT expanded its schemes but the affordability gap continued to widen.
• Tourism’s growth displaced coastal communities from their historic lands.
• Urban informal settlements expanded faster than planning could contain them.

Building Upwards, Leaving Others Behind: Jamaica’s Housing Market in the 2000s

The first decade of the twenty-first century gave Jamaica something it had not reliably had since independence: a period of relative macroeconomic stability. Inflation declined, the exchange rate steadied, and the property market attracted investment from the diaspora, from the domestic middle class, and from foreign buyers drawn by the growing tourism economy. But stability at the top of the housing market coexisted with persistent informality at the bottom, and the hurricane of 2004 demonstrated once again how precarious Jamaica’s least protected homes remained.

Economic Stabilisation and the Property Boom

The early 2000s brought a degree of economic stability to Jamaica that translated directly into activity in the property market. The post-FINSAC financial sector, restructured and more tightly regulated, began to lend again, though more cautiously than it had in the boom years of the early 1990s. Mortgage interest rates fell from the extraordinary heights of the late 1990s to levels that, while still high by international standards, made mortgage borrowing feasible for a wider segment of the middle-income population. The NHT continued to expand its lending activity; the building societies rebuilt their balance sheets; and a new generation of real estate developers, largely local but increasingly including some diaspora investors, began to bring properties to market.

The character of the private market development activity in this decade was distinctly upscale. The proliferation of gated communities that had begun in the 1990s accelerated in the 2000s, with developments in the hills above Constant Spring, in the eastern parishes of St Andrew and in new areas along the main corridors leading out of Kingston. These developments targeted the upper-middle and wealthy segments of the market: the professionals, the diaspora returnees with North American and British expectations of housing quality, the successful businesspeople who sought the combination of security, space, and amenity that the older uptown stock could not always provide.

The north coast, already transformed by its role as Jamaica’s primary tourist zone, saw a parallel expansion of residential development aimed at the international market. Montego Bay, Ocho Rios, and the corridor between them attracted investment in resort-adjacent residential communities — villas, condominiums, and gated developments marketed to second-home buyers from North America and Europe. This form of development was new in scale if not in concept: foreigners had always owned property in Jamaica’s resort areas, but the 2000s brought a more systematic commercialisation of this market, with professional developers creating purpose-built residential products aimed explicitly at international buyers.

Hurricane Ivan and the Vulnerability of the Built Environment

On 11 September 2004, Hurricane Ivan passed south of Jamaica as a Category 4 storm, the most powerful to threaten the island since Gilbert in 1988. Although Ivan’s centre did not make direct landfall in Jamaica — the storm passed approximately thirty miles to the south — its outer bands generated winds and storm surge that caused severe damage across the island, with the heaviest impact on the eastern and southern coasts. Estimates at the time placed the damage to the housing stock in the tens of thousands of homes affected, with complete destruction of thousands of the most vulnerable structures.

The pattern of damage from Ivan replicated what Gilbert had shown sixteen years earlier: informal housing, particularly the zinc-roofed wooden structures of coastal communities and the urban fringe, was devastated; the more formally constructed concrete block homes of the government schemes and the private market fared considerably better. The fishing communities of the south coast — Portland Cottage, Rocky Point, and the Hellshire settlements — lost much of their housing stock. The squatter settlements on Kingston’s western fringes were severely affected. And the tourism infrastructure of the north coast, which had been assuming growing importance to the national economy, suffered significant damage to the hotels and the communities that served them.

Ivan’s consequences for housing policy were, as Gilbert’s had been, largely temporary in their visible effects. The emergency response provided temporary shelter; reconstruction materials were distributed; international aid again contributed to rebuilding. But the fundamental vulnerability of the housing stock was not addressed. The informal settlements were rebuilt, largely in the same materials and on the same sites. The coastal communities reconstructed their wooden homes on the same storm-surge-prone foreshore. And the lesson that a hurricane season could erase years of housing investment in the communities most exposed to the weather remained unlearned in any systemic sense.

The NHT in the 2000s: Scale and Limits

The National Housing Trust entered the 2000s as a mature institution with a substantial contribution base and a growing portfolio of mortgage loans and housing schemes. Its activities in this decade reflected both its growing scale and the growing difficulty of the housing problem it was trying to address. The NHT continued to develop new housing schemes — in Kingston, in Portmore, in the parish capitals — and expanded its mortgage lending to contributors across the income spectrum. By the mid-2000s, the NHT was providing tens of thousands of mortgages annually, making it by far the most significant housing finance institution in Jamaica.

