Urban new-construction homes are both scarce and significantly more expensive than existing properties, even as builders lean heavily into suburban development and manage prices to meet weaker demand, according to a Q1 2026 report from Realtor.com and the National Association of Realtors.

The median listing price for new-construction homes came in at $449,373 in Q1 2026, essentially flat with a year earlier. Existing-home prices fell 0.9% year over year to $390,550, widening the national new-construction premium to 15.1%, up from 14% a year ago.

New homes now account for 19.3% of for-sale listings, nearly unchanged from 19.4% in early 2025, even as the existing-home market shows rising price pressure and slower inventory growth.

Builders cut prices more often than resales

For the second straight quarter, new homes on the market recorded a higher rate of price reductions than existing homes, the report said. That pattern, paired with flat overall new-home pricing, suggests builders are listing high and using cuts to find the market rather than allowing inventory to stagnate.

Time on market for new construction has held steady, though at a higher level than existing homes. Existing-home market pace continues to slow.

On a price-per-square-foot basis, the market has “normalized” after an unusual stretch in 2025 when existing homes were more expensive than new builds on that metric. In Q1, new homes commanded $217 per square foot, edging out existing homes at $216. The shift is driven largely by a $5-per-square-foot year-over-year drop in existing-home values, compared with a $1 decline for new construction.

For builders and lenders, that stability in the new-home segment stands in contrast with volatility in the resale market, even as construction firms face higher labor and materials costs and a buyer pool squeezed by mortgage rates and affordability constraints.

Nearly 80% of new builds are suburban

Realtor.com’s analysis of listings by “urbanicity” shows new construction is overwhelmingly a suburban story. Nearly 80% of new homes for sale are in suburban ZIP codes, compared with just over 55% of existing homes. Only 10.9% of new builds are in urban ZIP codes, versus 29.7% of existing homes.

By category, the distribution of properties for sale breaks down as follows:

• New construction: 1.2% rural, 79.8% suburban, 8% town, 10.9% urban
• Existing homes: 3.9% rural, 55.7% suburban, 10.7% town, 29.7% urban

The suburban tilt reflects the reality that large-scale new communities typically rise on the outskirts of metro areas, where land is more available and cheaper. Infill development on individual lots in dense urban cores remains far more difficult to deliver at scale.

Where urban new construction dominates, premiums soar

Nationally, urban new builds carry the steepest premium. The median listing price for new-construction homes in urban ZIP codes was $738,662 in Q1, compared with $414,000 for existing urban homes – a 78.4% premium.

By comparison, the new-construction premium in suburban ZIP codes is just 7%, with median prices of $427,900 for new homes and $399,900 for existing homes. Rural and town categories also show significantly smaller gaps:

• Rural: new $459,000 vs. existing $299,000
• Town: new $389,000 vs. existing $309,000

Seven metros stand out where a majority of new listings are in urban ZIP codes. These are large, dense markets with significant condo stock and limited greenfield land:

• New York–Newark–Jersey City: 69.6% of new-construction listings are urban; 106.8% new-construction premium
• Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach: 69.5% urban; 305.2% premium
• San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont: 68.9% urban; 30.1% premium
• Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim: 68.8% urban; 42.4% premium
• New Orleans–Metairie: 62.4% urban; 24.9% premium
• Urban Honolulu: 53.8% urban; 29.2% premium
• San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad: 53.4% urban; 23.5% premium

In all of these metros except San Francisco, resale inventory is even more urban than the new-construction stock, underscoring that overall housing there is heavily city-centered. In San Francisco, however, the report notes that urban infill activity makes the new-home stock more urban than resales.

Where new homes are cheaper than resales

At the other end of the spectrum, 9 of the 10 metros with the lowest new-construction premium – including six where new homes are actually less expensive than existing homes – have an urban share of new-construction listings below 10%.

Those markets include:

• Cape Coral–Fort Myers, Florida: 2.9% urban new construction; -13.5% new-construction premium
• North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota, Florida: 12.2% urban; -7.7% premium
• Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos, Texas: 8.6% urban; -6% premium
• Pensacola–Ferry Pass–Brent, Florida: 7% urban; -5.7% premium
• Boise City, Idaho: 3% urban; -4.8% premium
• Greenville–Anderson–Greer, South Carolina: 9.2% urban; -0.5% premium
• Deltona–Daytona Beach–Ormond Beach, Florida: 4.8% urban; 2.6% premium
• Raleigh–Cary, North Carolina: 7.6% urban; 2.9% premium
• Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, Arizona: 9.5% urban; 4% premium
• Jacksonville, Florida: 7.7% urban; 4.1% premium

In each of these metros, resale inventory is substantially more urban than the new-home stock, helping pull down the apparent new-construction premium. For example, in Austin, 29.6% of existing listings are in urban ZIP codes, more than triple the urban share of new construction.

That means that for buyers comparing new and existing options in these markets, the location trade-off is critical: new homes might be cheaper on paper, but they are more likely to be in exurban or peripheral suburban areas compared with the existing stock.

Urban premiums reach several hundred percent in some metros

The disparity between urban new homes and urban resales is most extreme in certain coastal and Sun Belt metros, where urban new builds can list for several times the price of existing urban homes.

The 10 metros with the highest urban new-construction premium include:

• Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach: $2,578,695 urban new vs. $459,000 existing, a 461.8% premium
• North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota: $1,639,990 vs. $408,000, a 302% premium
• Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater: $1,182,600 vs. $390,000, a 203.2% premium
• St. Louis: $575,000 vs. $189,950, a 202.7% premium
• Detroit–Warren–Dearborn: $511,180 vs. $185,000, a 176.3% premium
• Chicago–Naperville–Elgin: $889,000 vs. $329,900, a 169.5% premium
• Cincinnati: $699,950 vs. $260,000, a 169.2% premium
• New York–Newark–Jersey City: $1,510,000 vs. $699,000, a 116% premium
• Raleigh–Cary: $1,053,423 vs. $489,000, a 115.4% premium
• Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford: $684,000 vs. $320,000, a 113.8% premium

These markets span high-cost coastal hubs and lower-cost inland metros, pointing to broad-based demand for new product close to job centers and amenities, and the difficulty of delivering that supply.

Why it matters for builders, lenders and agents

For builders: The data underscores that new-home demand is stable but price-sensitive. Active price management is working to keep days on market in check, and there is room to compete on price in suburban and exurban locations, especially in metros where new-construction premiums are low or negative.

For lenders: A nearly 20% share of new construction in the for-sale market, combined with widening premiums, reinforces the need for products that can bridge appraisal gaps on urban infill projects and support buyers facing higher per-square-foot costs in city cores.

For brokers and agents: Advising buyers now requires a sharper focus on location mix. In markets like Austin or Cape Coral, “cheaper new construction” usually means longer commutes. In coastal metros with triple-digit urban premiums, agents will need to help clients weigh the value of new amenities against significant price jumps.