DES MOINES, September 18 — The story begins with a scorecard, and the first name on it is Des Moines. Realtor.com’s inaugural Metro Affordability & Homebuilding Report Cards ranked the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas on two measures — what it costs to live there now, and how much new housing is going up — and Iowa’s capital came out on top with an A+ and an overall score of 83.4. Raleigh, North Carolina, finished second at 82.8, also an A+.
Columbia, South Carolina; Houston; and Indianapolis rounded out the top five.
A Midwest and Southern story
Ten metros earned grades in the A range, and most of them sit in the Midwest and South, where Realtor.com found comparatively attainable home prices alongside stronger construction activity. The other A-range metros were Austin, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Palm Bay and Columbus. Des Moines got there on balance rather than dominance.
Its affordability-component score was 88.3, paired with a homebuilding score of 78.4. The median listing price was $349,903, and Realtor.com calculated the mortgage payment on that home would take 27.5% of the median household income — under the 30% threshold commonly used to mark affordability.
The metro also permitted 85% more homes than its share of the national population and overall U.S. permitting would predict, a permit-to-population ratio of 1.85. Its weakness was the price of new building. Newly built homes in Des Moines carried a 23.4% premium over existing homes, placing it in the lower half of the metros studied on that measure.
Raleigh built its way to second
Raleigh’s runner-up finish rested more heavily on construction. Its permit-to-population ratio was 2.51, and newly built homes there were priced 1.3% below existing ones — a rarity among the hundred metros examined. “Homebuilding and affordability are inseparable,” Realtor.com Chief Economist Danielle Hale said, adding that lasting affordability improvements require more construction.
The bottom of the table tells the other half of that story. Thirteen metros received failing grades, among them several of the country’s largest and most expensive coastal markets.
Los Angeles ranked last with a score of 12.0, an affordability-component score of 0.9 and a homebuilding score of 23.1. Its median listing price was $1,129,415; based on a 10% down payment and a 6.5% rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage, Realtor.com calculated the monthly payment would consume 84.4% of the median earner’s income. A buyer would need a down payment of roughly 68%, or about $768,000, to bring that payment down to the 30% threshold.
Los Angeles also recorded a permit-to-population ratio of 0.47. Providence, Rhode Island, ranked 99th, followed by New York at 98th.
The other failing markets were Honolulu; Boston; Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, California; San Francisco; Worcester, Massachusetts; San Diego; Stockton, California; San Jose; Miami; and Riverside, California. Some performed better on construction than on current affordability — Riverside’s homebuilding score reached 50.5 while its affordability-component score was only 9.2.
The gap between old homes and new ones
The underlying data show that an affordable existing-home market does not necessarily offer borrowers a comparable selection of newly built homes. Pittsburgh had a median listing price of $245,217 and one of the report’s strongest affordability scores, but its new-construction premium was 109%. The premium was 92.6% in Akron, Ohio; 119.5% in Toledo; 102.8% in Cleveland; and 143.3% in Detroit.
By contrast, new-construction premiums were negative in Raleigh, Austin, Palm Bay, Cape Coral, North Port, Charleston, Boise, Phoenix, Greenville and Lakeland. Realtor.com based the rankings primarily on 2025 listing, household-income, population and building-permit data, splitting each metro’s score equally between affordability and homebuilding.
The affordability component weighed the income required to pay for a median-priced home and the share of listings affordable to households at different income levels. The homebuilding component rested mainly on permits relative to population, along with the price difference between newly built and existing homes. The rankings therefore measure the structural balance between affordability and supply rather than current mortgage demand or real-time origination volume.
What to watch next is whether that balance holds. The report suggests the benefit of lower mortgage rates will vary substantially by market: a rate decline can increase purchasing power, but it cannot create inventory. Metros pairing stronger construction with relatively attainable prices may be better positioned to convert improved affordability into purchase volume, while in high-cost markets with limited permitting, lower rates could bring some buyers back without resolving the shortage of homes available within their budgets.
Sources
