• A renter household in an urban area earning the median U.S. household income should expect to pay 36.8 percent of their income on rent each month. In the suburbs, that falls to 31.8 percent; and in rural areas to 23.9 percent.
• A home buyer looking to purchase the median-valued home in an urban area should expect to pay 26.5 percent of their income on a mortgage payment each month. In the suburbs and rural areas, that falls to 20.2 percent and 13.4 percent, respectively.

The nation’s worsening housing affordability challenge is, perhaps not surprisingly, largely centered in the country’s urban centers, where housing costs are high and incomes are more disparate. But those seeking respite in the nation’s stalwart, sprawling suburbs may be surprised to find little relief there, either.

Instead, it’s the country’s rural heartland that tends to offer the best housing bargains.

Experts typically advise spending no more than 30 percent of one’s income on housing costs. But nationwide, a renter household in an urban area earning the median U.S. household income should expect to pay more than that – 36.8 percent of their income on rent each month. In the suburbs, that falls to 31.8 percent; and in rural areas to 23.9 percent, according to a Zillow analysis of incomes and housing costs.

For potential home buyers, the picture is similar, though less severe – thanks in large part to still-low mortgage rates that keep monthly costs down and allow for payments to be spread across three decades. A home buyer looking to purchase[1] the median-valued home in an urban area should expect to pay 26.5 percent of their income on a mortgage payment each month. In the suburbs and rural areas, that falls to 20.2 percent and 13.4 percent, respectively.

But while urban areas are often not the most affordable option for those looking for housing, it’s the suburbs that more often stretch home seekers the thinnest in the country’s largest markets. In 22 of the country’s 35 largest metros, renters will spend the largest share of their incomes to live in the suburbs; the same is true for home buyers in 17 of those 35 markets. Sometimes it’s a substantially larger share. In three California markets—Riverside, San Jose and Los Angeles—the typical suburban rental home will require households to spend between 1.4 and 1.7 times as much on rent and 2.1 to 2.5 times as much on a mortgage as living in the less densely populated parts of the metro.

Home buyers in 10 of the 35 largest markets and renters in 9 of the largest 35 markets can expect to spend the largest share of their income on housing costs by moving to the city center. The most spendy markets for buying a home in urban areas are Seattle and New York—where home buyers can expect to spend 40 percent of their income on a mortgage. For those in search of affordability, rural areas in 17 of the 35 largest markets represent the most affordable options for both renters and buyers.

Of course, there are some exceptions—in select markets across the country, people are willing to pay a premium to live even farther outside the urban core. This is reflected in higher rural home values and rents in these areas, and makes these less densely populated areas the least affordable option in four major metros. For example, in San Francisco, the typical household can expect to spend upwards of 40 percent of income on housing costs to live in the more spacious rural areas—43.8 percent on rent and 50.9 percent on a mortgage. This is substantially higher than the share of income that a Bay Area home seeker might expect to spend in the urban core or suburbs. Similarly, housing costs are quite a bit higher in rural parts of Baltimore, Cleveland and San Antonio relative to other locales, making them the least affordable areas. Fortunately, however, housing costs haven’t outpaced incomes in these areas to the same extent as in San Francisco, so even in these rural areas the typical renter or buyer can expect to spend a third or less of their income on rent or a mortgage.

At the end of the day, choosing where to live is a highly personal choice, dependent on not only finances but also what works best for various lifestyles – homes in urban areas tend to be smaller but located closer to desirable amenities; suburban and rural homes may be larger, but farther from work or play. But for those in search of affordability as well as some peace and quiet, moving a little farther from the downtown core could translate into large savings, as long as a (likely) longer commute isn’t a deal-breaker.

[1] Assuming the buyer puts 20 percent down and a obtains a conforming, 30-year mortgage at prevailing rates