AUSTIN, Texas — As cities across the country struggle with rising rents and worsening affordability, Austin is emerging as one of the clearest real-world examples of what happens when local governments allow substantially more housing to be built: prices begin to ease.
After years of steep rent increases driven by rapid population growth, Austin’s median rent fell more than 16% between 2021 and 2026, according to a new analysis highlighted by Pew and reported by Smart Cities Dive. During roughly the same period, the city added housing at a pace that far outstripped most of the nation.
Between 2015 and 2024, Austin expanded its housing stock by 120,000 units — a 30% increase. By comparison, overall U.S. housing growth during that span was 9%, according to the report. Median rent in Austin is now 4% lower than the national average.
The data arrive at a time when housing debates in California and elsewhere often center on whether more supply can actually lower costs. In Austin, multiple independent reports suggest the answer is yes — though not without limits or remaining affordability challenges.
“Austin’s success serves as an important example of how regulatory barriers to building more housing are often varied and interconnected,” Pew’s report stated. “No single solution can solve a housing shortage, but Austin has taken multiple steps that have helped to unlock large amounts of housing supply in its market and reverse rent growth.”
Austin’s story did not begin with falling rents. It began with a boom.
The metro area’s population surged 33% from 2010 to 2020, creating intense demand for housing. During the prior decade, rents in Austin skyrocketed by nearly 93% from 2010 to 2019, according to the report. Then the COVID-19 era brought another wave of migration, strong job growth and additional upward pressure on prices.
But instead of freezing growth, Austin gradually changed its housing rules.
The city created a vertical mixed-use zoning category in 2007 that allowed more homes on sites while reducing minimum parking requirements by 60%. That policy alone led to more than 17,600 new units built or in progress as of 2024, according to Pew.
In 2015, Austin also made it easier to build accessory dwelling units, often known as ADUs, granny flats or backyard homes. The city reduced minimum lot size mandates and cut parking requirements. Between 2015 and 2024, Austin permitted nearly 3,000 ADUs, dramatically exceeding prior rates.
Then, in 2023, Austin became the largest U.S. city to eliminate parking requirements for nearly every type of property citywide, another move intended to reduce construction barriers and costs.
The city also paired deregulation with direct affordability strategies, including density bonuses and hundreds of millions of dollars in municipal bonds used to acquire land for new housing construction.
The combined result was a surge in new apartments and more competition among landlords.
Texas Tribune reported that builders in the Austin region obtained permits for 957 apartments per 100,000 residents between 2021 and 2023, outpacing other major metropolitan regions. That construction wave sent tens of thousands of units onto the market.
“When you introduce that many new apartments, your rental rates drop due to competition,” said Cindi Reed, director of MRI ApartmentData. “Supply and demand.”
That pressure has been visible across the market, not only in luxury buildings.
Pew found rents dropped 7% in apartment buildings with 50 or more units from 2023 to 2024 — the largest decline recorded in any large metro area. Rents in older, non-luxury buildings with lower-income renters fell about 11%.
Apartment List data cited by FOX 7 Austin similarly found Austin posted the fastest rent decline among comparably sized cities, with a 5.9% drop over the past year and a total decline of 20% from its 2022 peak.
The politics behind those changes also shifted.
Texas Tribune reported that Austin voters elected more pro-housing City Council members as costs worsened and frustration mounted. Councilmember José “Chito” Vela said the city’s older assumptions about limiting construction had failed.
“We were working under the premise for a couple of decades here in Austin that if we did not allow new construction, that would help preserve neighborhoods and hold down costs,” Vela said. “That has just been objectively shown to be false, and that the contrary approach is true.”
That statement captures a central divide in housing politics nationally. Many communities have long believed restricting new development protects affordability or neighborhood character. Austin’s recent experience suggests those restrictions can instead intensify scarcity and push rents upward.
Still, Austin is not a utopia, and falling rents do not mean housing is suddenly affordable for everyone.
The typical asking rent in Austin was $1,645 as of December, according to Zillow data cited by Texas Tribune. That is below recent peaks but still above pre-pandemic levels. Overall rents remain about 17% higher than before the pandemic.
Nearly half of renters in the Austin-Round Rock region remain cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of income on rent and utilities. Nearly a quarter spend at least half their income on housing and utilities, placing them in the severely cost-burdened category.
“Affordability has a technical definition, and it’s paying 30% or less of your income toward rent,” said Ben Martin, research director for Texas Housers. “And for many people in Austin, that was not the case before the pandemic, and it’s not the case now.”
Homeownership also remains difficult. According to the report, home prices in Austin have hovered above $500,000, and a household may need to earn more than $140,000 to afford a median-priced home in the region.
Falling rents do not erase deeper affordability problems. Austin shows that adding housing can ease price pressure, but it does not eliminate the need for subsidized affordable homes, stronger wages, tenant protections and other public policy tools.
