America's Most Affordable Large Cities
Compare affordability across America's major urban centers with populations of 50,000 or more
Where Big City Living Meets Affordability
Large cities (population 50,000+) offer the full spectrum of urban amenities: diverse job markets, cultural attractions, comprehensive services, and vibrant communities. But affordability varies dramatically across America's major metro areas. This ranking showcases the top 100 most and least affordable large cities to help you understand where your money goes furthest in urban settings.
The affordability ratio compares median home values to median household income. Cities with lower ratios offer better value, meaning homes cost less relative to what residents earn. A ratio below 4.0 indicates exceptional affordability for a large city, while ratios above 7.0 suggest significant housing cost burdens.
Looking for smaller cities? Check out our mid-size cities, small cities, or town rankings for more options.
Top 100 Most & Least Affordable Large Cities
✓ Most Affordable
Cities with the best value ratios
| Rank | City | State | Population | Ratio | Home Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Memphis | TN | 629,063 | 2.8 | $143,363 |
| #2 | Detroit | MI | 636,644 | 1.9 | $76,340 |
| #3 | Baltimore | MD | 577,193 | 3.1 | $186,123 |
| #4 | Oklahoma City | OK | 688,693 | 3.0 | $202,976 |
| #5 | Kansas City | MO | 508,233 | 3.6 | $241,960 |
| #6 | Philadelphia | PA | 1,582,432 | 3.8 | $228,621 |
| #7 | Jacksonville | FL | 961,739 | 4.2 | $280,096 |
| #8 | Columbus | OH | 906,480 | 3.7 | $241,744 |
| #9 | El Paso | TX | 678,147 | 3.9 | $229,646 |
| #10 | Seattle | WA | 741,440 | 6.9 | $837,800 |
| #11 | Fort Worth | TX | 941,311 | 3.8 | $292,666 |
| #12 | San Francisco | CA | 836,321 | 8.8 | $1,245,215 |
| #13 | Milwaukee | WI | 569,756 | 4.1 | $213,913 |
| #14 | Albuquerque | NM | 562,488 | 5.1 | $336,595 |
| #15 | Austin | TX | 967,862 | 5.4 | $490,209 |
| #16 | Charlotte | NC | 886,283 | 5.0 | $393,099 |
| #17 | Chicago | IL | 2,707,648 | 4.1 | $305,459 |
| #18 | Mesa | AZ | 507,478 | 5.4 | $427,262 |
| #19 | San Jose | CA | 990,054 | 9.7 | $1,377,506 |
| #20 | Washington | DC | 672,079 | 5.4 | $572,823 |
| #21 | Phoenix | AZ | 1,624,832 | 5.2 | $403,317 |
| #22 | Sacramento | CA | 524,802 | 5.6 | $469,542 |
| #23 | Fresno | CA | 543,615 | 5.7 | $381,952 |
| #24 | San Antonio | TX | 1,458,954 | 3.9 | $245,985 |
| #25 | Las Vegas | NV | 650,873 | 6.0 | $422,428 |
| #26 | San Diego | CA | 1,385,061 | 9.3 | $968,817 |
| #27 | Dallas | TX | 1,299,553 | 4.5 | $302,721 |
| #28 | Denver | CO | 713,734 | 5.7 | $525,742 |
| #29 | Tucson | AZ | 543,348 | 5.9 | $321,510 |
| #30 | Houston | TX | 2,300,419 | 4.2 | $261,052 |
| #31 | Portland | OR | 642,715 | 5.9 | $519,612 |
| #32 | Boston | MA | 663,972 | 8.2 | $775,123 |
| #33 | Los Angeles | CA | 3,857,897 | 11.5 | $921,789 |
| #34 | New York | NY | 8,516,202 | 10.0 | $793,963 |
! Least Affordable
Cities with the highest cost burden
| Rank | City | State | Population | Ratio | Home Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | New York | NY | 8,516,202 | 10.0 | $793,963 |
| #2 | Los Angeles | CA | 3,857,897 | 11.5 | $921,789 |
| #3 | Boston | MA | 663,972 | 8.2 | $775,123 |
| #4 | Portland | OR | 642,715 | 5.9 | $519,612 |
| #5 | Houston | TX | 2,300,419 | 4.2 | $261,052 |
| #6 | Tucson | AZ | 543,348 | 5.9 | $321,510 |
| #7 | Denver | CO | 713,734 | 5.7 | $525,742 |
| #8 | Dallas | TX | 1,299,553 | 4.5 | $302,721 |
| #9 | San Diego | CA | 1,385,061 | 9.3 | $968,817 |
| #10 | Las Vegas | NV | 650,873 | 6.0 | $422,428 |
| #11 | San Antonio | TX | 1,458,954 | 3.9 | $245,985 |
| #12 | Fresno | CA | 543,615 | 5.7 | $381,952 |
| #13 | Sacramento | CA | 524,802 | 5.6 | $469,542 |
| #14 | Phoenix | AZ | 1,624,832 | 5.2 | $403,317 |
| #15 | Washington | DC | 672,079 | 5.4 | $572,823 |
| #16 | San Jose | CA | 990,054 | 9.7 | $1,377,506 |
| #17 | Mesa | AZ | 507,478 | 5.4 | $427,262 |
| #18 | Chicago | IL | 2,707,648 | 4.1 | $305,459 |
| #19 | Charlotte | NC | 886,283 | 5.0 | $393,099 |
| #20 | Austin | TX | 967,862 | 5.4 | $490,209 |
| #21 | Albuquerque | NM | 562,488 | 5.1 | $336,595 |
| #22 | Milwaukee | WI | 569,756 | 4.1 | $213,913 |
| #23 | San Francisco | CA | 836,321 | 8.8 | $1,245,215 |
| #24 | Fort Worth | TX | 941,311 | 3.8 | $292,666 |
| #25 | Seattle | WA | 741,440 | 6.9 | $837,800 |
| #26 | El Paso | TX | 678,147 | 3.9 | $229,646 |
| #27 | Columbus | OH | 906,480 | 3.7 | $241,744 |
| #28 | Jacksonville | FL | 961,739 | 4.2 | $280,096 |
| #29 | Philadelphia | PA | 1,582,432 | 3.8 | $228,621 |
| #30 | Kansas City | MO | 508,233 | 3.6 | $241,960 |
| #31 | Oklahoma City | OK | 688,693 | 3.0 | $202,976 |
| #32 | Baltimore | MD | 577,193 | 3.1 | $186,123 |
| #33 | Detroit | MI | 636,644 | 1.9 | $76,340 |
| #34 | Memphis | TN | 629,063 | 2.8 | $143,363 |
How Rankings Are Calculated
Rankings are based on the affordability ratio (median home value ÷ median household income). Lower ratios indicate more affordable cities where homes cost less relative to what residents earn.
- Large Cities: Population of 50,000 or more
- Very Affordable: Ratio below 4.0 (homes cost less than 4× annual income)
- Moderate: Ratio between 4.0-6.0
- Expensive: Ratio above 6.0 (homes cost more than 6× annual income)
See our methodology page for complete details on data sources and calculations.