Domestic Migration & Housing Affordability: US Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000: 2000-2005
| Metropolitan Area | Net Domestic Migration: 2000 to 2005 | Compared to 2000 Population | Median Multiple: 2005 | Affordability Classification | Leading Migration Source |
| Los Angeles | (305,000) | -1.9% | 11.2 | High Cost Loser | |
| San Diego | (98,000) | -3.5% | 10.8 | High Cost Loser | |
| San Francisco | (549,000) | -7.7% | 9.3 | High Cost Loser | |
| Miami | (41,000) | -0.8% | 8.8 | High Cost Loser | |
| New York | (1,175,000) | -5.5% | 7.9 | High Cost Loser | |
| Fresno | 13,000 | 1.4% | 6.8 | High Cost Attractor | California (Note) |
| Sacramento | 141,000 | 7.3% | 6.8 | High Cost Attractor | California (Note) |
| Las Vegas | 228,000 | 16.2% | 6.4 | High Cost Attractor | California |
| Washington-Baltimore | (30,000) | -0.4% | 6.3 | High Cost Loser | |
| Boston | (204,000) | -3.6% | 6.1 | High Cost Loser | |
| Providence | (5,000) | -0.3% | 5.5 | High Cost Loser | |
| Orlando | 190,000 | 11.2% | 5.4 | High Cost Attractor | New York |
| Seattle | (4,000) | -0.1% | 5.3 | High Cost Loser | |
| Phoenix | 301,000 | 9.3% | 5.1 | High Cost Attractor | California |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg | 202,000 | 8.4% | 5 | High Cost Attractor | New York |
| Chicago | (344,000) | -3.7% | 4.9 | High Cost Loser | |
| Milwaukee | (49,000) | -2.9% | 4.2 | High Cost Loser | |
| Portland | 48,000 | 2.5% | 4.2 | High Cost Attractor | California |
| Denver | (19,000) | -0.8% | 4 | High Cost Loser | |
| Virginia Beach | 1,000 | 0.1% | 4 | High Cost Attractor | |
| Philadelphia | (51,000) | -0.9% | 3.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Hartford | 6,000 | 0.5% | 3.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Richmond | 41,000 | 3.8% | 3.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Jacksonville | 82,000 | 7.3% | 3.7 | Less than 4.0 | |
| New Orleans | (41,000) | -3.0% | 3.6 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Birmingham | 12,000 | 1.1% | 3.6 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Charlotte | 112,000 | 5.9% | 3.6 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Minneapolis | (11,000) | -0.3% | 3.5 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Albany | 12,000 | 1.1% | 3.5 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Nashville | 51,000 | 3.7% | 3.3 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Memphis | (1,000) | -0.1% | 3.2 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Detroit | (151,000) | -2.8% | 3.1 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Salt Lake City | (35,000) | -2.4% | 3.1 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Raleigh-Durham | 82,000 | 6.3% | 3.1 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Columbus | 9,000 | 0.5% | 2.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Houston | 61,000 | 1.3% | 2.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| San Antonio | 66,000 | 3.9% | 2.9 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Cincinnati | (10,000) | -0.5% | 2.8 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Louisville | 11,000 | 0.9% | 2.8 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Austin | 75,000 | 6.0% | 2.8 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Dallas-Fort Worth | 115,000 | 2.2% | 2.8 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Atlanta | 194,000 | 4.3% | 2.8 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Dayton | (27,000) | -2.5% | 2.7 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Oklahoma City | 10,000 | 0.9% | 2.7 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Kansas City | 17,000 | 0.9% | 2.7 | Less than 4.0 | |
| St. Louis | (15,000) | -0.6% | 2.6 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Grand Rapids | (3,000) | -0.2% | 2.6 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Cleveland | (79,000) | -2.7% | 2.5 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Pittsburgh | (40,000) | -1.6% | 2.5 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Indianapolis | 30,000 | 1.6% | 2.4 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Buffalo | (35,000) | -2.8% | 2.2 | Less than 4.0 | |
| Rochester | (27,000) | -2.4% | 2.2 | Less than 4.0 | |
| BY AFFORDABILITY | |||||
| Median Multiples 4.0 and Over | (1,699,000) | -1.7% | |||
| Median Multiples Under 4.0 | (460,000) | -0.7% | |||
| Smaller Metropolitan Areas & Other | 1,239,000 | 1.1% | |||
| HIGH COST ATTRACTORS AND LOSERS | |||||
| Median Multiples 4.0 & Over: High Cost Losers | (2,823,000) | -3.3% | |||
| Median Multiples 4.0 & Over: High Cost Attractors | 1,124,000 | 7.8% | |||
| Median Multiples Under 4.0 | 460,000 | 0.7% | |||
| Smaller Metropolitan Areas & Other | 1,239,000 | 1.1% | |||
| Note: Sacramento and Fresno in-migration is principally from coastal California (Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego) | |||||
| Source: Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data. | |||||
| Note: Median Multiple is a measure of housing affordability, calculated by dividing the median house price by the median household income. A higher median multiple means that there is inferior housing affordability. The median multiple shown is for the principal market in each metropolitan area. Data from the Second Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. | |||||
|