Empty-nest households that could add to
inventory aren't where they're needed most
- There is an oversupply of 12.8 million empty-nest homes.
- However, this potential supply is not located in the markets
experiencing severe housing shortages.
- Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and New
Orleans have the largest share of empty nest homes.
- The highest share of those homes are in Las Vegas, Austin, Los
Angeles and Riverside.
SEATTLE, Dec. 5, 2024
/PRNewswire/ -- A "silver tsunami" — an expected flood of
homes from older owners who will downsize or otherwise move on —
has long been discussed as having the potential to relieve the
nation's shortage of housing. But new research from Zillow® shows
these homes likely are located far from where they're needed
most.
"Even if we did see a 'silver tsunami,' a look at the map tells
me it wouldn't really move the needle in terms of solving our
housing affordability crunch," said Orphe Divounguy, Zillow senior
economist. "These empty-nest households are concentrated in more
affordable markets, where housing is already more accessible — not
in the expensive coastal job centers where young workers are moving
and where more homes are most desperately needed."
In 2022, there were roughly 20.9 million empty-nest households
nationwide — residents ages 55 or older who have lived in the same
home for 10 or more years, have no children at home and have at
least two extra bedrooms. That's compared to the 8.1 million
families living with nonrelatives in 2022 that were likely in
need of their own place. But the supply and the demand don't match
up on the map.
Empty-nest households are not where most young workers choose
to live
Empty-nest households tend to be in markets that are less
expensive. Among the 50 largest U.S. metros, Pittsburgh had the highest share of empty-nest
households at 22%, followed by Buffalo (20%), Cleveland (20%), Detroit (19%), St.
Louis (19%) and New Orleans
(18%). These markets are already accessible — all but New Orleans are among the top 10 markets with
homes on the market that are affordable. They also have
relatively low shares of heads of households younger than age
44.
On the other hand, metros with some of the largest shares of
millennials and Gen Zers moving in are among the nation's most
expensive. Markets where the largest share of recently moved
households with members 44 and younger are San Jose (35%), Austin (32%) and Denver (32%). Seattle and Portland are also among the top 10, each with
30%. Housing affordability in these metros is far more challenging
than at the national level, and all of them have a smaller share of
empty-nest households than the national average.
As a result, the impact of a future increase in supply coming
from the existing housing stock owned by older individuals would
likely have a smaller impact on affordability in expensive,
high-demand coastal markets.
Rather, the primary fix for affordability challenges remains a
strong supply expansion coming from newly built homes. Zillow
research shows that housing shortages were the most severe in
markets with more land-use restrictions. Along with promoting
denser construction, removing barriers to homeownership that aren't
related to monthly income — such as credit assistance programs,
down payment assistance or help with closing costs — would likely
improve access to homeownership.
|
Metro
Area*
|
Zillow Home
Value Index
(ZHVI),
October 2024
|
Empty
Nesters' Share
of Households
2022
|
Under-44
Share of
Households
2022
|
Recent Under-
44Movers'
Share 2022
|
Share of
Listings
for Sale That are
Affordable,
October 2024
|
|
United
States
|
$360,385
|
16 %
|
35 %
|
25 %
|
27 %
|
|
New York, NY
|
$677,399
|
12 %
|
33 %
|
23 %
|
11 %
|
|
Los Angeles,
CA
|
$956,186
|
11 %
|
35 %
|
24 %
|
2 %
|
|
Chicago, IL
|
