A Europe-wide housing study estimates that 44% of the population covered lives in areas where an average regional income would support buying less than 50 square meters (538 square feet) of housing. The pressure is concentrated in many capital regions, major cities and tourist areas, where high housing costs can also make it harder for workers to move closer to jobs.
The peer-reviewed study, published online in the Journal of Maps on September 2, examined property listings from 31 European countries. Researchers Franziska Sielker and Selim Banabak of TU Wien set out to measure affordability at the local level, where national averages often hide the sharpest pressures.
The maps do not show what every household currently pays. They estimate what a person or household entering the market could afford under a common set of assumptions. That focus makes the results especially relevant to younger buyers, new renters and people considering a move for work.
A 30-year mortgage buys very little in many regions
The researchers collected more than 100 million online advertisements between March 2024 and March 2025. After removing duplicates and invalid entries, the analysis used about 18.36 million sale listings and 3.57 million private long-term rental listings.
For buyers, the model calculated how much floor space an average-income household could purchase by spending one-third of its income on a 30-year mortgage. It included national mortgage rates and mandatory costs such as property-transfer taxes, registration charges and notary fees.
Income was “equivalized,” meaning it was adjusted to account for household size. The researchers used estimates of average disposable income after taxes and social transfers for each area.
Under those assumptions, about 44% of the population lived in the least affordable category, where the model supported a purchase of less than 50 square meters. A further 28% lived in areas where 50 to 75 square meters were affordable. More than 70% were therefore in regions where an average income supported no more than 75 square meters on the standardized mortgage.
The rental result was similar. More than 39% of the population lived in areas where spending one-third of average income would rent less than 50 square meters.
Cities and tourist areas stand out
Capital regions and major urban centers were among the least affordable places, even though incomes are generally higher there. Paris, Berlin and Madrid were surrounded by wider clusters of expensive municipalities, suggesting that price pressure does not stop at the city boundary.
Coastal areas in France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Croatia also appeared less affordable than many inland regions. The same pattern emerged in tourism-heavy Alpine areas. The authors said policies addressing short-term rentals and second homes could be considered in locations where visitor demand competes with residents for housing.
Lower incomes produced a different problem in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Poland and Hungary appeared highly unaffordable for households trying to enter the market, even though many existing residents own their homes without a mortgage. A country can consequently have a high homeownership rate while presenting severe barriers to a first-time buyer or a worker who needs to relocate.
Rural markets were not uniformly easier. In some locations the issue was a lack of formal rental supply rather than exceptionally high advertised rent. The researchers could not record a formal rental offer for areas containing about 12% of the rural population in their data.
The findings measure market entry, not every housing bill
The results need to be read within the model’s limits. Asking prices can differ from completed sale prices, and the income figures were estimated at the local level because comparable municipal data are not available across Europe.
The mortgage calculation also leaves out down payments, which can prevent a household from buying even when the monthly repayment appears affordable. National mortgage rates cannot capture every local or individual lending condition.
Most importantly, the maps describe the cost of entering the market at the advertised prices in 2024 and early 2025. They do not measure the burden on a long-standing tenant with a regulated lease or an owner who bought years earlier. Municipal averages can also conceal large differences between neighborhoods and between high- and low-income households.
These limits do not erase the geographical pattern, but they do rule out reading the maps as a precise valuation of any particular home or household.
Housing costs can restrict access to jobs
The business consequence reaches beyond construction and real estate. The OECD Employment Outlook 2026 identifies housing costs as one of the barriers that limits geographic mobility. When workers cannot afford to move into productive, job-rich regions, employers have a smaller pool of suitable candidates and skills can remain stranded elsewhere.
Housing policy can work on both sides of the equation. The study points to supply constraints and market pressures in expensive urban or tourist areas, while low regional incomes help explain poor affordability elsewhere. A single policy response is unlikely to address both.
Governments are already committing more public money to supply. As we reported in August, England allocated £9.58 billion to 33 housing providers and councils outside London for 73,600 social and affordable homes over the next decade. Those are planned homes supported by long-term funding, not completed units.
Construction takes time, while households and employers face present-day costs. The new maps give policymakers a more local view of where price, income and a shortage of rental listings are blocking access, and why Europe’s housing problem cannot be understood from national house-price averages alone.
