Renting is now cheaper than buying in America’s 50 largest metro areas.
With home prices across the country up 6.1% in April 2024 compared to April 2023, it’s not surprising that a recent Forbes Advisor survey of 2,000 renters found that 34% of renters never plan to buy.
For renters they surveyed who do plan to buy a home in the next one or more years, the top three reasons they can’t buy sooner are all related to finances:
Home prices (56%)Lack of down payment (42%)Interest rates (29%)
To find the best and worst cities for renters, Forbes Advisor analyzed the 95 most populous cities in the U.S. with available data across 21 key metrics spanning three categories.
To identify the best cities, they considered factors including rent-to-income ratios, median rental prices, availability, and amenity prevalence, among others.
Key Takeaways:
The best city for renters is Lincoln, Nebraska, and the worst city is Newark, New Jersey.For the second year in a row, Newark (No. 1 worst city for renters) ranked higher than its neighboring city, New York City (No. 3 worst city for renters), due in part to higher rental price changes in the last year (up $250, compared to NYC’s $22 drop) and fewer available rental units per 100,000 households (8.5 for Newark vs. 137.2 for NYC).The states of Nebraska, Kentucky are home to two of the top 10 best cities for renters, and North Carolina is home to three.Half of the 10 worst cities for renters are located in California, thanks in part to the state’s above-average median rent costs and lower-than-average availability of rentals.The median price for a rental among the 95 U.S. cities considered in our study is $1,995 and the average price per square foot is $2.09.
The Best Cities for Renters
1. Lincoln, Nebraska
Lincoln’s score: 100 out of 100
Lincoln ranked in the top 10 in the following metrics:
Fifth best for median monthly rent price at $1,225, compared to the study average of $1,995.10th best for rent as a percentage of income at 17.6%, compared to the study average of 21.3%.Fourth best for the number of available rentals per 100,000 households with 394, compared to the study average of 164.Ninth best for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $1.33 (a tie with Winston-Salem), compared to the study average of $2.09.Fourth best for its 2.6% unemployment rate, compared to the study average of 4.1%.
2. Omaha, Nebraska
Omaha’s score: 98.01 out of 100
Omaha ranked well in the following metrics:
15th best for median monthly rent price at $1,384, compared to the study average of $1,995.Fourth best for rent as a percentage of overall income at 16.6%, compared to the study average of 21.3%.Eighth best for an average monthly price per sq. ft. of $1.32 compared to the study average of $2.09.Eighth best for the percentage of units with on-site parking at 68.8%, compared to the study average of 52.8%. A Forbes Advisor survey found that having at least one guaranteed parking spot ranked as the second-most necessary amenity for renters (65%).
3. Raleigh, North Carolina
Raleigh’s score: 96.93 out of 100
Overall, Raleigh ranked in the better half of 16 of the 21 metrics considered in this study:
18th best for rent as a percentage of income at 18.4%, compared to the study average of 21.3%.Fourth-best in the availability and amenities category.16th best for percentage of non-apartment rentals at 70%, in comparison to the study average of 48.4%.
4. Austin, Texas
Austin’s score: 94.24 out of 100
Austin ranked in the top 10 in the following metrics:
Eighth best for rental price changes in the last year at -$250, compared to the study average of -$43.Second best in terms of available rentals per 100,000 households with 399 vs. the study average of 164.Third best for the percentage of units with on-site parking at 71.8%, in comparison to the study average of 52.8%.Sixth best for the percentage of units with in-unit laundry at 67.8%, compared to the study average of 42.9%. A Forbes Advisor renters’ survey found that in-unit laundry was the third most necessary amenity for renters (60%).Sixth best for the percentage of units with AC at 76.4% vs. the study average of 56%. Having AC or central air was the most necessary amenity among 2,000 renters (77%) according to the Forbes Advisor renters’ survey.
5. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Oklahoma City’s score: 92.1 out of 100
Overall, Oklahoma City ranked in the top half of 11 of the 21 metrics considered in this study:
Oklahoma City ranked as the second-best city in the affordability category, and in the top 10 in the following metrics:Ninth best for median monthly rent price at $1,300 (a tie with Cincinnati), compared to the study average of $1,995.Fourth best for the average monthly price per sq ft at $1.16 vs. the study average of $2.09.
