U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

Rental Housing Market Condition Measures: 

A Comparison of U.S. Metropolitan Areas 

From 2009 to 2011

American Community Survey Briefs

Issued April 2013

ACSBR/11-07

By Christine Flanagan and Mary Schwartz

INTRODUCTION

Since the publication of the report “Rental Housing

Market Condition Measures: 2009” on the rental housing market in the nation’s 50 most populous metropolitan statistical areas (metro areas) based on the 2009 

American Community Survey (ACS), the housing landscape has changed.1 The recession has officially ended. 

However, with the subsequent decline in the homeownership rate over the last several years, an increasingly 

larger percentage of households are seeking to rent. 

This report will look at four measures of rental market 

conditions and their changes between 2009 and 2011: 

housing costs, housing cost burdens, rental vacancy 

rates, and renter share of total households. 

RENTAL HOUSING MARKET MEASURES

Rental Costs

In 2011, the lowest median gross monthly rents among 

all the metro areas in the United States were $502 in 

Wheeling, WV-OH, and $536 in Johnstown, PA. The 

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA, Metro Area and 

Honolulu, HI, Metro Area had the highest gross rents, 

$1,460 and $1,419, respectively. Among the 366 

metro areas, 259 (70.8 percent) had a median gross 

rent below the national median of $871, 67 areas

(18.3 percent) had a median gross rent above the 

national median, and 40 areas (10.9 percent) were

not statistically different from the national median.

A comparison of all metro areas to the national median 

masks the tighter rental conditions faced by renters

living in higher density metro areas. Out of the 50 

1 For a detailed explanation of the metropolitan statistical areas

in this report, go to <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb

/assets/omb/bulletins/fy2009/09-01.pdf>.

most populous metro areas, the average renter household in 26 areas (52 percent) spent more than the 

national median, those in 22 areas (44 percent) spent 

less than the national median, and those in 2 areas 

(4 percent) were not statistically different from the 

national median.2

2 Since this report looks at what has happened to the metropolitan 

areas that were examined in the earlier report, the most populous are 

those that were most populous in 2009. 

Gross rent: The monthly amount of rent plus 

the estimated average monthly cost of utilities 

(electricity, gas, water, and sewer) and fuel (oil, 

coal, kerosene, wood, etc.).

Gross rent as a percentage of income: The 

ratio of gross rent to household income. It is 

used as a measure of housing affordability by 

policymakers and as a determinant of eligibility 

for federal housing programs and is often 

referred to as a housing cost burden. 

For this report, a renting household is considered “burdened” if the household is required to 

spend 35 percent or more of its income on 

housing costs. 

Rental vacancy rate: The proportion of the 

rental inventory that is vacant and “for rent.” It 

is computed by dividing the number of vacant 

units “for rent” by the sum of renter-occupied 

units, vacant units “for rent,” and vacant units 

that have been rented but not yet occupied, and 

then multiplying by 100. 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Among the 50 most populous 

metro areas, the Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, NY, Metro Area ($682);

Pittsburgh, PA, Metro Area ($682); 

and Louisville/Jefferson County, 

KY-IN, Metro Area ($696) had

the lowest median gross rents,

but they were not significantly

different from each other. While

the median gross rents in Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN, did 

not differ from those in CincinnatiMiddletown, OH-KY-IN ($711), and 

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH

($712), the median gross rent

in Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, and

Pittsburgh, PA, was significantly 

lower than the gross rent in the 

remaining 47 of the 50 most populous metro areas. 

The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

CA, Metro Area, with a gross rent 

of $1,460, was the most expensive 

rental housing market among the 

50 most populous metro areas. 

Following San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 

Clara, CA, was the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV, Metro Area with median gross 

rent of $1,391. The third highest 

median gross rent was in San

Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA, 

Metro Area ($1,345); the fourth 

highest median gross rent was in 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, 

CA, Metro Area ($1,237); the fifth 

highest median gross rent was in 

the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

Ana, CA, Metro Area ($1,214). 

Rounding out the top seven most 

expensive metro areas are New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA ($1,187), and 

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy,

MA-NH ($1,163). 

Table 1 shows that, between 2009 

and 2011, median gross rent 

adjusted for inflation changed in 

one-half of the 50 most populous 

metro areas with decreases in all 

but 2 metro areas. The largest 

decline of $130 (from $1,087 in 

2009 to $957 in 2011), was in

the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV, Metro 

Area. The only increases—of $26 

(from $1,365 in 2009 to $1,391 in 

2011) in the Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, Metro 

Area and $15 (from $1,172 in 2009 

to $1,187 in 2011) in the New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA, Metro Area—were 

not significantly different from

each other. 

