 |
Property Makler
Advanced analytics for residential real estate investing | ||||||||
|
Dubai, UAE US |
Dubai US Market Research
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ housing market
Housing market indicators
| Indicator | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025* | Change | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | YTD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Listing Price per Square Feet | $265 | $272 | $274 | $270 | 2.7% | 2.6% | 0.7% | -1.5% | |
| Active Listing Count | 14,789 | 11,376 | 15,084 | 18,828 | 165.3% | -23.1% | 32.6% | 24.8% | |
| Median Days on Market | 69 | 53 | 66 | 58 | 91.7% | -23.2% | 24.5% | -12.1% | |
| Share of listings with price increase | 1.9% | 2.1% | 1.9% | 1.5% | |||||
| Share of listings with price decrease | 26.4% | 23.6% | 25.4% | 28.9% | |||||
| Employees, thousands | 2,395 | 2,458 | 2,486 | 2,447 | 3.7% | 2.6% | 1.1% | -1.6% | |
| Permits | 4,389 | 3,603 | 2,322 | 1,809 | -10.8% | -17.9% | -35.6% | -22.1% | |
* last available value
Home prices
Short term housing supply drivers
Long term housing demand drivers
Long term housing supply drivers
Note: 12M MA - 12 months moving average, Permits - New Private Housing Structures Authorized by Building Permits. Source: FRED
Housing market overview
Metro overview and included cities/towns
- Phoenix‑Mesa‑Chandler MSA includes all of Maricopa and Pinal counties.
- 2024–2025 population about 5.1–5.2 million, among the fastest‑growing large U.S. metros.
- Key large cities: Phoenix (core), Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, Peoria, Surprise, Goodyear, Buckeye, Avondale, Queen Creek, Casa Grande, Apache Junction, Fountain Hills, Paradise Valley.
- Major sub‑regions:
- Phoenix urban core and inner suburbs (Phoenix, Tempe, Glendale, older parts of Mesa).
- East Valley (Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, Queen Creek, Apache Junction, Fountain Hills).
- West Valley (Glendale, Peoria, Surprise, Goodyear, Avondale, Buckeye).
- High‑income enclaves (Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, parts of Chandler and Gilbert).
- Growth corridors and exurbs (Buckeye, Queen Creek, San Tan Valley, Casa Grande, northern Pinal County).
| Area | City/Town | Population (approx.) | Density | Income level | Quality of schools | Crime level | Property tax (%) | Personal income tax | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Phoenix | ≈1,670,000 | High urban, mixed | Medium | Highly variable (GreatSchools roughly 2–9) | Medium‑high, neighborhood specific | ≈0.6–1.3 (city + county, effective) | None (only AZ state tax) | Downtown and infill; strong job base; older housing stock mixed with new infill. |
| East Valley | Mesa | ≈520,000 | Suburban, moderate‑high | Medium | Mixed (≈3–8) | Medium | ≈0.7–1.2 | None | Large, diverse housing stock; significant redevelopment along light rail; more affordable than Scottsdale/Chandler. |
| East Valley | Chandler | ≈280,000 | Suburban, moderate | Medium‑high | Generally strong (≈6–10) | Low‑medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Tech and semiconductor hub; strong schools; newer master‑planned communities. |
| East Valley | Gilbert | ≈290,000 | Suburban, moderate | High | High performing (≈7–10) | Low | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Family‑oriented; very strong school perception; low crime; high single‑family homeownership. |
| Inner ring | Glendale | ≈260,000 | Suburban, moderate‑high | Medium | Mixed (≈3–7) | Medium‑high | ≈0.7–1.2 | None | Sports and entertainment hub; older housing plus new Westgate‑area growth. |
| High‑income | Scottsdale | ≈240,000 | Suburban/urban, moderate | High | Generally strong (≈6–10) | Low‑medium | ≈0.6–1.0 | None | Luxury housing, high amenities; strong tourism and healthcare; high price points. |
| Inner East Valley | Tempe | ≈180,000 | High (urban university city) | Medium | Mixed (≈4–9) | Medium | ≈0.7–1.2 | None | ASU campus; strong rental market; dense infill, transit‑oriented development. |
