The Cities With the Largest Homes

American families tend to spend about a third of their annual income on housing. Yet, depending on their location and the level of the family’s income, home sizes can vary widely. Based on data from property listings website Realtor.com, the largest homes in the U.S. are located in the Provo-Orem, Utah metropolitan statistical area, with a median home containing nearly 2,000 square feet.

Areas with the largest median home sizes also had among the nation’s higher estimated median home prices. Homes in seven of the 10 urban areas had median prices of more than $200,000 as of November 2014. A typical home in Boulder, Colorado cost $380,000, the 14th highest estimated median home price among all large metro areas.

While it is not particularly surprising that larger homes cost more, in many spacious homes were also pricier by square foot. In seven of the 10 cities the median price per square foot of property was in the top half of all metro areas reviewed, at over $105.

Relatively high incomes are required to afford these larger homes. All of the areas with the largest homes had median household incomes well above the national figure of $52,250 in 2013. Residents of Boulder were particularly wealthy, with a median household income of more than $71,000 last year.

While large urban areas tend to be relatively densely populated, the areas with the largest homes are on the whole more sparsely populated. The population density was well below the average across all metro areas of 6,321 people per square mile in all of these areas. Raleigh, North Carolina had just over 1,850 residents per square mile, one of the lower densities nationwide. By contrast, the areas surrounding Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City all had well over 10,000 people per square mile.

To identify the cities with the largest houses, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed median home square footage in the 200 largest core-based statistical area (CBSA) from Realtor.com. CBSAs are larger than most other geographies organized by the Census Bureau, and they often include several metropolitan areas. Median household income and educational attainment rates came from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Figures on population density are from the 2010 Census. Metropolitan area names and boundaries may have changed slightly since the data was collected. Unemployment rates came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and are for October 2014.

These are the cities with the largest homes.

10. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
> Median square feet: 1,828
> Median estimated price: $150,000 (88th lowest)
> Median household income: $57,398 (62nd highest)
> Unemployment rate: 4.8%

The living space of a typical house in the Dallas-Fort Worth area was 1,828 square feet, the 10th largest median home size in the nation. Most metro areas with the most spacious homes are relatively sparsely populated — perhaps freeing space for larger construction projects. Less 4,000 people lived in a square mile in Dallas in 2010, among the lower population densities. By contrast, the average metro area had 6,321 people per square mile. High incomes also likely explain the area’s large homes. A typical area household earned $57,398 last year, versus the national median household income of $52,250. This figure was also third highest among the 25 metro areas in Texas.

9. Austin-Round Rock, Texas
> Median square feet: 1,837
> Median estimated price: $207,000 (57th highest)
> Median household income: $61,750 (32nd highest)
> Unemployment rate: 4.0%

As in several other areas in Texas, Austin area residents seem to prefer larger homes compared to most Americans. A typical house in the region contained 1,837 square feet of living space. The median price of $207,000, however, was on the high end. The area is home to some of the state’s wealthiest and most well-educated residents. A typical household brought in $61,750 last year, the second-highest figure in for a metro area the state. Also, 41.5% of adults had attained at least a bachelor’s degree as of last year, one of the highest rates nationwide and the highest rate in Texas. The unemployment rate was also well below the national unemployment rate, at just 4.0%.

8. Fort Collins, CO
> Median square feet: 1,851
> Median estimated price: $272,000 (29th highest)
> Median household income: $59,052 (50th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 3.0%

The large homes in Fort Collins reflect the area’s prosperity. Just 3.0% of the area’s workforce was unemployed in October, far below the national rate. Area residents were also well-educated, with 43.3% having attained at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013. The strong economy and well-educated populace helped raise incomes in the area, which in turn may have afforded residents the luxury of larger homes. A median home was quite spacious, with more than 1,850 square feet. Fort Collins’s was relatively sparsely populated, at just 2,712 residents per square mile in 2010. By comparison the average metro area had 6,321 people per square mile.