When all 366 metro areas were 

compared, a different pattern 

emerged. While only 80 of the 

metro areas experienced changes 

between 2009 and 2011, 23

of them experienced increases

and 57 experienced decreases

(Figure 1). Assuming that, in general, declining supply (as evidenced 

by decreases in the rental vacancy 

rate) and increased demand (as evidenced by a higher percentage of 

renting households) would lead to 

increases in gross rent, one might 

expect higher vacancy rates in 

2011 than in 2009 given the number of metro areas that experienced 

declines in gross rent between 

2009 and 2011. However, the 

Rental Vacancy Rate section shows 

that this did not occur, suggesting 

a more complex relationship which 

is beyond the scope of this brief. 

The biggest declines occurred in 

the following metro areas: Port 

St. Lucie, FL ($176 from $1,085 

to $909); Naples-Marco Island, 

FL ($150 from $1,063 to $913); 

Carson City, NV ($142 from $967 

to $825); Las Vegas-Paradise, 

NV ($130 from $1,087 to $957); 

Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL ($123 

from $894 to $771); Norwich-New 

London, CT ($106 from $1,071 to 

$965); and Idaho Falls, ID

($87 from $734 to $647). While

the decline in Port St. Lucie is

significantly different from all 

metro areas except the six mentioned, the declines in the other

six metro areas are not statistically different from each other, nor 

are they different from many of 

the other metro areas with large 

declines. Table 2 shows the metro 

areas with the largest increases in 

median gross rent.

Of the remaining, 283 had no 

change and comparable statistics 

were not available for 3 areas. 

Because declines were across the 

board, the most and least expensive metro areas in 2011 remained 

largely unchanged from 2009. The 

large number of metro areas experiencing declines, coupled with the 

large share of the population living 

in metro areas, contributed to a 

national decline from $880 in 2009 

to $871 in 2011. (There was no 

change nationally in median gross 

rents between 2009 and 2010.) 

Renter Burden

Nationwide, more than 2 in 5 renter 

households (44.3 percent) had 

housing costs that consumed 35 

percent or more of their income, 

referred to in this report as “burdened renters.” Among the metro 

areas with the lowest shares of burdened renters were Wenatchee-East 

Wenatchee, WA (22.4); Fond du Lac, 

WI (27.7); Cheyenne, WY (28.0); 

Wheeling, WV-OH (28.1); Decatur, 

AL (28.8); Great Falls, MT (29.8); 

and Lewiston, ID-WA (30.7); whose 

shares were not statistically different from each other. In the Redding, CA, Metro Area, 61.2 percent 

of renting households were burdened—Redding was not statistically different from 25 other metro 

areas with high shares of burdened 
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Rental Market Conditions Demand-Side Measures by Metropolitan Statistical Area:1

2009 and 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area

Median gross rent

(inflation–adjusted dollars)

Share of renters spending 35 percent or 

more of income for gross rent (percent)

2009 2011

Difference

2009 2011

DifferenceEstimate

Margin 

of 

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin

of

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin

of

error2

(±)

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880 2 871 2 *–9 42.48 0.1 44.32 0.1 *1.85

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953 8 914 11 *–39 43.04 1.2 45.75 1.3 *2.71

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953 14 930 19 –23 41.55 1.8 41.39 1.7 –0.16

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,095 16 1,073 14 *–22 44.58 1.6 45.26 1.6 0.68

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 15 753 23 *–40 45.47 2.4 45.00 2.6 –0.47

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,170 14 1,163 10 –7 38.76 1.1 40.76 1.1 *2.00

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 11 682 11 –10 45.58 2.2 42.58 2.0 *–3.00

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 13 820 15 –13 38.79 1.9 44.33 2.1 *5.54

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 6 928 6 *–14 43.26 0.8 44.79 0.9 *1.53

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 14 711 12 –5 40.46 1.9 43.16 1.8 *2.70

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 11 712 11 –14 44.03 1.7 44.05 1.6 0.02

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 11 776 9 *–17 38.57 1.7 41.44 1.7 *2.87

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885 7 863 7 *–22 38.97 1.0 39.39 1.0 0.42

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914 15 920 15 6 41.65 1.4 41.35 1.5 –0.30

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818 10 805 10 –13 47.04 1.3 47.86 1.0 0.82

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT . . . . . . . . . 956 17 962 15 6 43.00 2.1 44.73 2.4 1.74

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885 9 849 8 *–36 40.52 1.1 40.69 1.1 0.17

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783 13 764 12 *–19 39.83 1.8 42.62 1.7 *2.79

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 21 940 17 –2 44.68 2.5 44.47 2.6 –0.21

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 12 798 13 0 36.10 1.9 40.56 1.7 *4.46

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,087 16 957 15 *–130 43.03 1.6 43.67 1.8 0.64

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . 1,244 9 1,214 8 *–30 47.27 0.6 50.69 0.5 *3.42

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 13 696 15 –9 38.95 2.4 40.06 2.2 1.11

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 14 805 17 3 47.19 2.2 49.43 2.3 2.24

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL........ 1,124 11 1,078 11 *–46 54.35 1.2 55.67 1.1 1.32

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 11 785 9 *–17 42.42 1.6 45.50 1.8 *3.08

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . . . . . . . 876 13 858 9 *–18 41.27 1.5 41.20 1.3 –0.07

Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro—Franklin, TN . . 821 17 800 14 –21 39.22 2.4 41.28 2.3 2.06

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 17 886 15 *–49 49.71 2.5 51.32 2.0 1.61

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,172 6 1,187 5 *15 42.93 0.5 45.75 0.5 *2.82

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 17 731 13 10 41.77 2.5 42.04 2.3 0.27

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,038 14 970 15 *–68 50.75 1.9 52.87 2.1 2.12

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . 954 9 957 8 3 43.32 1.0 47.01 1.0 *3.69

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955 11 893 11 *–62 43.07 1.5 42.12 1.2 –0.95

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 11 682 10 8 38.19 1.3 38.68 1.4 0.49

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . . . . . . . . . . 913 12 906 12 –7 41.38 1.4 43.77 1.5 *2.39

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA . . . . . . . . 889 20 849 12 *–40 39.33 1.8 40.90 1.7 1.57

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 14 828 17 *–49 37.63 2.4 38.35 3.1 0.72

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945 18 925 18 –20 42.67 2.2 39.49 2.3 *–3.18

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 1,131 13 1,076 14 *–55 48.70 1.4 52.22 1.9 *3.52

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA . . . . . . 1,056 16 1,004 17 *–52 46.76 1.7 48.11 1.7 1.35

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 10 772 11 6 41.21 1.6 42.81 1.6 1.60

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 17 859 14 –15 41.29 2.5 43.61 2.5 2.32

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 13 807 16 8 39.20 2.0 41.80 1.9 2.60

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,281 19 1,237 16 *–44 48.05 1.3 48.49 1.2 0.44

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,362 16 1,345 14 –17 40.20 1.1 42.60 1.0 *2.40

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,470 23 1,460 20 –10 37.37 1.7 39.15 1.6 1.78

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,075 11 1,037 16 *–38 38.76 1.3 40.20 1.5 1.44

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . 951 11 906 11 *–45 45.52 1.6 49.33 1.6 *3.81

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC . . . . . 1,033 21 1,053 15 20 41.03 1.9 45.20 1.9 *4.17

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . 1,365 10 1,391 13 *26 38.14 1.0 38.85 1.1 0.71

*Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Fifty most populous metropolitan statistical area populations based on population estimates as of July 1, 2009. Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the 

Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.
4 U.S. Census Bureau Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys. 0 500Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Statistically significant change by metropolitan statistical area No change Decrease Note: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. Increase Fi Change in Median Gross Rent by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009 to 2011 gure 1. Comparable data not available
U.S. Census Bureau 5

renters. Renters living in 213 of the 

366 metro areas (58.2 percent) mirrored the nation, with no statistical 

difference between their shares of 

burdened renters and the national 

rate of 44.3 percent. Eighty-three 

metro areas (22.7 percent) had 

shares of burdened renters that 

were significantly lower than the 

nation’s 44.3 percent share, while 

the shares of burdened renters 

living in 70 metro areas (19.1 

percent) were significantly higher 

than the share of burdened renters 

nationwide. 

Despite the high gross rents 

faced by renters living in the 50 

most populous metro areas, their 

incomes appear to have compensated, making them less likely to 

be burdened by high shelter costs 

than for the nation as a whole. 

Shares of burdened renters living in 

20 metro areas (40 percent) were 

lower than the national rate. In 13 

metro areas (26 percent), shares 

were higher than the national rate. 

Seventeen areas (34 percent) had 

shares of burdened renters that 

were not significantly different 

from the national rate. 

Some of the heaviest burdens in 

the 50 most populous metro areas 

were borne by renters in Florida 

and California, hit hard by the 

housing market-led recession. In 

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano 

Beach, FL, more than one-half (55.7 

percent) of renter households were 

burdened. In Orlando-KissimmeeSanford, FL, 52.9 percent of renters were burdened. The share in 

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL, 

while lower than the share of burdened renters in Miami-Fort

Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL, 

did not differ from the shares of 

burdened renters in RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario, CA (52.2 

percent), or New Orleans-MetairieKenner, LA (51.3 percent). 

The changes between 2009

and 2011 in the shares of renters spending 35 percent or more 

of their income on housing costs, 

shown in Table 1, paint a picture 

that differs from the one that 

declining median gross rent

in the United States and most 

metropolitan areas suggest. 

Declining median gross rents 

bolstered with steady or increasing 

incomes should have resulted in a 

decreased percentage of burdened 

renters. That is, if a household’s 

rent had declined and its income 

had risen then the household’s 

share of income devoted to paying rent would decline. If this had 

happened, then at minimum, the 

23 large metro areas with declines 

plus 34 of the remaining metropolitan areas with declines in their 

median gross rents would have 

had declines in their shares spending more than 35 percent of their 

incomes for rent. That is, more 

metro areas would have become 

more affordable. Of the 50 most 

populous metro areas, only

Richmond, VA, with a decline of

3.2 percentage points from 42.7 

percent to 39.5 percent between 

2009 and 2011, and BuffaloNiagara Falls, NY, with a decline of 

3.0 percentage points from 45.6 

percent to 42.6 percent for the 

same time period, became affordable for more renters. (Changes in 

Richmond and Buffalo’s shares were 

not statistically different from each 

other.) Seventeen areas, including some of the least affordable in 

2009, became even less affordable 

by 2011. The shares of burdened 

renters were unchanged (that is, 

not statistically different) in the 

remaining 31 large metro areas. 

