Los Angeles placed 100th in Realtor.com’s first Metro Affordability and Homebuilding Report Card, while Des Moines topped the rankings as the report linked housing costs and construction levels to local zoning, permitting and land-use policies.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Los Angeles ranked last among the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas for the combined measures of housing affordability and new residential construction, according to a Realtor.com analysis that found wide differences in homebuilding conditions across the country.
Realtor.com released its inaugural Metro Affordability and Homebuilding Report Card on Sept. 16, assigning Los Angeles an “F” grade and a score of 12.
Des Moines, Iowa, finished at the opposite end of the rankings, earning an “A+” with a score of 83.4.
The analysis compared affordability with the pace of residential construction and examined how local development rules, permitting systems and zoning policies can affect the housing supply.
Los Angeles had a median home listing price of $1.129 million. Realtor.com calculated that a household earning the area’s median income would need to devote 84.4% of its income toward the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home.
The calculation assumed buyers made a 10% down payment and financed the remaining balance with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage carrying a 6.5% interest rate.
Des Moines recorded a median listing price of $349,903. Under the same financing assumptions, a mortgage payment on the typical home would consume 27.5% of a median-income household’s income.
That places the Des Moines figure below the commonly referenced affordability benchmark of 30% of household income.
The report also identified a substantial difference in residential permitting between the two metropolitan areas.
Des Moines had a permit-to-population ratio of 1.85, meaning residential building permits were being issued at a rate 85% above the national average when adjusted for population.
Los Angeles recorded a ratio of 0.47, indicating new housing permits were being issued at less than half the national average relative to population.
“The combination of extreme affordability pressure and limited new supply placed it at the bottom of the class,” the report said of Los Angeles.
Realtor.com senior economist Joel Berner said differences in available land do not fully explain why some metropolitan areas are building more housing while maintaining lower relative prices.
“Beyond land availability, the biggest difference between the ‘A’ metros and the ‘F’ metros is local housing policy, especially related to zoning and permitting,” Berner said.
“The ‘A’s share regulatory flexibility and streamlined approval processes, while the ‘F’s are locked in restrictive land-use frameworks.”
Los Angeles was not alone among major coastal metropolitan areas receiving failing grades.
New York City, Providence, Rhode Island, Honolulu and Boston also received “F” grades in the report.
Realtor.com used Boston and Austin, Texas, to illustrate differences in local land-use regulation.
According to Berner, Boston has four times as many pages of zoning regulations as Austin. Approximately 79% of Boston’s land is zoned, compared with 15% in Austin.
Minimum parking requirements apply to 88% of land in Boston, compared with 37% in Austin.
Boston also allows unrestricted accessory dwelling units on less of its land, which the report said can reduce opportunities to build smaller and potentially lower-cost residences.
“The contrast between Austin and Boston makes clear that the rules governing what can be built can be just as consequential as the land available to build on,” Berner said.
Several metropolitan areas with comparatively less restrictive zoning and permitting systems finished near the top of the rankings.
They included Raleigh, North Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Houston; and Indianapolis, along with first-place Des Moines.
Regional differences were also significant.
Metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest generally performed better on both affordability and new construction, while cities in the Northeast and West tended to score lower.
Realtor.com attributed part of that difference to greater availability of lower-cost land in the South and Midwest, combined with zoning and permitting systems that allow residential development to move forward more easily.
“Homebuilding and affordability are inseparable, and if we want to improve affordability in a lasting way, we need to build more homes,” Realtor.com chief economist Danielle Hale said.
“The metros at the top of these rankings show that buyers benefit most when communities pair homes that are attainable for today’s local earners with enough new construction to support tomorrow’s demand.”
The report arrives as builders contend with a more difficult national housing environment.
The National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo Housing Market Index, also released Sept. 16, found builder confidence had fallen to its lowest point since September 2025.
“Buyer traffic has weakened across much of the country, largely because of rising mortgage rates,” NAHB Chairman Bill Owens said.
Mortgage borrowing costs have increased as well.
The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage reached 6.95% for the week ending Sept. 17, according to Freddie Mac. That was up from 6.76% one week earlier and 6.26% during the comparable period a year ago.
Owens said builders are simultaneously confronting higher prices for construction materials, rising energy expenses and persistent shortages of workers.
Access to suitable land also remains a concern.
NAHB chief economist Robert Dietz said 42% of builders described the availability of lots as “poor,” while another 38% rated it “fair.”
The pressure comes as the national housing supply remains below estimated demand.
Realtor.com estimates the United States has a shortage of more than 4 million homes, a deficit that continues to affect housing prices and presents particular challenges for first-time buyers.
The report’s rankings indicate that those pressures vary considerably by metropolitan area, with differences in local construction activity, land availability and development regulations contributing to substantially different housing conditions across the country.
Original article
Comments