$324,456
|
15 %
|
36 %
|
26 %
|
43 %
|
|
Dallas, TX
|
$369,778
|
12 %
|
42 %
|
28 %
|
28 %
|
|
Houston, TX
|
$305,162
|
12 %
|
41 %
|
29 %
|
40 %
|
|
Washington,
DC
|
$568,429
|
14 %
|
38 %
|
29 %
|
44 %
|
|
Philadelphia,
PA
|
$364,548
|
18 %
|
35 %
|
23 %
|
51 %
|
|
Miami, FL
|
$486,379
|
12 %
|
30 %
|
27 %
|
24 %
|
|
Atlanta, GA
|
$378,130
|
14 %
|
38 %
|
25 %
|
46 %
|
|
Boston, MA
|
$693,105
|
14 %
|
35 %
|
28 %
|
12 %
|
|
Phoenix, AZ
|
$453,853
|
12 %
|
38 %
|
26 %
|
24 %
|
|
San Francisco,
CA
|
$1,141,068
|
14 %
|
36 %
|
28 %
|
14 %
|
|
Riverside,
CA
|
$579,529
|
11 %
|
35 %
|
18 %
|
13 %
|
|
Detroit, MI
|
$253,014
|
19 %
|
32 %
|
22 %
|
61 %
|
|
Seattle, WA
|
$739,858
|
13 %
|
43 %
|
30 %
|
17 %
|
|
Minneapolis,
MN
|
$374,394
|
16 %
|
39 %
|
26 %
|
51 %
|
|
San Diego,
CA
|
$936,358
|
13 %
|
39 %
|
25 %
|
4 %
|
|
Tampa, FL
|
$371,922
|
12 %
|
32 %
|
26 %
|
26 %
|
|
Denver, CO
|
$578,673
|
13 %
|
43 %
|
32 %
|
23 %
|
|
Baltimore,
MD
|
$386,089
|
17 %
|
35 %
|
24 %
|
56 %
|
|
St. Louis,
MO
|
$252,506
|
19 %
|
36 %
|
21 %
|
64 %
|
|
Orlando, FL
|
$393,519
|
12 %
|
38 %
|
28 %
|
22 %
|
|
Charlotte,
NC
|
$378,960
|
14 %
|
38 %
|
25 %
|
33 %
|
|
San Antonio,
TX
|
$281,156
|
12 %
|
41 %
|
30 %
|
33 %
|
|
Portland, OR
|
$545,148
|
14 %
|
38 %
|
30 %
|
18 %
|
|
Sacramento,
CA
|
$577,374
|
14 %
|
35 %
|
23 %
|
11 %
|
|
Pittsburgh,
PA
|
$214,195
|
22 %
|
32 %
|
22 %
|
72 %
|
|
Cincinnati,
OH
|
$285,081
|
17 %
|
37 %
|
23 %
|
53 %
|
|
Austin, TX
|
$446,524
|
10 %
|
48 %
|
32 %
|
26 %
|
|
Las Vegas,
NV
|
$431,864
|
10 %
|
37 %
|
24 %
|
19 %
|
|
Kansas City,
MO
|
$303,007
|
16 %
|
38 %
|
28 %
|
51 %
|
|
Columbus, OH
|
$312,529
|
15 %
|
41 %
|
26 %
|
45 %
|
|
Indianapolis,
IN
|
$279,039
|
15 %
|
41 %
|
24 %
|
59 %
|
|
Cleveland,
OH
|
$231,573
|
20 %
|
33 %
|
28 %
|
57 %
|
|
San Jose, CA
|
$1,595,389
|
14 %
|
38 %
|
35 %
|
7 %
|
|
Nashville,
TN
|
$438,346
|
14 %
|
42 %
|
28 %
|
19 %
|
|
Virginia Beach,
VA
|
$350,756
|
17 %
|
39 %
|
28 %
|
44 %
|
|
Providence,
RI
|
$488,346
|
16 %
|
32 %
|
22 %
|
15 %
|
|
Jacksonville,
FL
|
$354,943
|
15 %
|
37 %
|
26 %
|
40 %
|
|
Milwaukee,
WI
|
$344,445
|
17 %
|
37 %
|
25 %
|
46 %
|
|
Oklahoma City,
OK
|
$233,754
|
15 %
|
42 %
|
31 %
|
43 %
|
|
Raleigh, NC
|
$440,100
|
15 %
|
39 %
|
24 %
|
40 %
|
|
Memphis, TN
|
$237,679
|
16 %
|
37 %
|
25 %
|
48 %
|
|
Richmond, VA
|
$368,330
|
18 %
|
36 %
|
26 %
|
43 %
|
|
Louisville,
KY
|
$259,892
|
18 %
|
35 %
|
24 %
|
48 %
|
|
New Orleans,
LA
|
$240,909
|
18 %
|
34 %
|
24 %
|
37 %
|
|
Salt Lake City,
UT
|
$545,457
|
14 %
|
45 %
|
25 %
|
23 %
|
|
Hartford, CT
|
$362,743
|
18 %
|
33 %
|
25 %
|
42 %
|
|
Buffalo, NY
|
$263,076
|
20 %
|
33 %
|
19 %
|
64 %
|
|
Birmingham,
AL
|
$249,786
|
18 %
|
36 %
|
26 %
|
55 %
|
*Table ordered by market size
About Zillow Group:
Zillow Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: Z and ZG) is reimagining real estate
to make home a reality for more and more people. As the most
visited real estate website in the United
States, Zillow and its affiliates help people find and get
the home they want by connecting them with digital solutions,
dedicated partners and agents, and easier buying, selling,
financing, and renting experiences.
Zillow Group's affiliates, subsidiaries and brands include
Zillow®, Zillow Premier Agent®, Zillow Home Loans℠, Zillow
Rentals®, Trulia®, Out East®, StreetEasy®, HotPads®, ShowingTime+℠,
Spruce®, and Follow Up Boss®.
All marks herein are owned by MFTB Holdco, Inc., a Zillow
affiliate. Zillow Home Loans, LLC is an Equal Housing Lender, NMLS
#10287 (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org). © 2024 MFTB Holdco, Inc., a
Zillow affiliate.
(ZFIN)
View original content to download
multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-silver-tsunami-wont-solve-housing-affordability-challenges-302323557.html
SOURCE Zillow