6. Lexington, Kentucky
Lexington’s score: 91.15 out of 100
Lexington ranked in the top 20 in the following metrics:
14th best for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $1.38 vs. the study average of $2.09.Seventh best for the percentage of units with on-site parking at 69.8%, compared to the study average of 52.8%.12th best for rate of violent crime (2.8 incidents per 1,000 residents; study average was 7.4). In a recent Forbes Advisor survey, crime rate was one of the top considerations for renters (52%) when choosing a location.16th best for entertainment establishments per 1,000 establishments at 20.1, as compared to the study average of 18.8.
7. Durham, North Carolina
Durham’s score: 90.17 out of 100
Durham ranked as the second-best city in our availability and amenities category:
Durham ranked in the top 15 in the following metrics within that category:13th best for the percentage of units with in-unit laundry at 61.1% as compared to the study average of 42.9%.15th best for the percentage of non-apartment rentals at 70.9% vs. the study average of 48.4%.Additionally, Durham ranked ninth best for its park score of 89 (park scores consider things like how accessible parks are for residents and how much spending per capita is used on parks) compared to the study average of 48.7.
8. Louisville, Kentucky
Louisville’s score: 83.52 out of 100
Louisville ranked in the top 15 in the following cost-related metrics:
11th best for the median monthly rent price at $1,350 (tied with Kansas City, Fresno and St. Paul), compared to the study average of $1,995.13th best for rent as a percentage of income at 17.8%, compared to the study average of 21.3%.11th best for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $1.34, as compared to the study average of $2.09.
It ranked in the top 10 in the following metrics:
The best walk score (96), compared to the study average of 49.4. A high walk score indicates you can do most daily errands without using a car.Third best for a bike score of 79 vs. the study average of 53.2.Sixth best for a park score of 92, compared to the study average of 48.7.
9. Tucson, Arizona
Tucson’s score: 79.4 out of 100
Tucson ranked as the sixth-best city in the availability and amenities category:
Tucson ranked in the top 20 in the following metrics within that category:Eighth best for the number of available rental units per 100,000 households at 366, compared to the study average of 164.15th best for the percentage units with AC at 70.2% vs. the study average of 56%.Additionally, Tucson ranked 16th best for its bike score of 66.3, compared to the study average of 53.2.
10. Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Winston-Salem’s score: 79.02 out of 100
Winston-Salem ranked No. 1 in our affordability category:
The city ranked in the top 15 in the following metrics within that category:Seventh best for rental price changes in the last year at -$270 vs. the study average of -$43.10th best for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $1.33 (a tie with Lincoln), compared to the study average of $2.09.Additionally, Winston-Salem ranked 15th best for the percentage of units that allow pets at 48.4%, compared to the study average of 33.6%.
The Worst Cities for Renters
1. Newark, New Jersey
Newark’s score: 0.0 out of 100
Newark ranked as the eighth-worst city in the affordability category:
It was the worst city for rental price changes in the last year at $250 (the study average was -$43.)Newark also ranked as the worst city in the availability and amenities category. It ranked in the bottom five for the following metrics:Fourth worst for available rentals per 100,000 households at 8.5 vs. the study average of 164.Fourth worst for the percentage of non-apartment rentals at 9.3% as compared to the study average of 48.4%.
2. Long Beach, California
Long Beach’s score: 7.27 out of 100
Long Beach ranked as the sixth-worst city in the affordability category:
It was fifth worst for rent as a percentage of income at 25.8% (a tie with Anaheim and Los Angeles) compared to the study average of 21.3%.Long Beach also ranked as the second-worst city in the availability and amenities category:Seventh worst for the percentage of non-apartment rentals at 15.4% vs. the study average of 48.4%.Seventh worst for the percentage of units with AC at 26.7%, compared to the study average of 56%.
3. New York, New York
New York’s score: 13.07 out of 100
New York ranked as the fifth-worst city in the affordability category:
Worst city for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $6.88, compared to the study average of $2.09.Second worst for the monthly median rent price of $3,573 vs. the study average of $1,995.
New York also ranked 11th-worst in the availability and amenities category:
Worst city for the percentage of non-apartment rentals at 5.2% vs. the study average of 48.4%.The worst city for the percentage of units with on-site parking at 15.8% as compared to the study average of 52.8%.
