Household income, home values, and the uneven financial weight of major home repairs across 147 U.S. markets.
This brief presents a cross-sectional analysis of the financial burden that a standardized major home repair places on households across 147 U.S. cities and suburbs. Burden is measured as a standardized remodeling project cost relative to either household income or home value — not as a measure of homeowner cash flow, credit access, or actual repair behavior.
The central finding is that household income is the dominant correlate of remodeling cost burden across the sample (Pearson r = −0.827, income vs. roof cost-to-income, n = 147). The income-burden ratio ranges from 9.56% in Frisco, TX to 37.76% in Detroit, MI — a 3.95× spread driven almost entirely by income variation. Project costs are relatively uniform across markets (interquartile range $14,065–$16,095 for a mid-tier roof replacement), so income is the effective variable.
The Zillow typical home value (ZHVI) provides a distinct and partially independent burden signal (r = −0.682, ZHVI vs. roof cost-to-home-value). The income-based and home-value-based measures are correlated with each other (r = +0.747) but not interchangeable: some markets that appear heavily burdened on an income basis carry comparatively low home-value burden, and vice versa.
Five-year home price appreciation (2019–2024, FHFA All-Transactions HPI) is not a strong cross-sectional predictor of current remodeling cost burden (r = +0.071, HPA5 vs. income burden; r = −0.143, HPA5 vs. home-value burden). Markets with similar appreciation trajectories span nearly the full distribution of burden levels. This does not establish that appreciation has no effect on remodeling economics — it shows that cross-sectional appreciation levels alone are not a reliable proxy for current burden.
Finally, within-metropolitan variation in income burden can be as large as cross-regional variation. Within the Dallas MSA, Frisco (9.56%) and Dallas proper (19.94%) differ by 10.4 percentage points despite sharing the same FHFA appreciation series and nearly identical project costs. Metro-level averages conceal variation of this magnitude.
Research question: What factors are most strongly associated with differences in the financial burden of major home repairs across U.S. housing markets? Three explanatory variables are examined — household income, home value, and recent home price appreciation — against two burden measures analyzed in parallel: cost-to-income and cost-to-home-value. The analysis is cross-sectional and observational; it describes associations, not causal mechanisms.
147 U.S. cities and suburbs drawn from the NumeralQ active market footprint. The sample is not a probability sample of U.S. housing markets, and no claim of national representativeness is made.
Two standardized projects: Roof replacement — 2,000 sq ft asphalt-shingle residential reroof, base mid-tier $14,500. HVAC replacement — mid-tier gas furnace + central A/C split-system, existing ductwork, base mid-tier $11,000. Localized cost = base × market multiplier. All analysis uses mid-tier costs.
Limitation: model outputs, not observed transaction prices. Actual costs vary by scope, materials, contractor, and permit requirements.
Median household income, Census place geography, reference period 2020–2024. Four markets carry margins of error exceeding 10%: Virginia Beach, VA (24.9%), West Palm Beach, FL (18.2%), Aurora, IL (13.2%), Naperville, IL (11.8%).
Limitation: household income is not disposable income; it excludes taxes, debt service, and other obligations.
ZHVI, All Homes, middle tier (33rd–67th percentile), smoothed, seasonally adjusted. This is Zillow’s “typical home value,” not the median. The Woodlands, TX (CDP) is absent from Zillow’s city-level file; Houston metro series substituted ($308,933).
Limitation: an asset-value estimate, not liquid financial capacity or accessible home equity.
5-year appreciation = (Index Q4 2024 − Index Q4 2019) ÷ Index Q4 2019 × 100. FHFA All-Transactions HPI, MSA/Metropolitan Division level; 147 markets map to 125 unique FHFA series.
Limitation: window includes pandemic-era dynamics and is not a current-market indicator.
| Variable | Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roof mid cost ($) | $15,316 | $14,790 | $1,946 | $12,470 | $23,200 |
| Household income ($) | $75,623 | $70,518 | $22,895 | $39,938 | $165,576 |
| Zillow typical home value ($) | $414,161 | $367,620 | $243,103 | $77,245 | $1,538,073 |
| FHFA HPA5 (%) | 55.0% | 54.9% | 13.0% | 14.3% | 88.5% |
| Roof cost-to-income (%) | 21.69% | 21.00% | 5.79% | 9.56% | 37.76% |
| Roof cost-to-home-value (%) | 4.67% | 4.14% | 2.45% | 1.22% | 19.52% |
Income varies roughly 2.4× more than project costs (coefficient of variation 30.3% vs. 12.7%) — the primary reason income dominates the burden distribution.
