American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Rental Housing Market Condition 

Measures: 2009

INTRODUCTION

This report presents data from the 

2009 American Community Survey 

(ACS) on rental market conditions, 

including share of occupied housing, 

housing costs, housing cost “burden,” 

and vacancy rate at the national level 

and for metropolitan statistical areas 

(metro areas).1

Rental housing is catapulting to the 

top of the national housing agenda, 

The past 30 years have witnessed a 

housing policy that has been focused 

on promoting homeownership. The 

large gap between the number of renting households and the units that they 

can aff ord will only grow as foreclosures persist and home mortgages 

become increasingly scarce for all but 

the most qualifi ed buyers.2 Consequently, rental housing is getting a 

second look as an important component of a national housing policy.3 A 

1 For a detailed explanation of the metropolitan 

statistical areas in this report, go to 

<www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/bulletins

/fy2009/09-01.pdf>. 2 Fannie Mae in a February 26, 2010, letter to 

lenders entitled “An Introduction to Fannie Mae’s 

Loan Quality Initiative” outlines rigid procedures 

to which lenders wishing to sell it mortgages must 

adhere, including borrower disclosure of all liabilities 

on the fi nal loan application, as well as new emphasis 

on providing sound monthly debt to income ratios 

at the time of the delivery of the mortgage to Fannie 

Mae. 3 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act requires the Obama 

Administration to develop a proposal for housing 

reform by early 2011, including restructuring Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, The U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expects that 

the promotion of rental housing will be a cornerstone of the proposal. In a July 21, 2010, article in 

The Washington Post, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan 

stated “While we continue to promote aff ordable 

homeownership, for many Americans renting will 

continue to be the only or preferred option.”

high rental vacancy rate coupled with 

a low share of homes that are renteroccupied generally implies more housing 

choices available for renting households. 

The share of burdened households can 

be lower in such markets. Conversely, a 

low rental vacancy rate in a market with 

a high percentage of renter households 

can signify a tighter rental market, fewer 

housing choices, and more aff ordability 

problems, particularly for low-income 

Issued October 2010

ACSBR/09-7

By

Melissa Kresin

Mary Schwartz Gross rent: The monthly amount 

of rent plus the estimated average 

monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, 

water, and sewer) and fuels (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 aff ordability by 

policymakers and as a determinant of 

eligibility for federal housing programs 

and is often referred to as 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 

“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

households. In these markets, the 

shares of burdened renters are 

often higher.

RENTAL HOUSING MARKET 

MEASURES

Housing Costs

In 2009, median gross rent in the 

metro areas in the United States 

ranged from $495 in the 

Johnstown, PA Metro Area and the 

Wheeling, WV-OH Metro Area to 

$1,414 in the San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metro Area compared with the national median 

of $842. Among the 366 metro 

areas, 247 (67.5 percent) had 

a median gross rent below the 

national median, 68 (18.6 percent) 

had a median gross rent above the 

national median and 51 (13.9 percent) were not statistically diff erent 

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 most 

populous metro areas, the average renter household in 27 (54 

percent) spent more on rent than 

the national median, those in 17 

(34 percent) spent less than the 

national median, and those in 

6 (12 percent) were not statistically diff erent from the national 

median. 

Among the 50 most populous 

metro areas, the Pittsburgh, PA 

Metro Area had the lowest median 

gross rent ($643). Pittsburgh, 

PA, was followed by the Metro 

Areas: Buff alo-Niagara Falls, NY; 

Louisville/Jeff erson County, KY-IN; 

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN; 

Oklahoma City, OK; and ClevelandElyria-Mentor, OH, where rents were 

between $652 and $706. The St. 

Louis, MO-IL Metro Area rounded 

out the most aff ordable markets 

with a median gross rent of $732.

The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

CA Metro Area, with a gross rent 

of $1,414 was the most expensive 

rental market among the 50 most 

populous metro areas. Following 

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 

was the San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA Metro Area and the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area, both 

with median gross rent of $1,303. 

The fourth highest median gross 

rent was in the San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro 

Area ($1,224); the fi fth highest 

median gross rent was in the Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, 

CA Metro Area ($1,197). Rounding 

out the top seven most expensive 

Metro Areas are New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 

($1,125) and Boston-CambridgeQuincy, MA-NH ($1,123), which 

were not signifi cantly diff erent 

from each other.