Unlike ranking the decreases, 

ranking increases among the 50 

most populous metro areas is less 

clear. For example, the change 

in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 

Hill, NC-SC, Metro Area, with a 

Table 2.

Sixteen Largest Increases Between 2009 and 2011 in Median Gross Rent

(In dollars. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin

of error Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin 

of error

Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 (1,029 to 1,249) 166 Tuscaloosa, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 (694 to 755) 39

Jackson, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 (680 to 776) 70 Charleston, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 (619 to 678) 39

Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL . 89 (549 to 638) 75 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA . 58 (667 to 725) 53

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX . . . . . . 85 (681 to 766) 31 Bellingham, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 (828 to 886) 55

Altoona, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 (549 to 622) 42 Terre Haute, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 (611 to 667) 45

Pueblo, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 (684 to 752) 59 El Paso, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 (657 to 709) 29

Morristown, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 (580 to 644) 54 Decatur, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 (620 to 671) 48

Longview, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 (669 to 733) 48 Anderson, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 (620 to 668) 45

Note: Because of sampling variability, some of the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from estimates for other

metropolitan areas not listed here.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

percentage point increase of 5.5 

from 38.8 percent in 2009 to 44.3 

percent in 2011, is not statistically 

different from 14 of the other 17 

large metro areas with increases in 

their shares. 

Similarly, only 11 (rather than 57) 

of all 366 metro areas, including 

Richmond, VA, and Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, NY, reduced their share of 

burdened renters. In addition to 

Richmond and Buffalo-Niagara Falls, 

these metro areas are Sandusky, 

OH; Missoula, MT; Olympia,

WA; Pine Bluff, AR; SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV; Pittsfield, MA; 

Madera-Chowcilla, CA; North PortBradenton-Sarasota, FL; and

Bakersfield, CA. The sizes of the 

declines were not statistically different for these 11 metro areas. 

Sixty-two metro areas increased 

their shares of burdened renters 

(Figure 2). Table 3 shows some 

of the largest increases. In the 

remaining 293 metro areas, the 

share was unchanged. Nationally, the share of burdened renters increased steadily from 42.5 

percent in 2009 to 43.8 percent in 

2010 to 44.3 percent in 2011. 

Rental Vacancy Rate

Nationwide, the rental vacancy rate 

was 7.4 percent in 2011. Among 

the metro areas with the lowest 

rental vacancy rates were Bismarck, 

ND (0 percent); Williamsport, 

PA (0.3 percent); Ithaca, NY (0.6 

percent); Logan, UT (0.8 percent); 

Prescott, AZ (1.3 percent); State 

College, PA (1.3 percent); Ames, 

IA (1.4 percent); and Columbus, 

IN (1.9 percent), although these 

do not differ statistically from 

each other and from many other 

areas. At 40.3 percent, the Myrtle 

Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, 

SC, Metro Area’s rate was the highest in the nation. By contrast, most 

metro areas had rental vacancy 

rates at or below the national level, 

with 65 areas (17.8 percent) having 

vacancy rates above the national 

rate, and 93 metro areas (25.4 

percent) having a rental vacancy 

rate below the national vacancy 

rate. Vacancy rates in 208 areas 

(56.8 percent) were not statistically different from the 7.4 percent 

national rate. 

When the focus shifts to the 50 

most populous metro areas, 

rental vacancy rates tended to be 

higher than that for the nation as 

a whole. Of the 50 most populous 

metropolitan statistical areas, 18 

metro areas (36 percent) had rental 

vacancy rates above the national 

rate, while 19 areas (38 percent) 

had rental vacancy rates below the 

national rate. The rental vacancy 

rates in 13 of the 50 most populous metro areas (26 percent) were 

not statistically different from the 

nation’s vacancy rate. 

Ten of the 50 most populous

metro areas had double-digit

rental vacancy rates. These metro 

areas are: Jacksonville, FL; PhoenixMesa-Glendale, AZ; Memphis, 

TN-MS-AR; Atlanta-Sandy SpringsMarietta, GA; Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL; CincinnatiMiddletown, OH-KY-IN; HoustonSugar Land-Baytown, TX; OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford, FL; Las VegasParadise, NV; and Richmond, VA.

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

CA (2.7 percent), and MilwaukeeWaukesha-West Allis, WI (3.5 

percent), have the lowest rental 

vacancy rates but were not 

statistically different from each 

other. While the rental vacancy 

rate in Milwaukee-Waukesha-West 

Allis, WI, did not differ from that of 

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 

(4 percent); Portland-VancouverHillsboro, OR-WA (4.1 percent); and 

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 

(4.1 percent), the rental vacancy 

rate in San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 

Clara, CA, was significantly lower 

than the rental vacancy rates in 

the remaining 48 of the 50 most 

populous metro areas. 