Still, the city’s experience challenges a common assumption in housing politics: shortages do not improve when little gets built. Austin pursued multiple reforms at once, including zoning changes, parking reductions, ADU legalization, public financing for affordable housing and large-scale construction.
The result of those policies was that, after a major increase in housing supply, rents moved down.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Davis and UC, like Austin a college town, also built a lot of housing and vacancy rates have gone up and rents have at least stabilized.
And Davis and UC Davis built housing and rents fell on average. But the local blog kept saying “crisis”. Can’t it at least not be a ‘crisis’ anymore?
“The metro area’s population surged 33% from 2010 to 2020, creating intense demand for housing.”
This is an “artificially-created” population growth rate, which is now apparently correcting itself. (Probably due to multiple factors, including restrictions on telecommuting – aka “return to work” policies.)
Prices on “for sale” housing have tanked by approximately 24% in Austin. (Again, due to multiple factors – including rising interest rates.)
https://lrgrealty.com/lrg-blog/austin-home-prices-drop-2026
A critical point to make: Austin Added “HOUSING”, not “Houses”. at one point they were adding more than 30,000 apartment units per year.
THAT is what drove prices down.
Contrast that to our city’s current plan of “lets build sprawling single family housing” – and you will see that this is not an example that is applicable HERE. We are NOT on track to replicate that kind of success.
Davis is short 17,000 housing units as a minimum for people who currently commute in. None of whom can afford a single family home here. Even if the current proposals pass, they wont solve the problem, we will STILL need additional multifamily housing, especially if we want an economy that can subsidize all the expensive single family neighborhoods that dont pay for themselves.
“THAT is what drove prices down.”
Seems more likely that the artificial growth rate (33% over ten years) has collapsed/reversed. Had that continued, there would still be a “housing shortage” in Austin – despite all of the new building.
People weren’t moving to Austin because of the weather. They moved there because it was viewed in the same way that Old West gold rush towns were viewed. (And we know what happened to most of them.)
Seems like the population of Bodie is a “little less” these days, despite a massive population increase in the entire country since then.
Detroit, New Orleans, and the entire rust belt is experiencing something similar (though the country itself is no longer growing as it once did).
By the way – if anyone seriously wants to compare Austin to Davis, I’d suggest starting with the following:
Population of Austin:
Geographical area: 305 square miles (Boundary stretching 15-20 miles north/south, varying miles east/west)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas
Population of Davis:
10 square miles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis,_California
Seems to me that if “Davis” was similar in geographical size as Austin, it would “include” Woodland inside of Davis’ boundaries – at the very least. A “city planner” from Austin (if there even was such a thing) would view those two cities as the same market. (Actually, they’d probably view the entire Sacramento region as the same market as Davis.
Ron O
As usual, you’re missing the point. Austin addressed its housing crisis with substantial excess demand by building more housing. And the result was a reduction in prices. Market mechanisms can work. Tim’s point also is important because this housing was aimed at the market segment that needed housing.
Austin has long been a popular location in Texas and Texas is one of the fastest growing states. You might not like the idea of living there (like now liking Davis so you moved to Woodland), but others choose otherwise. It’s so funny that you cite people moving out of California, and then discount the fact that they are moving to Texas. Where do you think Californians are moving to?
Austin CREATED its temporary housing crisis by pursuing a boom/bust cycle.
I’ll turn your observation around, though – why is it that some people want to make Davis like Austin (instead of just moving there, themselves)?
Again, Austin’s expansive boundaries could swallow-up both Davis AND Woodland – and everything in-between, if it was overlayed on a map.
In which case it would be called Davisland, I guess.
(Actually, Davis’ school district already essentially does this – except for the fact that they can’t extract parcel taxes from “North, North Davisland”.)
There is no comparison between Davis and Austin. One is 10 square miles, one is 305 square miles – with a population closing in on one million.)
By the way, do you suppose that Austin’s housing prices are the same “everywhere” within its own boundaries? Common sense already tells me that they’re not. But for sure, they’re crashing.)
The population of the U.S. itself is no longer significantly increasing. 1.6 kids, a reversal of immigration, etc.
If the preceding six comments are accurate regarding Davis, which they seem to be, then it seems that Whitcombe’s promise to build 700 units (2,200 beds) at Nishi would further alleviate the so-called housing “crisis” and reduce rents. Davis voters approved Nishi 2.0 in June, 2018, nearly 8 years ago, yet zero housing has been built on that site, which is within easy walking distance of campus. Village Farms shouldn’t even be considered until Nishi is built out.
If you wait until Nishi gets built you might be waiting a long time. Of course you reach this conclusion about building Nishi first without knowing why Nishi hasn’t been built.