7. Greeley, CO
> Median square feet: 1,854
> Median estimated price: $224,000 (44th highest)
> Median household income: $58,611 (54th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 3.6%

Greeley had just 2,212 residents per square mile in 2010, one of the lower densities reviewed. Being a less crowded community may have helped encourage residents to build larger homes. Area homes were not only large, but also relatively expensive. The median home price in Greeley as of this past November was $224,000, among the higher values for a large metro area. Greeley’s home prices have increased at a faster rate than homes across the nation over the last five years. Residents were also relatively wealthy in 2013, with a household median income of $58,611.

6. Boulder, CO
> Median square feet: 1,865
> Median estimated price: $380,000 (14th highest)
> Median household income: $71,604 (9th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 2.9%

As in most areas with relatively large homes, Boulder residents are quite wealthy. A typical household earned $71,604 in 2013, among the highest figures nationwide, and the highest among metro areas in the state. Area residents were also exceptionally well-educated, with 58.5% of adults having attained at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013, nearly double the national figure and the highest rate in Colorado. The relatively expensive real estate in the area has not prevented younger Americans, who tend to have lower income, from moving to Boulder. Boulder had a higher than average proportion of 20-24 year-old residents, partly due to the presence of the University of Colorado Boulder.

5. Raleigh, N.C.
> Median square feet: 1,871
> Median estimated price: $207,000 (57th highest)
> Median household income: $61,710 (33rd highest)
> Unemployment rate: 4.5%

There were less than 1,900 people per square mile in Raleigh in 2010, one of the lower population densities reviewed. This could partly explain the prevalence of large homes. A typical house in the area had 1,871 square feet of living space. The median home price in Raleigh was also well above $200,000 in November, one of the higher figures nationwide. Area residents were wealthier than in any other North Carolina metro area, with a median household income of $61,710 last year. Raleigh also had an unemployment rate of just 4.5%.

4. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
> Median square feet: 1,872
> Median estimated price: $162,000 (98th highest)
> Median household income: $55,733 (79th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.0%

Larger homes are not only typically more expensive, but they also tend to cost more per square foot. In the Atlanta-Sandy area, however, the median estimated price per square foot was just $86, one of the lower figures in the nation. A typical home in its entirety cost $162,000 as of this November, among the lower figures on this list, but still on the high end compared to other U.S. metro areas. Like a majority of cities with large homes, the area had a relatively low population density. In 2010, there were 2,173 people per square mile, one of the less dense areas. By comparison, the average population density across the nation’s metro areas that year was 6,321 people per square mile.
,
3. Colorado Springs, CO
> Median square feet: 1,899
> Median estimated price: $213,000 (51st highest)
> Median household income: $57,484 (61st highest)
> Unemployment rate: 4.7%

Homes in Colorado Springs are both large and pricey. A typical home was worth $213,000 in November, one of the higher median home prices. Area households had a median income of $57,484, not particularly wealthy compared to people in other Colorado urban regions, but higher than the national figure of $52,250. Residents were also well-educated, with more than 35% of adults having attained at least a bachelor’s degree as of 2013. In addition, Colorado Springs had a relatively low poverty rate, at 10.8%. By contrast, the nation’s poverty rate was nearly 16%.

2. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas
> Median square feet: 1,900
> Median estimated price: $144,000 (78th lowest)
> Median household income: $57,366 (63rd highest)
> Unemployment rate: 4.7%

Unlike many other areas with larger-than-average homes, the housing market in the Houston area is relatively affordable. A typical square foot in the area had an estimated price of just $75, one of the lower figures nationwide. Put another way, a median-sized home with 1,900 square feet of living space, typically cost less than $145,000. Residents were financially well-off. A typical household earned $57,366 in 2013, among the highest figures statewide, and more than the national median household income of $52,250.

1. Provo-Orem, Utah
> Median square feet: 1,980
> Median estimated price: $226,000 (43rd highest)
> Median household income: $60,051 (44th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 3.2%

With a median livable area of nearly 2,000 square feet, Provo-Orem homes are the nation’s largest. They are also quite expensive, with a typical home valued at $226,000 last year, one of the higher figures reviewed. As in the rest of Utah, Provo-Orem’s unemployment rate has trended well below that of the nation. Just over 3% of the area’s workforce was unemployed in October. Households are also relatively well-off, with a median income of more than $60,000, one of the highest figures compared to the rest of the state and far above national median income.