Renter Burden

Nationwide, nearly 2 in 5 renter 

households (42.5 percent) were 

burdened by housing costs consuming 35 percent or more of their 

incomes. Housing cost burdens 

ranged from a low of 23.2 percent of renting households in the 

Casper, WY Metro Area to a high of 

62.7 percent of renting households 

in the College Station-Bryan, TX 

Metro Area, which could be due to 

a large student population. Renters living in 196 of the 366 metro 

areas (53.6 percent) mirrored the 

nation, with no statistical diff erence 

between their shares of burdened 

renters and the national 42.5 

percent share. Ninety-one metro 

areas (24.9 percent) had shares of 

burdened renters that were signifi -

cantly lower than the nation’s 42.5 

percent share; while the shares of 

burdened renters living in 79 metro 

areas (21.6 percent) were signifi cantly 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. 

Shares of burdened renters living in 

18 of the metro areas (36 percent) 

were lower than the nation. In 13 

metro areas (26 percent) shares 

were higher than the nation. Nineteen (38 percent) had shares of 

burdened renters that were not signifi cantly diff erent from the nation. 

Some of the heaviest burdens in 

the 50 most populous metro areas 

were borne by renters in Florida 

and California, states hard hit by 

the housing market-led recession. 

In Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano 

Beach, FL, more than one-half (54.3 

percent) of renting households 

were burdened. In OrlandoKissimmee, FL, 50.8 percent of 

renters were burdened. The share 

in Orlando-Kissimmee, FL, while 

lower than the share of burdened 

renters in Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL, did not diff er 

from the shares of burdened renters in New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, 

LA (49.7 percent) or RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario, CA (48.7 

percent). 

Rental Vacancy Rate

Nationwide, the rental vacancy rate 

was 8.4 percent. The rates in the 

nation’s metro areas ranged from 

0.5 percent in the Logan, UT-ID 

Metro Area to 33.4 percent in the 

Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle BeachConway, SC Metro Area. Excess 

rental inventory was less likely 

to plague metro areas than the 

national rental housing market as 

a whole, with 107 (29.2 percent) 

of all metro areas having a rental 

vacancy rate below the national 

rental vacancy rate and 72 (19.7 

percent) having vacancy rates 

above the national rate. Vacancy 

rates in 187 (51.1 percent) were 
U.S. Census Bureau 3

not statistically diff erent from the 

8.4 percent national rate. 

Unlike all metropolitan statistical 

areas combined, the 50 most populous metro areas did not compare 

as favorably to the nation’s rental 

housing market when vacancy 

rates are used as a barometer. Of 

the 50 most populous metropolitan 

statistical areas, 21 metro areas 

(42 percent) had rental vacancy 

rates above the national rate while 

15 (30 percent) had rental vacancy 

rates below the national rate. The 

rental vacancy rates in 14 of the 50 

most populous metro areas (28 percent) were not signifi cantly diff erent from the nation’s vacancy rate. 

Twelve of the fi fty most populous 

metro areas had double digit rental 

vacancy rates. These Metro Areas 

are: Jacksonville, FL; Atlanta-Sandy 

Springs-Marietta, GA; Memphis, TNMS-AR; Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, 

AZ; Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL; Orlando-Kissimmee, 

FL; Houston-Sugarland-Baytown, 

TX; Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; DallasFort Worth-Arlington, TX; San 

Antonio, TX; Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL; and DetroitWarren-Livonia, MI. 

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

CA (3.4 percent) and MilwaukeeWaukesha-West Allis, WI (4.3 percent) had the lowest rental vacancy 

rates, but were not statistically 

diff erent from each other. While the 

rental vacancy rate in MilwaukeeWaukesha-West Allis, WI, did not 

diff er from New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 

(5.0 percent); San Diego-CarlsbadSan Marcos, CA (5.0 percent); and 

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (5.1), 

the rental vacancy rate in San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA, was 

signifi cantly lower than the rental 

vacancy rates in the remaining 48 

of the 50 most populous metro 

areas. 

For more information, the U.S. 

Census Bureau and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

also publish renter share of occupied housing, housing costs for 

renters, renter burden, and rental 

vacancy rates for the United States 

and selected metropolitan statistical areas in the American Housing 

Survey (AHS). The Current Population Survey (CPS)/Housing Vacancy 

Survey (HVS) is the offi cial 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 asking rents 

for vacant rental units in the United 

States. HVS does not purport to 

measure housing cost burden.

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2009. 

The resulting estimates are representative of the entire population. 

All comparisons presented in this 

report have taken sampling error 

into account and are signifi cant 

at the 90 percent confi dence level 

unless otherwise noted. Due to 

rounding, some details may not 

sum to totals. For information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confi dentiality protection, sampling 

and nonsampling errors, please 

see the “2009 ACS Accuracy of the 

Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf>.

