Homes Are Becoming More Affordable in These 11 Major Cities
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Housing in about a dozen major metro areas is becoming more affordable as a boosted national inventory is being countered by increases in median home prices plus rising mortgage and interest rates.
Why It Matters
Housing affordability has been a central concern for Americans as home prices and mortgage rates have surged in recent years.
Understanding the shifts in housing affordability is crucial for both prospective homeowners and policymakers grappling with the persistent gap between median household income and the cost of homeownership. The nationwide trend remains challenging, with the typical buyer still needing to earn about $25,000 more than the median household to afford a median-priced home, according to Redfin's housing market analysis.
A 'for sale' sign sits in front of a single family home on August 1, 2025, in Miami.
A 'for sale' sign sits in front of a single family home on August 1, 2025, in Miami.What To Know
New data from real estate and brokerage firm Redfin released August 6 shows some signs of relief for 11 major U.S. metropolitan areas, many of them Sun Belt cities that previously saw rapid price growth during the pandemic.
Redfin's analysis of Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data as of June 2025 showed that the annual income required to purchase a median-priced home fell year over year in 11 of the 50 largest U.S. metro areas.
The largest drop was in Oakland, California, where the required income declined 4.6 percent to $244,073. Other cities with notable decreases include West Palm Beach, Florida (-3.7 percent); Jacksonville, Florida (-3.5 percent); San Diego (-3.2 percent); and Tampa, Florida (-2.1 percent).
Rounding out the list are Atlanta, Phoenix, St. Louis, Orlando, Sacramento, California, and Dallas, each with measurable improvements in affordability over the past year.
The trend in these metros was attributed to falling home prices—largely a result of a pandemic-era building surge that increased housing supply.
Similar declines were observed in the other highlighted cities. Florida stood out, with four metros—West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando—making the list, a shift attributed to reduced prices amid higher insurance, HOA costs, and a rise in natural disasters impacting the market.
Despite these improvements, affordability gaps persist. The typical U.S. homebuyer still needs to earn $112,131 per year to afford the median-priced home—about $25,000 more than the median household earns.
Nationwide, an estimated 39 percent of household income goes to housing, above the 30 percent threshold considered affordable, but slightly down from 40.5 percent a year ago. About 34.6 percent of home listings are considered affordable to the typical household, a minor improvement compared to the previous year.
Conversely, some of America's most affordable metros faced increased difficulty, with the income needed to buy rising rapidly.
Detroit saw a 9.9 percent increase, though at $57,432, it remains the lowest required income among major metros. Other Rust Belt cities such as Cleveland, Newark, Chicago and Pittsburgh also reported increases, as influxes of buyers drive up prices despite their historic affordability.
Fortune reported that Midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland still offer median home prices around half the national average, supporting migration from higher-cost coastal regions.
High Rates, Little Ingenuity
Andrew Lieb, a real estate litigator, told Newsweek via email that the two main issues on home affordability are mortgage rates and insurance costs.
"While mortgage rates are impacting everyone, insurance is very location specific," Lieb said. "If you live by the water or have a second home, or even just your property is over 5,000 square feet, getting insurance is going to cost you astronomical numbers and require lots of upgrades just to bind the policy.
"However, as a real estate litigator, I can tell you that not having homeowners' insurance is going to cost you a heck of a lot more in legal fees and damages if someone is injured on your property—so think twice before forgoing this important product."
Andrew Ragusa, a real estate broker with Remi Realty in New York City and Long Island, told Newsweek via email that there are currently no affordability increases in his region.
"I have friends in Florida who are trying to sell their house right now and they're having a really hard time because there's so much inventory down there and prices are dropping," Ragusa said.
Part of that is attributed to construction styles, with Ragusa saying homes in Florida "are cookie-cutter standardized" and that building designs lack "uniqueness."
"That means if you won't take a low offer on yours, someone else will take the low offer on theirs—and the houses are pretty much the same, especially in those developments," he said.
What People Are Saying
Katie Shook, a Redfin Premier real estate agent in Phoenix, in a statement: "Buyers are battling affordability and they see a lot of listings sitting on the market, so they're asking for major concessions. We've been in a buyer's market for the past eight months. If your home isn't in 10/10 condition and priced at or below market value, it's going to linger on the market.