But the scale of the NHT’s activity, however impressive, was insufficient to close the gap between housing supply and demand. The annual production of new formal housing — from the NHT, from private developers, and from the smaller contributions of other public agencies — fell significantly short of the number of new households being formed each year. The population, though growing more slowly than it had in the independence decades, was still increasing; the average household size was falling as urbanisation and social change produced smaller family units; and the informal settlement sector continued to absorb the overflow from a formal market that could not keep up.

The affordability challenge deepened through the decade. Land prices in the metropolitan Kingston area rose significantly as demand from the middle market outstripped supply; the cost of building materials, imported and therefore exposed to exchange rate movements, increased; and the wages of the workers who most needed affordable housing grew more slowly than the costs of providing it. The NHT’s subsidised mortgage rates partially mitigated this problem for contributors in the formal sector, but the majority of Jamaicans — employed in the informal economy, self-employed in agriculture and trade, or in occupations where formal NHT contribution was irregular — had no access to NHT lending and faced the private mortgage market with its higher rates and more demanding terms.

Tourism, Displacement and the Coastal Community

The expansion of tourism in the 2000s intensified the pressure on coastal communities that had been building since the 1960s. The north coast of Jamaica — from Negril in the west through Montego Bay, Falmouth, Ocho Rios, and Port Antonio in the east — was increasingly occupied by a tourism economy that had different claims on the coastal land than the communities that had historically lived there. Fishing villages, small farming settlements, and the residential areas of the workers who staffed the hotels and attractions found themselves in an increasingly competitive position relative to the development interests seeking coastal land for new resort development.

The dynamics varied along the coast. In some areas, communities had benefited from the tourism economy through employment and through the improved infrastructure that resort development brought to coastal areas. In others, the pressure of rising land values and the demand for resort-adjacent property was producing displacement — formal and informal — of communities that had occupied coastal land for generations but often without the legal documentation of title that would have enabled them to negotiate on equal terms with development interests. The family land problem, which in the rural interior produced insecurity for farming communities, was equally present on the coast, where fishing communities occupying family land found themselves vulnerable to development pressure that their informal tenure arrangements could not resist.

The construction of new resort infrastructure also generated its own housing demand — the workers needed to build and staff the hotels, the drivers, the craft vendors, the groundskeepers — which was rarely planned for adequately in advance. Communities adjacent to new resort developments absorbed this labour force in informal settlements that grew faster than local services could support, creating new concentrations of housing need in areas where planning capacity was limited and where the economic priorities of the tourism development tended to crowd out the investment in worker housing and community infrastructure that a well-planned development approach might have required.

The Informal Sector: Growing Beyond the Map

Despite four decades of formal housing programmes, the informal settlement sector in Jamaica was larger in 2010 than it had been at independence. The pace of rural-urban migration had slowed compared to the 1960s and 1970s, but the structural factors that produced informal settlement — the gap between formal housing costs and low-income capacity to pay, the inadequacy of formal housing supply relative to need, and the absence of affordable rental housing as an alternative to ownership — were unchanged. New informal communities continued to form on the urban fringe; existing informal settlements continued to densify as additional families moved in; and the inner-city communities that had been informal in the colonial era remained informal a century later.

The physical character of these communities had evolved. The original squatter settlement of temporary materials — the corrugated zinc and cardboard and salvaged wood of the immediate post-war migration period — had, in most established informal communities, been replaced by more permanent construction. Concrete block had become the default building material even in informal settlements, as its availability, its relative affordability, and its permanence made it the rational choice for anyone building a home they intended to stay in. The informal settlements of the 2000s were, in terms of construction quality, substantially better than what they had replaced — but they remained informal, without security of tenure, without adequate infrastructure, and without the legal standing that would have allowed residents to invest confidently in improving their homes.

What the Decade Left for the Next Generation

By 2010, Jamaica’s housing question was both more complex and more urgent than it had been at the beginning of the 2000s. The formal housing market had grown and developed; the NHT was larger and more capable; private developers were producing better-quality housing for the upper middle market than at any previous point in Jamaica’s history. At the same time, the structural barriers to housing access for the majority of the population — the cost gap, the informality of tenure, the inadequacy of supply — were unchanged or deepened.

The housing landscape of 2010 Jamaica was a map of the island’s social geography: the gated communities of upper St Andrew and the north coast resort zones defining one edge; the contracting rural villages with their remittance-funded concrete houses defining another; and in between, the immense informal middle — the communities of Kingston’s western and central corridors, the urban fringe settlements, the coastal villages — where the majority of Jamaicans lived in homes that the formal market had not built and the formal state had not adequately served. It was to this landscape, and to this housing question, that the following decade would have to find new answers.

---

Follow Jamaica Homes on Youtube @jamaicahomes and Instagram @jamaica_homes and on Facebook @jamaicahomesnews Send us a message or email us at onlinefeedback@jamaica-homes.com or editor@jamaica-homes.com