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 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>.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Rental Market Conditions Measures by Metropolitan Statistical Area:1 2009

Area

Renter occupied 

(percent)

Median gross rent 

(dollars)

Share of renters spending 35 

percent or more of 

income for gross 

rent (percent)

Rental vacancy rate 

(percent)

Estimate

Margin of 

error2

 (±) Estimate

Margin of 

error2 (±) Estimate

Margin of 

error2 (±) Estimate

Margin of 

error2 (±)

 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.13 0.1 842 2 42.48 0.1 8.43 0.1

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.52 0.5 912 8 43.04 1.2 13.96 0.9

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.34 1.0 909 14 41.55 1.8 7.78 1.0

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.99 0.7 1,048 17 44.58 1.6 8.23 0.9

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.53 1.1 758 12 45.47 2.4 11.75 1.8

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.56 0.5 1,123 12 38.76 1.1 5.56 0.6

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.42 0.9 663 11 45.58 2.2 8.01 1.3

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.09 0.9 793 12 38.79 1.9 8.91 1.2

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.03 0.4 900 7 43.26 0.8 8.73 0.5

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.79 0.7 686 13 40.46 1.9 10.89 1.1

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.61 0.7 695 11 44.03 1.7 9.69 0.9

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.77 0.8 757 12 38.57 1.7 10.40 1.1

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.79 0.5 846 6 38.97 1.0 12.12 0.6

Denver-Aurora-Broomfi eld, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.40 0.8 876 13 41.65 1.4 7.75 1.0

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.96 0.5 783 8 47.04 1.3 11.05 0.9

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.34 0.9 917 17 43.00 2.1 7.85 1.3

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.74 0.5 848 7 40.52 1.1 12.27 0.7

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.63 0.9 750 13 39.83 1.8 9.50 1.3

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.16 1.0 903 21 44.68 2.5 14.09 1.5

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.05 0.8 763 12 36.10 1.9 10.31 1.2

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.12 0.9 1,034 19 43.03 1.6 12.15 1.3

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.27 0.4 1,197 8 47.27 0.6 5.29 0.3

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.45 1.2 675 9 38.95 2.4 9.84 1.2

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.14 1.1 765 11 47.19 2.2 13.87 1.6

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL. . . . . . . . . . . 35.39 0.5 1,077 11 54.35 1.2 11.75 0.7

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.65 0.8 766 10 42.42 1.6 4.28 0.9

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.57 0.6 840 12 41.27 1.5 5.91 0.7

Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN . . . . . . . . 32.24 0.9 784 14 39.22 2.4 10.23 1.5

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.41 1.0 890 14 49.71 2.5 11.07 1.5

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . 47.29 0.3 1,125 5 42.93 0.5 5.04 0.2

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.67 0.9 689 15 41.77 2.5 8.02 1.2

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.87 0.9 982 10 50.75 1.9 12.91 1.2

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . 30.43 0.5 912 10 43.32 1.0 8.91 0.7

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.65 0.6 912 12 43.07 1.5 13.58 0.9

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.84 0.7 643 9 38.19 1.3 5.61 0.9

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.92 0.8 876 9 41.38 1.4 5.60 0.9

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.08 0.8 844 17 39.33 1.8 7.25 1.0

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.48 1.1 842 12 37.63 2.4 11.44 1.9

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.00 1.1 901 20 42.67 2.2 7.78 1.4

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.14 0.7 1,084 14 48.70 1.4 8.14 0.8

Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.40 0.8 998 16 46.76 1.7 8.02 1.0

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.31 0.7 732 9 41.21 1.6 6.54 0.9

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.59 1.2 835 19 41.29 2.5 8.08 1.7

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.99 0.9 765 12 39.20 2.0 11.89 1.3

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.82 0.6 1,224 14 48.05 1.3 5.05 0.5

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.46 0.6 1,303 16 40.20 1.1 5.46 0.6

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.12 1.0 1,414 21 37.37 1.7 3.40 0.7

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.23 0.6 1,015 13 38.76 1.3 5.13 0.7

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.14 0.8 908 13 45.52 1.6 13.44 1.1

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC . . . . . . . . . 36.84 0.9 984 19 41.03 1.9 6.16 1.0

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . 33.99 0.5 1,303 11 38.14 1.0 6.95 0.6

1

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

Offi ce of Management and Budget as of November 2008.

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 

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 

confi dence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau 

5

0 100 Miles

Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2008.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Percent of Renters Spending 35 Percent or More of Household 

Income for Gross Rent by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009

Renters spending 35 percent or more of income for gross rent (percent),by quartiles

46.4 to 62.741.9 to 46.337.8 to 41.823.2 to 37.7

U.S. share of renters spending 35 percent or more on housing = 42.5

Figure 1.
6 U.S. Census Bureau 0 100 Miles Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Rental Vacancy Rate by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009 Rental vacancy rate (percent), by quartiles 10.5 or more 7.7 to 10.4 5.7 to 7.6 0.5 to 5.6 U.S. rental vacancy rate = 8.4 Figure 2.