| West Valley | Peoria | ≈190,000 | Suburban, moderate | Medium‑high | Generally good (≈6–9) | Low‑medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Attractive suburban stock; Lake Pleasant‑area higher‑end neighborhoods. |
| West Valley | Surprise | ≈145,000 | Suburban, lower‑medium | Medium | Mixed but improving (≈4–8) | Low‑medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Fast‑growing, relatively affordable; strong new construction and age‑restricted communities. |
| West Valley | Goodyear | ≈100,000 | Suburban, low‑medium | Medium‑high | Generally good (≈5–9) | Low‑medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Master‑planned growth; proximity to logistics and manufacturing corridors. |
| West Valley | Buckeye | ≈95,000 | Low‑medium (exurban) | Medium | Developing (≈3–7) | Low‑medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | One of the nation’s fastest‑growing cities; large tracts for new subdivisions. |
| West Valley | Avondale | ≈90,000 | Suburban, moderate | Medium | Mixed (≈3–7) | Medium | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Close to logistics, I‑10 corridor; mid‑priced family neighborhoods. |
| East Valley / exurban | Queen Creek | ≈80,000 | Low‑medium | Medium‑high | Generally strong (≈6–9) | Low | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Rapidly growing suburban/exurban families; large new‑build communities. |
| Pinal County | Casa Grande | ≈55,000 | Low‑medium | Low‑medium | Mixed (≈3–7) | Medium | ≈0.7–1.3 | None | Strategic between Phoenix and Tucson; industrial and logistics growth; more affordable housing. |
| Outer East Valley | Apache Junction | ≈38,000 | Low | Low‑medium | Mixed (≈3–7) | Medium | ≈0.7–1.3 | None | More rural feel; older and manufactured housing; affordability draw. |
| East Valley | Fountain Hills | ≈24,000 | Low‑medium (hilly) | Medium‑high | Generally good (≈6–9) | Low | ≈0.7–1.1 | None | Scenic, older‑upscale; strong second‑home and retiree presence. |
| High‑income enclave | Paradise Valley | ≈13,000 | Low (large lots) | Very high | High (served by top‑tier neighboring districts and charters) | Very low | ≈0.6–1.0 | None | Luxury custom homes; highest price tier in metro; limited inventory. |
To view all table columns, please open this table on a laptop or desktop screen.
Citizens: income and education
- Metro median household income roughly in the mid‑$70,000s, with wide intra‑metro spread.
- Higher incomes: Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, parts of Chandler, Gilbert, North Phoenix, some West Valley master‑planned areas.
- Moderate incomes: Mesa, Peoria, Goodyear, Surprise, Queen Creek, much of Phoenix and Glendale.
- Lower incomes: older central and south Phoenix, parts of Glendale, Avondale, Apache Junction, segments of Pinal County.
- Education attainment:
- Share of adults with bachelor’s degree or higher in metro: roughly one‑third, trending upward.
- Very high BA+ shares in Scottsdale, Tempe (ASU influence), central employment corridors, parts of Chandler and Gilbert.
- Lower BA+ and higher high‑school‑only shares in older blue‑collar suburbs and exurban Pinal/West Valley zones.
- Occupational mix: white‑collar (tech, professional, healthcare, finance) growing relative to traditional construction and low‑wage service, though those remain significant.
Key economic sectors
- Semiconductors and advanced manufacturing
- Large fabs and suppliers in Chandler, north Phoenix and the broader East Valley.
- High‑wage jobs, driving executive and engineer housing demand in Chandler, Gilbert, Queen Creek, North Phoenix, Scottsdale.
- Technology and business services
- Growing cluster of software, fintech, and corporate back‑office operations in Tempe, Scottsdale, Phoenix, Chandler.
- Supports demand for urban rentals and higher‑end suburban homes.
- Healthcare and biomedical
- Expanding hospital systems, research centers, and medical office corridors across the metro.
- Stabilizes employment in both core and suburban nodes.