While the steady reduction from 

8.4 percent in 2009 to 8.2 percent 

in 2010 to 7.4 percent in 2011 

in the national rental vacancy 

rate indicates a tightening rental 

market, the picture at the metro 

level is not as clear. On the one 

hand, approximately four times 

as many metro areas experienced 

declines as those that experienced 

increases, providing some evidence of tightening rental markets. The rental vacancy rate fell 

in one-fifth (74) of all 366 metro 

areas and increased in 4.9 percent 

(18). However, on the other hand 

three-quarters of the metro areas 

(274) had rental vacancy rates that 

were unchanged between 2009 

and 2011 (Figure 3). Table 4 shows 

some of the largest decreases in 

rental vacancy rates. 

Metro areas experiencing some 

of the largest increases in rental 

vacancy rates from 2009 to 2011 

include the following: Jacksonville, 

NC, with an 11.7 percentage point 

increase from 2.4 to 14.1 percent; 

Gainesville, GA, with an 11.1 

percentage point increase from 4.2 

to 15.3 percent; and Battle Creek, 
U.S. Census Bureau 

7

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.

0 500Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Statistically significantchange by metropolitanstatistical area

No changeDecrease

Note: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined 

by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Increase

Fi

Change in Percentage of Renters Spending 35 Percent or More of Household Income for Gross Rent by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009 to 2011

gure 2.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

MI, with a 10.8 percentage point 

increase from 3.7 to 14.5 percent. 

The decline in rental vacancy rates 

was more pronounced in the 50 

most populous metro areas, with 

rental vacancy rate decreases in 56 

percent (28 areas) and 38 percent 

(19 areas) unchanged. The rental 

vacancy rates increased in the 

Richmond, VA, Metro Area; Virginia 

Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA-NC, Metro Area; and the St. 

Louis, MO-IL, Metro Area. Richmond’s increase of 5.4 percentage 

points (from 7.8 percent to 13.2 

percent) was the largest. Virginia 

Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, 

VA-NC, Metro Area’s increase of 2.3 

percentage points from 6.2 to 8.5 

percent, and St. Louis, MO-IL, Metro 

Area’s increase of 1.4 percentage 

points from 6.5 to 7.9 percent tied 

for the second largest increase 

in rental vacancy rate between 

2009 and 2011 (Table 5). Despite 

changes between the 2 years, the 

positions of the metro areas with 

the highest and lowest vacancy 

rates were generally unchanged.

Renter Share of Total 

Households

The opposite side of the homeownership rate—the share of occupied 

housing that is renter occupied—

offers another glimpse into the 

rental housing market situation 

across the United States. Nationally, the renter share of occupied 

housing was 35.4 percent in 2011. 

A comparison of the United States 

to the metropolitan areas suggests that homeownership is more 

prevalent in smaller metropolitan 

areas and outside of metropolitan 

areas. Ninety-six metro areas had 

higher renter shares; 186 had lower 

renter shares. The shares of renting 

households in the remaining 84 

metro areas were not statistically 

different. 

Some of the lowest shares of renting households were evident in the 

following metro areas: Bay City, MI; 

Monroe, MI; Punta Gorda, FL;

Rochester, MN; Barnstable Town, 

MA; Holland-Grand Haven, MI; 

Farmington, NM; Sebastian-Vero 

Beach, FL; and Palm Coast, FL. 

(These metro areas represent only 

some with the lowest shares. Due 

to sampling variability, these may 

not be statistically different from 

others not listed here.) Among the 

highest share of renting households was the Salinas, CA, Metro 

Area, which at 52.6 percent is 

not statistically different from the 

metro areas of Manhattan, KS; Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; 

and College Station-Bryan, TX. 

A comparison of the nation to the 

50 most populous metro areas 

underscores the importance of 

rental housing to these areas. While 

over one-half of all 366 metro areas 

combined (50.8 percent) had shares 

of renter households lower than

the national share, only 22 of the 

top 50 metro areas (44 percent) 

had lower shares of renter households. The Oklahoma City, OK, 

Metro Area; Atlanta-Sandy SpringsMarietta, GA, Metro Area; RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario, CA, Metro 

Area; and Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC, Metro Area 

had the same proportion of renting households as did the United 

States. Twenty-four of the 50

most populous metro areas had 

shares of renters higher than the 

national rate.

Among the 50 most populous 

metro areas, the renter shares

are lowest and not statistically

different from each other in

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, 

MN-WI, Metro Area (29.4 percent); 

St. Louis, MO-IL, Metro Area (29.6 

percent); Detroit-Warren-Livonia, 

MI, Metro Area (29.9 percent); and 

Table 3.