Household income is the strongest observed correlate of remodeling income burden across the 147-market sample (r = −0.827). The relationship is partially mechanical — income is the denominator — but the empirical strength confirms income as the first-order predictor. The income-burden spread (9.56% to 37.76%) is driven almost entirely by income variation, not cost variation.
The bottom of the distribution is occupied by high-income suburbs: Frisco, TX (9.56%), The Woodlands, TX (10.10%), Cary, NC (10.21%), Sugar Land, TX (10.43%), Bellevue, WA (11.03%). The top is occupied by low-income legacy cities: Detroit, MI (37.76%), Trenton, NJ (36.43%), Cleveland, OH (36.25%), Hartford, CT (36.24%), Newark, NJ (36.21%). All highest-burden markets carry incomes below $53,000; none have unusually elevated project costs.
Figure 1. Household income vs. roof cost-to-income burden, all 147 markets (r = −0.827). Burden falls steeply as income rises and flattens above roughly $120,000.
The Zillow typical home value is strongly and negatively correlated with the cost-to-home-value burden measure (r = −0.682): markets with higher home values show lower cost burden relative to home value, because project costs grow far more slowly than home values across the sample.
The income-based and home-value-based measures are correlated but not interchangeable (r between ZHVI and household income = +0.747, but they diverge materially in individual markets). Detroit leads both distributions — highest income burden (37.76%) and highest home-value burden (19.52%) — because both its income and home value are depressed. Miami carries high income burden (28.09%) but comparatively moderate home-value burden because its ZHVI ($582,620) is high relative to its household income ($62,462).
Figure 2. Zillow typical home value vs. roof cost-to-home-value burden, all 147 markets (r = −0.682). High-ZHVI coastal markets sit at the low-burden extreme on this measure even where income burden is elevated.
Five-year home price appreciation (FHFA All-Transactions HPI, Q4 2019–Q4 2024) shows near-zero correlation with income-based burden (r = +0.071) and a weak negative correlation with home-value burden (r = −0.143). Markets with similar appreciation levels span nearly the full range of burden outcomes — Frisco (54.9% HPA5, 9.56% burden) and Detroit (50.8% HPA5, 37.76% burden) sit at opposite ends of the burden distribution despite comparable appreciation.
This finding should not be read as showing that appreciation has no economic relevance to remodeling. Appreciation affects accessible home equity, refinancing capacity, and willingness to invest in repairs — channels not captured in this cross-sectional cost-burden measure. The finding applies specifically to the cross-sectional association between cumulative 2019–2024 appreciation and current income-burden ratios across this 147-market sample.
Figure 3. FHFA 5-year appreciation vs. roof cost-to-income burden, all 147 markets (r = +0.071). The near-flat trend line is the finding: appreciation level does not reliably predict current burden.
Metro-level burden averages obscure material within-metro income heterogeneity. The Dallas–Fort Worth complex illustrates this most sharply: Dallas proper (income $70,518, burden 19.94%) and Frisco (income $150,212, burden 9.56%) share the same FHFA appreciation series and nearly identical project costs. Their burden difference — 10.39 percentage points — is driven entirely by income.
The same pattern holds in the Houston complex: Houston proper (21.70% burden) vs. The Woodlands (10.10% burden) — an 11.60 pp gap within the same metro, sharing the same FHFA series. These within-metro gaps are comparable in size to the difference between entire regional groups (e.g., Rust Belt average burden ~33% vs. national mean ~22%).
| Market | Income | Roof/Income | HPA5 | FHFA Series |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas, TX | $70,518 | 19.94% | 54.9% | MSAD 19124 |
| Frisco, TX | $150,212 | 9.56% | 54.9% | MSAD 19124 (same) |
| Gap | $79,694 | 10.39 pp | — | — |
| Houston, TX | $64,813 | 21.70% | 43.6% | MSA 26420 |
| The Woodlands, TX | $140,701 | 10.10% | 43.6% | MSA 26420 (same) |
| Gap | $75,888 | 11.60 pp | — | — |
Six markets within the Dallas and Houston metro complexes, ranked by income burden. Cary, NC is a comparable high-income suburb shown separately below for context — it is not part of this Texas grouping or its group mean.
| Market | Income | Roof/Income | Zillow Typical HV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frisco, TX | $150,212 | 9.56% | $656,145 |
| The Woodlands, TX | $140,701 | 10.10% | $308,933 (metro fallback) |
| Sugar Land, TX | $136,217 | 10.43% | $452,251 |
| Plano, TX | $112,253 | 12.79% | $504,391 |
| Round Rock, TX | $99,287 | 14.17% | $407,038 |
| McKinney, TX | $72,537 | 19.79% | $482,599 |
| Group mean (n = 6) | $118,535 | 12.81% | — |
| Cary, NC (shown for comparison, not part of group) | $134,905 | 10.21% | $631,158 |
This grouping was assembled from the observed results rather than a pre-specified sampling method; it is supporting descriptive material, not a headline finding.