4. Anaheim, California
Anaheim’s score: 13.54 out of 100
The home of Disneyland ranked as the second-worst city in the affordability category:
The sixth worst for rental price changes, with average rental prices jumping $105 year over year, compared to the study average decrease of -$43.Seventh-worst for rent as a percentage of income at 25.8% (a tie with Long Beach and Los Angeles) vs. the study average of 21.3%.Anaheim is also the second worst city for the number of available rental units per 100,000 households at 7, compared to the study average of 164.
5. Oakland, California
Oakland’s score: 19.79 out of 100
Oakland ranked in the bottom 10 in the following metrics:
The 10th worst for the average monthly price per sq. ft. at $3.27 vs. the study average of $2.09.Ninth worst for the percentage of units that allow pets at 17% vs the study average of 33.6%. In a Forbes Advisor survey of 2,000 renters, 52% of renters said a pet-friendly unit was a necessity.Third worst for the percentage of units with AC at 14.5% vs. the study average of 56%.Third worst for the property crime rate per 1,000 residents at 65.5 as compared to the study average of 33.8.Fifth worst for the violent crime rate per 1,000 residents at 15.3 compared to the study average of 7.4.10th worst for the percentage of non-apartment rentals at 18.2% vs. the study average of 48.4%.
What Are Renters Looking For?
According to the Forbes Advisor survey of 2,000 renters, if cost and availability weren’t considered, renters were almost evenly split between their preference for apartments vs. single-family homes (42% vs. 41%, respectively).
In addition to the search for the perfect apartment (or single-family home) to rent, a majority of renters (52%) also consider a pet-friendly unit a necessity.
A quarter of renters say it would be preferable to find a pet-friendly unit, but not necessary.
When it came to at-home comforts, the three most necessary amenities for a majority of renters were:
AC or central air (77%)Guaranteed parking (65%)In-unit washer/dryer (60%)
In choosing the ideal location, renters listed their top three most important considerations as crime (52%), the cost of living in the area (48%) and the distance to work (28%)
Do Renters Plan to Buy?
Over a third (34%) of renters plan to continue renting. Nearly half of all renters (49%) said in a recent Forbes Advisor survey they are renting because they can’t afford to buy a home.
However, most renters do plan to buy in the near future, with 11% saying they plan to buy in the next 12 months, and 55% saying they have plans to buy, just not in the next year.
These are the top three reasons renters cited for not buying something sooner:
Home prices (56%)A lack of down payment (42%)Interest rates (29%)
Methodology:
To uncover the best and worst cities for renters in America, Forbes Advisor analyzed the 100 most populous cities (95 of which had available data) across three categories: affordability, availability and amenities, and lifestyle and safety. They considered the following 21 metrics within those categories:
Affordability – Total Points: 40
Median rent as a percentage of annual household income: 10% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow (May 2024) and the U.S. Census Bureau (2018-2022).Average price per square foot of a rental: 10% of the total score. Data comes from RentCafe, March 2024.Year-over-year rental price changes: 10% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.Median monthly rental price:10% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.
Availability and Amenities – Total Points: 30
Available rental units per 100,000 households: 5% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow (May 2024) and the U.S. Census Bureau (2018-2022)The percentage of non-apartment rentals: 5% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.The percentage of units with air conditioning: 4% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.The percentage of units with a pool: 4% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.The percentage of units with on-site parking: 4% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.The percentage of units allowing pets: 4% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.The percentage of units with in-unit laundry: 4% of the total score. Data comes from Zillow, May 2024.
Lifestyle and Safety – Total Points: 30
Unemployment rate: 3.5% of the total score. Data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2024.Walk Score: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from Walkscore.com, 2024.Bike Score: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from Walkscore.com, 2024.Transit Score: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from Walkscore.com, 2024.ParkScore: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from The Trust for Public Lands, 2024.Dog Parks per 100,000 residents: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from The Trust for Public Lands, 2024.Entertainment establishments per 1,000 establishments: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2021.Food establishments per 1,000 establishments: 2.5% of the total score. Data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2021.Property crime rate per 1,000 residents: 4.5% of the total score. Data comes from NeighborhoodScout, 2022.Violent crime rate per 1,000 residents: 4.5% of the total score. Data comes from NeighborhoodScout, 2022.