Sixteen Largest Increases Between 2009 and 2011 in Share of Burdened Renters

(Percentage points. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin

of error Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin 

of error

Gadsen, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.82 (31.46 to 52.28) 12.34 Jonesboro, AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.90 (35.70 to 48.60) 10.65

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA . 16.98 (29.44 to 46.43) 9.91 Redding, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.55 (48.60 to 61.15) 8.51

Columbus, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.23 (25.55 to 41.78) 13.34 Barnstable Town, MA . . . . . . . . . . 11.53 (43.36 to 54.88) 9.15

Anniston-Oxford, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.40 (37.04 to 51.44) 10.20 Michigan City-La Porte, IN . . . . . . 11.43 (34.97 to 46.40) 10.97

Longview, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.27 (42.94 to 57.22) 11.45 Columbus, GA-AL . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.17 (35.62 to 46.79) 5.79

San Angelo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.20 (30.17 to 43.37) 11.12 Longview, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.12 (29.09 to 40.21) 8.11

Billings, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.00 (28.43 to 41.43) 8.26 Goldsboro, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.75 (33.97 to 44.72) 8.00

Wausau, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.96 (25.87 to 38.83) 9.11 State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.37 (44.63 to 54.99) 7.97

Note: Because of sampling variability, some of the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from estimates for other

metropolitan areas not listed here.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 

9

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.

0 500Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Statistically significantchange by metropolitanstatistical area

No changeDecrease

Note: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined 

by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.

Increase

Fi

Change in Rental Vacancy Rateby Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009 to 2011

gure 3.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Birmingham-Hoover, AL, Metro

Area (30.0 percent). (BirminghamHoover may actually be higher 

than some others not specifically 

cited here, but the others are lower 

than all other 46 metro areas.) 

The metro areas with the highest 

share of renting households are Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

(50.8 percent), followed by New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA (48.9 percent). 

Tied for third highest shares are 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, 

CA, Metro Area (46.7 percent), Las 

Vegas-Paradise, NV, Metro Area 

(46.4 percent), and San FranciscoOakland-Fremont, CA, Metro Area 

(46.3 percent). Rounding out the 

top four are Austin-Round RockSan Marcos, TX, Metro Area (43.3 

percent) and San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA, Metro Area

(43.1 percent).

The renter share of all households 

in the United States increased 

steadily from 34.1 percent in 2009 

to 34.6 percent in 2010 to 35.4 

percent in 2011. Among all the 366 

metro areas, the shares of renting 

households rose in 88, remained 

unchanged in nearly three-quarters 

(269), and decreased in 9 metro 

areas (Figure 4). The metro areas 

with decreases were Ocean City, 

NJ (7.5 from 32.5 to 25.0 percent); 

Owensboro, KY (6.6 from 32.4 to 

25.8 percent); Jacksonville, NC

(6.1 from 45.3 to 39.2 percent); 

Hanford-Corcoran, CA (5.3 from 

49.4 to 44.1 percent); Lewiston, 

ID-WA (5.2 from 34.7 to 29.5

percent); Victoria, TX (5.1 from 

34.3 to 29.2 percent); Jackson, MS 

(3.4 from 34.7 to 31.3 percent); 

Roanoke, VA (3.1 from 31.4 to 28.3 

percent); and Lexington-Fayette, 

KY (2.8 from 40.9 to 38.1 percent). 

The changes were not significantly 

different among the 9 metro areas. 

Some of the largest gains in the 

renter share of total households are 

shown in Table 6.

The increase in the percentage

of renting households was more 

pronounced in the top 50 most 

populous metro areas. Table 5 

shows that, while shares were 

unchanged in 15 areas, in the 

remaining 35 areas (70 percent), 

the shares of renting households 

increased. Among the metro areas 

with the largest increases, Atlanta, 

GA, rose by 4.2 percentage points 

from 31.5 percent in 2009 to 35.7 

percent in 2011, which was not significantly different from the change 

in New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,

LA (4.0 percentage points from 

34.4 percent to 38.4 percent); 

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ (3.7 

percentage points from 33.7 percent to 37.4 percent); OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford, FL (3.5 percentage points from 33.9 percent to 

37.4 percent); Las Vegas-Paradise, 

NV (3.3 percentage points from 

43.1 percent to 46.4 percent); 

Salt Lake City, UT (2.6 percentage points from 30.6 percent to 

33.2 percent); and Providence-New 

Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA (2.6 percentage points from 36.1 percent 

to 38.7 percent). Interestingly, 

Cleveland had a small but significant increase between 2009 and 

2011 (1 percentage point from 33.6 

to 34.6 percent) despite a small but 

significant decrease between 2009 

and 2010 (1.2 percentage points 

from 33.6 to 32.4 percent). 

Despite these changes, the metropolitan areas’ relative positions 

remain much the same as in 2009, 

as increases and decreases often do 

not overcome the influence of other 

market characteristics, such as limited availability of land. Even with 

increases, many of the metro areas 

with the lowest shares of renting 

households in 2009, such as the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, 

MN-WI, Metro Area and the DetroitWarren-Livonia, MI, Metro Area, 

remained in the lowest groups in 

2011 because metro areas like Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, 

CA, and New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA, with 

high shares of renting households, 

increased their shares of renting 

households. 