- Logistics, distribution, and e‑commerce
- Concentrated along I‑10 and Loop 303/202 in West Valley (Goodyear, Buckeye, Avondale, Glendale) and in Casa Grande/Pinal County.
- Supports working‑ and middle‑class housing demand, especially in newer subdivisions.
- Construction and real estate
- Major employer due to rapid population growth and greenfield availability.
- Highly cyclical, tied to interest rates and in‑migration trends.
- Tourism, hospitality, and retail
- Strong in Scottsdale, Phoenix resorts, spring training corridor, and Old Town / downtown entertainment districts.
- Drives STR/second‑home markets in Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Fountain Hills, central Phoenix.
Housing buying market – supply drivers
- Zoning and land availability
- Metro has abundant greenfield land, especially in Buckeye, Queen Creek/San Tan, Casa Grande, northern Pinal, and far North/West Phoenix.
- Generally pro‑growth zoning for single‑family subdivisions in exurban and many suburban jurisdictions.
- Core infill (central Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale) faces more community resistance to height/density, slowing multifamily approvals in some areas.
- Regulatory strictness
- Relative to coastal states, local entitlement processes are moderately light, with shorter timelines and lower fees.
- HOA‑driven design and use restrictions common in master‑planned communities, affecting form factor but not regional supply volumes.
- Short‑term rental regulations tightening in some cities (particularly Scottsdale and parts of Phoenix) but still comparatively permissive.
- Infrastructure and utilities
- Extensive freeway network (Loop 101, 202, 303; I‑10; I‑17; US‑60) enables outward growth.
- Water constraints increasingly important:
- Assured water supply requirements in new subdivisions create friction, especially in Pinal County and some West Valley areas reliant on groundwater.
- Some large projects delayed or re‑scaled due to groundwater modeling and Colorado River uncertainty.
- Construction workforce and costs
- Large, experienced construction workforce due to long‑term growth; still, labor tightness exists in booms.
- Construction costs materially below coastal metros but have risen markedly over the last few years (materials, labor, regulatory compliance).
- Production builders dominate fringe subdivisions, enabling economies of scale and relatively lower price points.
- Product mix
- High share of single‑family detached homes; townhomes and build‑to‑rent (BTR) communities rapidly expanding.
- Mid‑rise multifamily concentrated in Phoenix/Tempe/Scottsdale corridors and select suburban town centers.
Housing buying market – demand drivers
- In‑migration
- Consistent net in‑migration, especially from higher‑cost states (California, Pacific Northwest, Midwest).
- Retirees attracted by climate and cost; working‑age households drawn by job growth and relatively attainable home prices.
- Population growth profile
- Growth rate higher than U.S. average, with strong 20‑ to 40‑year‑old cohort and substantial family formation.
- Supports demand for both entry‑level and move‑up single‑family housing.
- Expanding industries
- Semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, and tech/business services are high‑wage growth drivers.
- Logistics and e‑commerce remain structurally strong, sustaining working‑class demand despite cyclicality.
- Healthcare expansion adds stable, relatively recession‑resistant demand.
- Interest rates and affordability
- Higher mortgage rates have cooled investor and marginal owner‑occupier demand but have not fully offset population‑driven pressure.
- Relative affordability vs. coastal metros still draws buyers, though local affordability has eroded as prices outpaced incomes in the past cycle.
- Investor and institutional activity
- Significant institutional SFR and BTR investment in outer suburbs, targeting families priced out of ownership.
- Condensed investor competition in certain ZIP codes has raised entry‑level home prices and rents.
Key challenges in the housing market
- Affordability pressures
- Rapid post‑pandemic appreciation pushed median prices beyond what many local incomes support.
- Entry‑level buyers struggle with down payments, debt‑to‑income ratios, and limited lower‑priced inventory.
- Water and long‑term sustainability
- Colorado River shortages and groundwater regulations introduce uncertainty for long‑horizon greenfield development.
- Investors weigh water policy risk more heavily in Pinal County and some exurban West Valley tracts.