Full sample: 147 markets. National mean = 21.7%. Spread = 9.56%–37.76%.
| Rank | Market | State | Roof/Inc % | Income | Roof Cost | HPA5 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Frisco | TX | 9.56% | $150,212 | $14,355 | 54.9% |
| 2 | The Woodlands | TX | 10.10% | $140,701 | $14,210 | 43.6% |
| 3 | Cary | NC | 10.21% | $134,905 | $13,775 | 64.4% |
| 4 | Sugar Land | TX | 10.43% | $136,217 | $14,210 | 43.6% |
| 5 | Bellevue | WA | 11.03% | $165,576 | $18,270 | 41.9% |
| 6 | Gilbert | AZ | 11.71% | $122,551 | $14,355 | 67.7% |
| 7 | Overland Park | KS | 11.96% | $114,009 | $13,630 | 56.0% |
| 8 | Rockville | MD | 12.74% | $128,649 | $16,385 | 40.2% |
| 9 | Plano | TX | 12.79% | $112,253 | $14,355 | 54.9% |
| 10 | San Jose | CA | 12.97% | $146,427 | $18,995 | 34.6% |
| 11 | Scottsdale | AZ | 13.08% | $110,886 | $14,500 | 67.7% |
| 12 | Chandler | AZ | 13.28% | $108,095 | $14,355 | 67.7% |
| 13 | San Francisco | CA | 13.89% | $140,970 | $19,575 | 14.3% |
| 14 | Round Rock | TX | 14.17% | $99,287 | $14,065 | 44.8% |
| 15 | Virginia Beach * | VA | 14.48% | $103,125 | $14,935 | 53.0% |
| 16 | Seattle | WA | 14.52% | $123,860 | $17,980 | 41.9% |
| 17 | Charleston | SC | 14.91% | $92,414 | $13,775 | 76.6% |
| 18 | Austin | TX | 15.17% | $93,658 | $14,210 | 44.8% |
| 19 | Irvine | CA | 15.47% | $120,919 | $18,705 | 53.7% |
| 20 | Chesapeake | VA | 15.66% | $95,373 | $14,935 | 53.0% |
| Rank | Market | State | Roof/Inc % | Income | Roof Cost | HPA5 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 147 | Detroit | MI | 37.76% | $39,938 | $15,080 | 50.8% |
| 146 | Trenton | NJ | 36.43% | $52,537 | $19,140 | 68.3% |
| 145 | Cleveland | OH | 36.25% | $40,801 | $14,790 | 56.2% |
| 144 | Hartford | CT | 36.24% | $46,411 | $16,820 | 61.7% |
| 143 | Newark | NJ | 36.21% | $52,060 | $18,850 | 58.0% |
| 142 | Rochester | NY | 35.63% | $47,213 | $16,820 | 69.9% |
| 141 | Springfield | MA | 34.97% | $52,656 | $18,415 | 58.0% |
| 140 | Erie | PA | 34.59% | $46,113 | $15,950 | 57.5% |
| 139 | Buffalo | NY | 32.74% | $50,041 | $16,385 | 61.0% |
| 138 | Dayton | OH | 32.37% | $45,247 | $14,645 | 57.2% |
| 137 | West Palm Beach * | FL | 31.88% | $53,668 | $17,110 | 77.8% |
| 136 | Akron | OH | 30.46% | $48,076 | $14,645 | 55.2% |
| 135 | Jackson | MS | 29.64% | $42,071 | $12,470 | 37.7% |
| 134 | Allentown | PA | 29.00% | $55,494 | $16,095 | 63.1% |
| 133 | Birmingham | AL | 28.65% | $46,051 | $13,195 | 49.9% |
| 132 | Miami | FL | 28.09% | $62,462 | $17,545 | 88.5% |
| 131 | Cincinnati | OH | 27.95% | $52,909 | $14,790 | 60.5% |
| 130 | New York City | NY | 27.93% | $80,483 | $22,475 | 43.3% |
| 129 | Aurora | IL | 27.86% | $64,528 | $17,980 | 52.6% |
| 128 | Albany | NY | 27.60% | $61,986 | $17,110 | 54.1% |
* Income estimate carries margin of error >10% (see Limitations). Ranking position for this market should be interpreted with additional caution.
This brief is a research communication prepared by NumeralQ Research. It is not investment advice, a commercial appraisal, or a regulatory filing. Analysis reflects data available as of August 2026.