The current per-square-foot value for suburban homes remains below its 2006 peak
.jpg)
Despite median home values following an upward trend to new highs, the per-square-foot value of suburban homes continues to be less valuable today compared to a decade ago, according to a study by Zillow.
Zillow analyzed home values and rents in urban, suburban, and rural locales and found that as of December, the per-square-foot value of the median suburban home was $138, which is below the prior peak of $140 in October 2006. Meanwhile, urban homes have a per-square-foot value of $231 and rural homes have a per-square-foot value of $102, both at new peaks and exceeding pre-recession levels.
Although the per-square-foot values of urban and rural homes are reaching record highs, the gap between the two values is as wide as it has ever been, according to Zillow. The current 127.1% difference is the widest gap since at least January 1996. The gap has also exceeded the 124.1% difference recorded in October 2006, months prior to the housing market peak before the bust.
“The data provide another illustration of the deep and lasting scars of the recession, as well as how different market segments have fared in the years since then,” wrote Lauren Bretz, a data scientist at Zillow. “Many cities have experienced tremendous growth in recent years as high-paying jobs in tech, healthcare, finance, and other booming industries increasingly located in dense urban cores, while other areas have not bounced back.”
Suburban homes were more valuable overall in the mid-1990s compared to urban and rural homes. In 1998, values of urban homes exceeded suburban levels, Zillow said. However, urban homes have always been the most valuable on a per-square-foot basis compared to suburban and rural homes.
Related stories:
Commercial demand growing in the cities
Suburbs in Texas top fastest-growing cities in the US
Zillow analyzed home values and rents in urban, suburban, and rural locales and found that as of December, the per-square-foot value of the median suburban home was $138, which is below the prior peak of $140 in October 2006. Meanwhile, urban homes have a per-square-foot value of $231 and rural homes have a per-square-foot value of $102, both at new peaks and exceeding pre-recession levels.
Although the per-square-foot values of urban and rural homes are reaching record highs, the gap between the two values is as wide as it has ever been, according to Zillow. The current 127.1% difference is the widest gap since at least January 1996. The gap has also exceeded the 124.1% difference recorded in October 2006, months prior to the housing market peak before the bust.
“The data provide another illustration of the deep and lasting scars of the recession, as well as how different market segments have fared in the years since then,” wrote Lauren Bretz, a data scientist at Zillow. “Many cities have experienced tremendous growth in recent years as high-paying jobs in tech, healthcare, finance, and other booming industries increasingly located in dense urban cores, while other areas have not bounced back.”
Suburban homes were more valuable overall in the mid-1990s compared to urban and rural homes. In 1998, values of urban homes exceeded suburban levels, Zillow said. However, urban homes have always been the most valuable on a per-square-foot basis compared to suburban and rural homes.
Related stories:
Commercial demand growing in the cities
Suburbs in Texas top fastest-growing cities in the US