"A lot of sellers are offering $10,000-$15,000 to cover the buyer's closing costs to seal the deal. Some home features, like a landscaped backyard or pool, aren't getting the return they used to. Buyers are no longer willing to pay a premium for those things."
What Happens Next
With home prices leveling off or declining in several major metros and inventories projected to rise, industry analysts expect affordability to improve modestly in more markets by the end of 2025.
Redfin's data suggests national home prices could fall up to 1 percent by year-end, giving some would-be buyers an opportunity to reenter the market. However, real estate markets remain highly regional.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
18 minutes ago
- Atlantic
So, About Those Big Trade Deals
If there's anything Donald Trump loves more than tariffs, it's a deal. So you can understand his excitement lately. Over the past few weeks, the president has announced tariff-related deals with three major trading partners—the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—that have been hailed as major victories for the United States. In each case, America's partners agreed to accept 15 percent tariffs on their exports to the U.S. while lowering trade barriers on American goods and promising to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy—in essence paying Trump to impose trade restrictions on them. 'Europe Caves to Trump on Tariffs' read a representative New York Times headline. In the days following the European Union deal announcement, the White House released a fact sheet quoting all the positive coverage. On Thursday, Jamieson Greer, Trump's top trade official, published a New York Times op-ed boasting that, with the completion of these deals, the administration had successfully 'remade the global order.' But upon closer inspection, Trump's trade deals aren't nearly as impressive as they sound. In fact, they aren't really trade deals in the traditional sense, and they might not benefit the U.S. at all. Trump did prove the doubters wrong in one important way. When the president originally announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, other countries threatened to respond in kind, leading many economists and journalists (myself included) to conclude that the tariffs would lead to a spiral of retaliation. With a few exceptions (notably China and Canada), that didn't happen. Instead, Trump has gotten key trading partners to back down. But simply avoiding retribution was never the goal of tariffs. The whole point of Trump's dealmaking strategy was supposedly to get foreign countries to lower their existing trade barriers—the classic purpose of a trade agreement. In his Liberation Day announcement, Trump complained at length about what he considered to be the excessive restrictions that other countries had imposed on American goods—including not only tariffs but also currency manipulation, value-added taxes, and subsidies to domestic firms—and vowed not to back down on tariffs until those countries lowered them. Scott Lincicome: What the U.K. deal reveals about Trump's trade strategy The announcements of the new deals purport to have delivered on this promise, giving Americans 'unprecedented levels of market access' to Europe, 'breaking open long-closed markets' in Japan, and making South Korea 'completely OPEN TO TRADE with the United States.' But the details of the deals, which remain sparse, tell a very different story. None include agreements by trading partners to meaningfully reform their tax or regulatory codes, strengthen their currencies, or reduce the barriers that have long been major sticking points in prior trade negotiations. Instead, the announcements are full of vague statements of intent—'The United States and the European Union intend to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products' (my emphasis)—and references to things such as 'openings for a range of industrial and consumer goods.' The main concrete action that the EU agreed to was to eliminate its tariffs on American industrial products. This sounds impressive unless you're aware that the average EU tariff rate on nonagricultural goods prior to the deal was just 1 percent. The main difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU has long been its barriers on agricultural products, which appear to have been untouched by these deals. South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, agreed to allow more American-made cars into their markets—which also sounds great until you realize that the main reason American companies don't sell a lot of cars to those countries is the fact that almost nobody wants to drive a truck or SUV in Tokyo or Seoul. Lower trade barriers won't change that. What about the investments? According to the announcements, South Korea, Japan, and Europe have respectively pledged to invest $350 billion, $550 billion, and $600 billion in the United States (In an interview with CNBC, referring to the EU investment, Trump claimed that 'the details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it.') The EU has also agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion of American oil and gas. Those are big numbers, but they might not add up to much in the real world. The EU has no authority to require European companies to invest in the U.S. or buy its products. What the Trump administration touted as 'commitments' were mostly rough numbers based on what European companies were already planning to invest and buy. 