Here's where normal people can still buy homes, according to real estate data
(NEXSTAR) – If you've given up on home ownership, you're not alone. The dream has grown unaffordable and unrealistic for Americans in many major cities.
'The rapid rise in home values coupled with the doubling of mortgage rates caused the cost of owning a home to soar. Unfortunately, incomes just haven't kept up. That lowered affordability everywhere,' said Zillow senior economist Orphe Divounguy.
But if you look closely, some pockets of America are still considered 'affordable' to the average family. In a data analysis shared with Nexstar, Zillow identified which cities are affordable by determining where the median-income family is able to spend less than one-third of their income on housing costs.
If you're able to scrape together a 20% down payment, several dozen metro areas remain affordable for a median family looking to buy. However, most people don't have that much cash sitting around in the bank.
When you set the target to a more reasonable 10% down payment, only 11 metro areas are still considered 'affordable':
Most places that still rank as affordable are found in the Midwest and the South, where zoning codes tend to be more lenient and builders have been able to respond to rising demand more quickly.
'At the start of the pandemic, when residential mobility increased, home values in the Midwest, Great Lakes region and more inland South shot up just as fast as the rest of the country, and even faster in some metros. But home values in these regions — for the most part — were relatively less expensive to begin with,' Divounguy said. 'So even with all that growth, many of them are still relatively more affordable, especially if you have access to a large down payment.'
If you're looking for the lowest prices overall, Redfin recently released a list of 10 major metro areas where homes are still under $300,000. Those willing to relocate to Detroit will find some of the best deals. The median sale price there is $180,000.
As mentioned before, if prospective homebuyers are able to put a larger payment down up-front, their real estate prospects expand. Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Oklahoma City all become affordable to a median-income family with a 20% down payment. (See the full list at the bottom of this story.)
For now, a few Upstate New York cities remain on the list, but that could soon change, according to Divounguy. Buffalo has been one of the hottest housing markets in the country the past couple years and supply isn't keeping up with demand.
'Strong job growth in the area has far outstripped new permits, and inventory of homes is nearly half what it was before the pandemic. Buffalo was previously one of the most accessible large cities in the nation. Now a mortgage for a typical home there is unaffordable for a family making the median household income, even with a 20% down payment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
A middle-class income ranges all the way from two-thirds to twice the median income, which means that homes are affordable for some middle-class Americans but not others. A recent Zoocasa report analyzed housing affordability in 100 major cities and found that lower-middle-class earners cannot afford a median-priced home in any of the cities, while upper-middle-class buyers can afford a median-priced home in 85 cities. That means that in 15 major cities, even upper-middle-class Americans can't afford to buy a median-priced home. Find Out: Read Next: Here's a look at the cities where upper-middle-class Americans may be priced out of the housing market. Median home price: $2,020,000 Highest middle-class income: $272,458 Max affordable home price: $1,223,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$796,044 Explore More: Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $169,744 Max affordable home price: $762,536 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$687,464 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $171,828 Max affordable home price: $771,898 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$678,102 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $193,656 Max affordable home price: $869,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$450,044 Median home price: $1,165,100 Highest middle-class income: $169,814 Max affordable home price: $762,851 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$402,249 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $255,978 Max affordable home price: $1,149,923 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$300,077 Median home price: $1,178,000 Highest middle-class income: $212,116 Max affordable home price: $952,883 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$225,117 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $253,460 Max affordable home price: $1,138,612 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$181,388 Median home price: $660,000 Highest middle-class income: $107,636 Max affordable home price: $483,530 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$176,470 Median home price: $862,600 Highest middle-class income: $159,402 Max affordable home price: $716,077 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$146,523 Median home price: $826,600 Highest middle-class income: $163,212 Max affordable home price: $733,193 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$93,407 Median home price: $1,036,500 Highest middle-class income: $211,560 Max affordable home price: $950,385 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$86,115 Median home price: $725,300 Highest middle-class income: $153,154 Max affordable home price: $688,010 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$37,290 Median home price: $643,900 Highest middle-class income: $137,270 Max affordable home price: $616,654 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$27,246 Median home price: $974,907 Highest middle-class income: $213,246 Max affordable home price: $957,959 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$16,948 More From GOBankingRates 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on 15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cavities in children could increase by millions if fluoride is banned, study suggests
The Brief An estimated 25.4 million more teeth will result in tooth decay in the next five years if fluoride is banned from the U.S. public water supply, according to a recent model simulation. The study also predicted an estimated $9.8 billion will be spent on additional dental care over the next five years. Some states like Utah and Florida have already banned fluoride from the state's public water supply. Researchers created a model to estimate the impact a ban on fluoride in the United States water supply would have on children's dental health and the results are bleak. The simulations estimated that a ban would result in tooth decay in 25.4 million more teeth, which is equivalent to a decayed tooth for one out of every three children over the next five years. The results were published in Jama Health Forum on May 30. "There's strong evidence from other countries and cities, such as Calgary in Canada, showing that when fluoride is eliminated, dental disease increases. Our study offers a window into what would happen in the United States if water fluoridation ceased," Lisa Simon, MD, DMD, and senior author of the study, said. Why you should care Not only would eliminating fluoride increase the occurrence of tooth decay, but the estimated cost of dental care would rise exponentially, according to the study. By the numbers The models simulated the potential dental care costs over five and 10 years. $9.8 billion in additional dental care costs over five years $19.4 billion in additional dental care costs over 10 years "Most of the increased cost could be attributed to publicly insured children, meaning it would be a direct public health cost," said Simon. Dig deeper Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and in 1962 set guidelines for how much should be added to water. Fluoride can come from several sources, but drinking water is the main one for Americans, researchers say. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population gets fluoridated drinking water, according to CDC data. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water was long considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. The American Dental Association credits it with reducing tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults. About one-third of community water systems — 17,000 out of 51,000 across the U.S. — serving more than 60% of the population fluoridated their water, according to a 2022 CDC analysis. What they're saying "We know fluoride works. We're able to show just how much it works for most communities and how much people stand to lose if we get rid of it," said Simon. Big picture view U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants communities to stop fluoridating water, and he is setting the gears of government in motion to help make that happen. Kennedy has said he plans to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide. And he said he's assembling a task force of health experts to study the issue and make new recommendations. Two states have already banned adding fluoride to public water systems. These include Florida and Utah. The Source Information for this article was taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, a study that observed oral health and water fluoridation data collected from 8,484 children aged 0-19 which was published in JAMA on May 30, 2025, a Mass General Brigham news release about the study, and reporting by The Associated Press. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
