Where Young Families Rent: A Geography of Affordability

Subscribe

Key Takeaways

---

In expensive coastal metros, ownership is out of reach for the majority of families with young children, making renting the default for most families.

The markets where ownership is least accessible are largely the same markets where renting is the most expensive, compounding financial pressures on newly formed families when resource-constrains are often highest.

Renter Households with young children are the most concentrated in markets with younger overall populations, higher birth rates, and labor markets oriented toward lower-wage industries.

As homeownership becomes increasingly inaccessible for many younger households, a growing share of family formation is occurring in the rental market.

Within the top 50 most populous US metros, roughly 6.6 million households both rent and have at least one child under the age of five (5). Such renting families are often in the most resource-intensive stage of early parenthood, and dwindling paths to home ownership represent a notable shift with potentially lasting consequences.

Drawing on data from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, this analysis examines where rentership rates for families with young children are highest, the cost-burden levels in these metros, and where these families are having the greatest impact on local housing demand.

Where Ownership Is Increasingly Out of Reach

Higher rentership rates, the inverse of homeownership rates, help illustrate where families face the greatest barriers to homeownership. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the metros with the highest rentership rates among families with young children tend to be coastal, high-cost markets.

In Honolulu, where desirable weather and geographic isolation make local housing costs some of the highest in the nation, 57.0% of all households with a child under five are renters, the highest in the US. Los Angeles is close behind with 54.1%, followed by California metros San Jose (50.7%) and Bakersfield (50.2%), with Memphis, TN (48.2%) rounding out the top 5.

The metros where young families are most locked out of ownership are largely the same markets where renting is most expensive. San Diego ranks 7th in the young-family rental rate at 46.8% and has the second-highest cost burden for such families across all the top-50 metros at 62.0%. Orlando, which ranks 8th in young-family rental rate (44.9%), leads all top 50 metros in cost burden for young families (69.2%). Meanwhile, Miami (9th, at 44.5%) and Las Vegas (10th, at 44.3%) carry burden rates of 59.3% and 56.5 %, respectively.

What Cost Burden Doesn’t Capture

In some ways, these data understate the structural challenges that newly formed families face in several US cities.

The two markets conspicuously absent from the rentership rate rankings are San Francisco and Washington, D.C, two of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Both metros have rentership rates well below the national average for families with young children. However, this is not evidence that ownership is accessible there; it is evidence of a prior displacement.

Lower-income families with young children have largely left these metros already, and those who remain are disproportionately higher-income households, more capable of owning. Renting rates are a snapshot of households still in the market, but they can’t capture those who left because the market was unaffordable. The dynamic is a cautionary signal for metros contending with mounting barriers to family homeownership.

San Jose and Memphis offer a different kind of exception. Both rank in the top five for rentership rate — 50.7% and 48.2%, respectively — yet neither appears among the highest-burden metros.

In San Jose, tech-sector incomes are high enough that families absorb market rents without breaching the 30 percent “cost-burden” threshold, even as home prices remain well beyond reach. In Memphis, the dynamic works differently: incomes are low, but so are absolute rents, producing a middle-of-the-pack burden rate despite the 5^th-highest rental rate.

Memphis also reflects additional structural realities that cost-burden metrics are unable to fully capture. The city’s significant Black population tracks with the legacy of historic redlining and limited intergenerational wealth transfers for a disproportionate share of the region’s households across generations. In turn, Memphis experiences both the low incomes that make ownership difficult for many families with young children and the moderate absolute rents that keep burden rates from displacing these families completely.

Where Family Renters Are Most Concentrated

Where families with young children are most concentrated, meaning they take up a larger share of the overall renter population, can point to where rental housing demand is stickiest among this demographic. Bakersfield leads at 10.9%, nearly 1-in-9 renter households, followed by Honolulu (10.1%), Oklahoma City (9.4%), Houston (9.2%), and both Tulsa and Nashville at 9.1%.

Most of these markets share a common profile: younger populations, higher birth rates, and labor markets oriented toward lower-wage industries, resulting in higher concentrations of family formation in the rental market.

Where Both Pressures Converge

The most actionable markets are those that rank prominently on both lists.

Bakersfield, Honolulu, and Memphis rank first, second, and tenth in concentration and fourth, first, and fifth in renting rate, respectively. These are metros where demand from family renters with young children is both relatively large and structurally durable, a condition that tends to persist regardless of broader market conditions.

The two measures together highlight where supply responses for family-forming households are most warranted. Cities where homeownership has become increasingly inaccessible also tend to impose the greatest cost burdens on renters, and addressing the supply shortage of affordable family-sized rentals in these markets can help.

In metros where rentership rates remain high despite relatively low-cost burdens, the question becomes whether these families are renting by choice or if artificial, non-market barriers to homeownership are pervasive.

Both conditions represent market signals as much as policy problems, and the geographic concentration of need makes the case for where to look first.