Table 4.

Seven Largest Decreases Between 2009 and 2011 in Rental Vacancy Rate

(Percentage points. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin

of error Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin 

of error

Tuscaloosa, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.80 (21.07 to 5.27) 5.64 Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.11 (13.43 to 5.31) 6.26

Elkhart-Goshen, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.51(19.29 to 5.78) 7.00 Holland-Grand Haven, MI . . . . . . . . . . 7.94 (11.94 to 4.00) 5.55

Macon, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.63 (16.08 to 6.45) 4.50 Kankakee-Bradley, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.64 (13.51 to 5.88) 7.13

Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama 

City Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.33 (22.50 to 14.16) 7.81

Note: Because of sampling variability, some of the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from estimates for other

metropolitan areas not listed here.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Table 5.

Rental Market Conditions Supply-Side Measures by Metropolitan Statistical Area:1

2009 and 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area

Rental vacancy rate

(percent)

Renter share of total households

(percent)

2009 2011

Difference

2009 2011

DifferenceEstimate

Margin 

of 

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error2

(±)

Estimate

Margin 

of

error2

(±)

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.43 0.1 7.40 0.1 *–1.03 34.13 0.1 35.42 0.1 *1.29

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.96 0.9 10.79 0.8 *–3.17 31.52 0.5 35.66 0.6 *4.14

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.78 1.0 5.10 0.7 *–2.68 41.34 1.0 43.31 1.2 *1.97

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.23 0.9 6.17 0.8 *–2.06 31.99 0.7 33.22 0.6 *1.23

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.75 1.8 7.15 1.5 *–4.60 29.53 1.1 29.98 1.2 0.45

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.56 0.6 3.98 0.5 *–1.58 36.56 0.5 38.66 0.5 *2.10

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 1.3 5.56 1.0 *–2.45 33.42 0.9 34.19 1.0 0.77

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . 8.91 1.2 8.16 1.2 –0.75 33.09 0.9 33.91 1.1 0.82

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.73 0.5 7.62 0.4 *–1.11 33.03 0.4 34.46 0.4 *1.43

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.89 1.1 11.30 1.1 0.41 31.79 0.7 31.23 0.7 –0.56

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.69 0.9 7.93 0.9 *–1.76 33.61 0.7 34.56 0.6 *0.95

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.40 1.1 7.02 1.0 *–3.38 36.77 0.8 38.58 0.8 *1.81

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12 0.6 9.71 0.6 *–2.41 37.79 0.5 38.93 0.5 *1.14

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.75 1.0 5.10 0.7 *–2.65 34.40 0.8 37.03 0.7 *2.63

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.05 0.9 8.42 0.7 *–2.63 27.96 0.5 29.92 0.5 *1.96

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT . . . . . . . . 7.85 1.3 7.45 1.5 –0.40 30.34 0.9 32.62 0.9 *2.28

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.27 0.7 11.64 0.6 –0.63 37.74 0.5 38.44 0.6 0.70

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.50 1.3 8.63 1.1 –0.87 33.63 0.9 33.82 0.9 0.19

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.09 1.5 10.10 1.9 *–3.99 32.16 1.0 32.56 1.2 0.40

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.31 1.2 8.63 0.9 *–1.68 32.05 0.8 32.73 0.8 0.68

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.15 1.3 12.61 1.1 0.46 43.12 0.9 46.40 1.1 *3.28

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . 5.29 0.3 4.52 0.3 *–0.77 49.27 0.4 50.79 0.3 *1.52

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.84 1.2 9.63 1.7 –0.21 31.45 1.2 31.29 0.9 –0.16

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.87 1.6 10.69 1.4 *–3.18 36.14 1.1 37.56 1.2 1.42

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL....... 11.75 0.7 9.24 0.8 *–2.51 35.39 0.5 37.50 0.5 *2.11

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.28 0.9 3.45 0.7 –0.83 37.65 0.8 39.56 0.8 *1.91

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . . . . . . 5.91 0.7 5.09 0.8 –0.82 27.57 0.6 29.37 0.5 *1.80

Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro—Franklin, TN . 10.23 1.5 8.10 1.5 *–2.13 32.24 0.9 34.24 1.1 *2.00

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.07 1.5 9.75 1.2 –1.32 34.41 1.0 38.41 0.9 *4.00

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,

NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.04 0.2 4.91 0.2 –0.13 47.29 0.3 48.85 0.3 *1.56

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.02 1.2 8.72 1.5 0.70 34.67 0.9 35.05 1.0 0.38

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.91 1.2 11.74 1.4 –1.17 33.87 0.9 37.40 0.9 *3.53

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . 8.91 0.7 7.10 0.6 *–1.81 30.43 0.5 32.06 0.5 *1.63

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.58 0.9 10.12 0.9 *–3.46 33.65 0.6 37.39 0.7 *3.74