- Volatility and cyclicality
- Market historically responds strongly to national rate cycles and migration waves, leading to boom‑bust patterns in construction volumes and prices.
- Outlying suburbs and investor‑heavy submarkets are most exposed in downturns.
- Infrastructure lag in high‑growth corridors
- Roads, schools, and public safety sometimes trail housing construction in Buckeye, Queen Creek/San Tan, parts of Pinal County.
- Creates quality‑of‑life friction that can dampen future absorption or prompt policy tightening.
- Economic concentration risk
- Heavy reliance on cyclical sectors such as construction, tourism, and logistics exposes the region to national slowdowns.
- Semiconductor build‑outs are capital‑intensive and subject to global demand and policy shifts.
- Spatial inequality
- Gap between affluent enclaves (Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, some East Valley suburbs) and lower‑income central/south/west neighborhoods.
- School quality and crime perceptions amplify price differentials and constrain mobility.
Investment potential by geographic area/region
| Area | Appreciation potential | Risk | Key drivers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central & North Phoenix (infill corridors) | Medium‑high | Medium | Transit and job proximity; older stock suitable for value‑add; gentrification in select neighborhoods; some elevated crime and school variation. |
| Downtown & Tempe–ASU urban cores | High (multifamily and mixed‑use) | Medium‑high | University demand, nightlife and job centers; strong rental fundamentals; sensitive to supply cycles, student demand shifts, and zoning politics. |
| Chandler & Gilbert (established suburbs) | High | Medium | High incomes, strong schools, semiconductor and tech employment; limited remaining land; resilient owner‑occupier demand but high absolute price points. |
| Scottsdale (especially South & Central) | Medium‑high | Medium‑high | Luxury and tourism magnet; strong STR and second‑home market; cyclical exposure to high‑end discretionary demand and regulatory shifts on STRs. |
| Paradise Valley | Medium | Low‑medium | Ultra‑luxury, very limited supply; long‑term capital preservation; thinner buyer pool and higher sensitivity to macro wealth cycles. |
| Mesa (redeveloping corridors + East Mesa) | Medium‑high | Medium | Light‑rail and downtown reinvestment; relatively affordable compared with peers; diverse product; some older areas with higher capex needs and softer schools. |
| Peoria, Surprise (established West Valley suburbs) | Medium‑high | Medium | Growing middle‑class base, improving amenities, proximity to employment; strong SFR appeal; auto‑dependent and somewhat subdivision‑commodity risk. |
| Goodyear, Avondale (I‑10 corridor) | Medium‑high | Medium‑high | Logistics and industrial growth; robust new‑build pipeline; potential over‑supply pockets and exposure to industrial cycle. |
| Buckeye (far West Valley) | High (long‑term) | High | One of the fastest‑growing U.S. cities; vast entitled land; upside from infrastructure build‑out; high cyclicality, car‑dependence, and water‑policy scrutiny. |
| Queen Creek & San Tan / Southeast exurbs | High | Medium‑high | Strong family in‑migration, new schools and retail; relative affordability vs. inner East Valley; commute and infrastructure constraints and water concerns in some tracts. |
| Casa Grande and Pinal growth corridor | Medium‑high (select submarkets) | High | Industrial/logistics projects and potential manufacturing expansions; cheaper land and homes; significant water, infrastructure, and volatility risk. |
| Apache Junction and fringe rural areas | Medium | Medium‑high | Affordability and manufactured housing; appeal to retirees and value‑seekers; limited job base and amenity set; higher sensitivity to fuel costs and cycles. |
| Older central/south/west Phoenix neighborhoods | Medium‑high (for targeted value‑add) | High | Lower entry prices, strong rental demand; potential for gentrification and ADU/infill plays; elevated crime, school challenges, and political/regulatory uncertainty. |
| Core multifamily (Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale) | Medium | Medium‑high | Significant recent supply deliveries; strong long‑term renter pool; near‑term rent growth capped by concessions in oversupplied nodes. |
To view all table columns, please open this table on a laptop or desktop screen.
Property Makler © 2026 Contacts T&C About