'We can't force the company to do anything, nor will be able to pretend that we can, but we can talk to them, we can get their intentions, and we can transmit that as a faithful indication to our partners in the U.S.,' Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's trade-negotiation body, said after the deal was announced. The 'investments' from Japan and South Korea, meanwhile, might not be investments at all. Shortly after the deal with Japan was announced, the country's top trade negotiator said that he anticipated only 1 or 2 percent of the $550 billion fund would come in the form of direct investment; the rest would mostly consist of loans that would need to be repaid with interest. South Korean officials have made similar statements. 'These numbers bear no relation to any conception of reality,' Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a trade adviser to the Biden administration, told me. 'Everyone has figured out that Trump really likes big numbers to sell his trade deals and doesn't need much substance to do so.' Recent history supports this view. As part of Trump's first-term trade deal with China, Beijing agreed to increase its annual purchasing of American goods by $200 billion. In the event, it didn't increase its purchasing at all. If America's trading partners didn't agree to meaningfully lower barriers to U.S. imports, and if their promises of investment are likely vaporous, then the only real concession that Trump's tariffs have won is … the right to impose tariffs. This means that the value of the deals comes down to the value of the tariffs. Tariffs can help domestic producers by making their foreign competitors' products more expensive. But tariffs can also hurt them, by raising the costs of the inputs they import to make their products. Several studies of the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term, which were much smaller and more targeted, found that manufacturing employment either stayed level or actually fell as a result. The ultimate result of the current wave of tariffs is yet to be determined, but so far, since Liberation Day, the manufacturing sector has shed tens of thousands of jobs and investment in new factories has fallen. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers in May found that optimism among manufacturing firms had fallen to its lowest point since the height of the coronavirus pandemic; trade uncertainty and raw-material costs were cited as top concerns. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved The new deals should at least give companies some much-needed certainty about tariff rates, which will help them make investment decisions. But in other ways, the deals actively undermine key American industries. Foreign cars, which represent the single largest American import from Japan and South Korea and the third largest from the EU, will face 15 percent tariffs. That is far lower than the rate American car companies have to pay to import car parts, which are tariffed at 25 percent, and crucial car-building materials like steel and aluminum, which are tariffed at 50 percent. As Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said in a recent interview, foreign competitors such as Toyota now have a $5,000 to $10,000 cost advantage over American-made vehicles. Ford projects that it will lose $2 billion in profits this year alone because of higher tariffs; General Motors forecasts losses of $4 billion to $5 billion by the end of the year. The deals announced so far are only the beginning. The Trump administration is currently in the midst of negotiations with several trading partners, including China, Mexico, Switzerland, and Taiwan, and just yesterday implemented a new round of tariffs on about 90 countries, the ostensible goal being to bring those nations to the bargaining table too. If recent events are an indication, any future pacts will be framed as historic milestones in the quest to remake the global trade system in America's favor. The White House will issue pronouncements of eye-popping investments, drastically reduced foreign-trade barriers, and major concessions to American industry. When that happens, remember to look closely at the details.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Germany Suspends Arms Exports to Israel Over Gaza Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Germany will suspend all arms exports to Israel that could be used in the Gaza Strip, Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced Friday, marking a sharp policy shift amid growing unease over Israel's military plans to seize Gaza City. "Israel has the right to defend itself against the terror of Hamas," Merz said in a statement. "The release of the hostages and determined negotiations on a ceasefire are our top priority. The disarmament of Hamas is essential. Hamas must not play a role in the future of Gaza." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Jordanian King Abdullah II (not pictured) speak to the media following talks at the Chancellery on July 29, 2025 in Berlin, Germany. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Jordanian King Abdullah II (not pictured) speak to the media following talks at the Chancellery on July 29, 2025 in Berlin, story is breaking. More to follow.
CNBC
18 minutes ago
- CNBC
Tell us your story: How well are you living in retirement?
is looking to hear from retirees on how they are doing financially in today's economy. A large surge of Americans will reach "Peak 65," with more than 4.1 individuals turning 65 each year from 2024 through 2027, according to the Alliance for Lifetime Income. Factors like tariffs and inflation may affect those retirees and aspiring retirees differently. If you've reached that life stage, are you living the retirement that you had envisioned? If so, how did you do it? Are there ways in which you could be doing better financially? If so, what could be better, and how do you want it to change? If you would be interested in sharing your story for an article for please email