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.61 0.9 5.50 0.7 –0.11 29.84 0.7 30.73 0.6 0.89

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . . . . . . . . . 5.60 0.9 4.09 0.7 *–1.51 37.92 0.8 39.21 0.7 *1.29

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA . . . . . . . 7.25 1.0 5.95 0.8 *–1.30 36.08 0.8 38.69 1.0 *2.61

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.44 1.9 9.73 2.3 –1.71 31.48 1.1 32.06 1.6 0.58

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.78 1.4 13.19 1.4 *5.41 31.00 1.1 33.00 0.9 *2.00

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . . . . . . . . 8.14 0.8 6.85 0.8 *–1.29 34.14 0.7 35.69 0.7 *1.55

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA . . . . . 8.02 1.0 6.11 0.9 *–1.91 38.40 0.8 40.21 0.9 *1.81

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.54 0.9 7.93 0.9 *1.39 29.31 0.7 29.56 0.6 0.25

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.08 1.7 5.98 1.4 –2.10 30.59 1.2 33.25 1.2 *2.66

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.89 1.3 7.79 1.1 *–4.10 34.99 0.9 37.03 1.1 *2.04

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 5.05 0.5 5.54 0.6 0.49 44.82 0.6 46.71 0.6 *1.89

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 5.46 0.6 4.10 0.5 *–1.36 44.46 0.6 46.34 0.7 *1.88

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3.40 0.7 2.71 0.7 –0.69 41.12 1.0 43.05 0.8 *1.93

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13 0.7 5.00 0.7 –0.13 38.23 0.6 40.05 0.6 *1.82

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL . . . . . . . . . . . 13.44 1.1 11.19 1.2 *–2.25 32.14 0.8 33.56 0.7 *1.42

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC . . . . 6.16 1.0 8.48 1.1 *2.32 36.84 0.9 35.90 0.9 –0.94

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . 6.95 0.6 4.75 0.5 *–2.20 33.99 0.5 36.42 0.5 *2.43

*Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Fifty most populous metropolitan statistical area populations based on population estimates as of July 1, 2009. Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the 

Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.
12 U.S. Census Bureau Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys. 0 500Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Statistically significant change by metropolitan statistical area No change Decrease Note: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. Increase Fi Change in Renter Share of Total Households by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009 to 2011 gure 4.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

For more information, the

U.S. Census Bureau and the

Department of Housing and

Urban Development also publish 

information on renter shares of 

occupied housing, housing costs 

for renters, renter burden, and 

rental vacancy rates for the United 

States and selected metropolitan 

statistical areas from the American 

Housing Survey. The Current

Population Survey/Housing 

Vacancy Survey (HVS) is the official 

source of the rental vacancy rate 

and share of renter-occupied housing units for the United States, 

the 50 states, and the 75 largest 

metro areas. The housing cost data 

available from the HVS are limited 

to responses provided on rents for 

vacant rental units in the United 

States. HVS does not purport to 

measure housing cost burden. 

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample 

interviewed in 2011. The estimates 

based on this sample approximate 

the actual values and represent 

the entire household and group 

quarters population. Sampling error 

is the difference between an estimate based on a sample and the 

corresponding value that would be 

obtained if the estimate were based 

on the entire population (as from a 

census). Measures of the sampling 

errors are provided in the form of 

margins of error for all estimates 

included in this report. All comparative statements in this report 

have undergone statistical testing, 

and comparisons are significant at 

the 90 percent level unless otherwise noted. In addition to sampling 

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For more information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the 2011 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of

_Data_2011.pdf>.

Table 6.

Ten Largest Increases Between 2009 and 2011 in Renter Share of Total Households

(Percentage points. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin

of error Metropolitan area Estimate

Margin 

of error

Napa, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.42 (36.14 to 45.56) 4.95 Jackson, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.40 (23.31 to 29.71) 3.56

Cumberland, MD-WV . . . . . . . . . 8.71 (29.34 to 38.05) 4.58 Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL . . . . . 6.15 (27.86 to 34.01) 4.17

Pocatello, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.99 (26.31 to 34.30) 5.17 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robales, CA . . 5.80 (38.08 to 43.89) 3.11

Sumter, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.96 (28.95 to 35.92) 4.67 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA . . 5.78 (22.54 to 28.32) 3.38

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA . . . . . . 6.45 (28.52 to 34.97) 3.05 Bend, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.62 (31.17 to 36.79) 4.73

Note: Because of sampling variability, some of the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from estimates for other

metropolitan areas not listed here.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 and 2011 American Community Surveys.

What Is the American Community Survey?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, 

social, economic, and housing data for the nation, states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities every year. It has an 

annual sample size of about 3.3 million addresses across the United 

States and Puerto Rico and includes both housing units and group 

quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and prisons). The ACS is conducted 

in every county throughout the nation, and every municipio in Puerto 

Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning 

in 2006, ACS data for 2005 were released for geographic areas with 

populations of 65,000 and greater. For information on the ACS sample 

design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>.