Home Affordability in Colorado Mountain Counties
Introduction
Home prices in Colorado’s mountain communities have risen dramatically over the last decade, in many instances home prices have more than doubled and in a few they have tripled. These counties have higher prices than the state at large, and those prices have risen more quickly in the last decade than the state at large. The large price increases and a large number of second homes unavailable for long-term rental have created a housing shortage for local workforces.
This study analyzes affordability in seven mountain counties since 2012, the first year data is available for all the towns in each county. The counties under consideration include Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, San Miguel, and Summit.
Key Findings
- Home prices have more than doubled in mountain resort counties since 2012 and in some cases tripled.
- Garfield County’s home prices have risen 197.9%.
- Eagle County’s home prices have risen 209.2%.
- Mountain county home prices have risen faster than Colorado’s statewide home prices.
- Home prices have risen by an average of 188.7% in mountain resort counties since 2012.
- Statewide, home prices have risen 153.7% since 2012.
- Between 2012 and 2024, 56.9% of all units permitted in Colorado were for single-family homes while 43.1% were for multi-family homes.
- Mountain resort counties have very small surpluses or shortages of housing available for purchase or long-term rental.
- The majority of permitting for new housing since 2012 has been primarily for single-family homes.
Home Price Indices
Home price indices are calculated using Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), a measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. It reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. From 2012 to May 2025, home prices in Colorado have risen 154% statewide. In many of Colorado’s mountain communities the increases have been much greater as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Home Price Indices
The percentage change in average home prices from 2012 to May 2025 ranges from 166.1% in Routt County to 209.2% in Eagle County. Changes in home prices in all seven counties exceeded the change for Colorado, 153.7%.
Figure 2 - Change in Home Prices
Change in Average Home Prices
|
|
Jan-12
|
May-25
|
Change
|
% Change
|
Eagle
|
$ 416,999
|
$ 1,289,519
|
$ 872,520
|
209.2%
|
Garfield
|
$ 234,793
|
$ 699,374
|
$ 464,582
|
197.9%
|
Grand
|
$ 275,782
|
$ 775,126
|
$ 499,344
|
181.1%
|
Pitkin
|
$ 373,274
|
$ 1,111,644
|
$ 738,370
|
197.8%
|
Routt
|
$ 961,438
|
$ 2,558,617
|
$ 1,597,179
|
166.1%
|
San Miguel
|
$ 275,782
|
$ 775,126
|
$ 499,344
|
181.1%
|
Summit
|
$ 527,525
|
$ 1,517,161
|
$ 989,636
|
187.6%
|
Colorado
|
$ 219,317
|
$ 556,482
|
$ 337,165
|
153.7%
|
Source: Zillow
|
Homebuyer Misery Indices
The “Homebuyer Misery Index,” as developed by Common Sense Institute, captures the impact of housing prices and mortgage rates on the affordability of purchasing a new home. The ‘Misery Index’ sums normalized and equally weighted home prices and 30-year mortgage rates to measure effective costs of home buying relative to historical levels. Six of the seven counties saw larger increases in the Homebuyer Misery Index than the state overall. Only Summit County was lower.
Figure 3 - Homebuyer Misery Indices
From 2012 to May 2025, Homebuyer Misery Indices increased from 120.1% in Routt County to 141.7% in Eagle County.
Figure 4 - Change in Homebuyer Indices
Homebuyer Misery Indices
|
|
Jan-12
|
May-25
|
Change
|
Eagle County
|
100
|
241.7
|
141.7
|
Garfield County
|
100
|
236.0
|
136.0
|
Grand County
|
100
|
227.6
|
127.6
|
Pitkin County
|
100
|
236.0
|
136.0
|
Routt County
|
100
|
220.1
|
120.1
|
San Miguel County
|
100
|
227.6
|
127.6
|
Summit County
|
100
|
230.8
|
130.8
|
Colorado
|
100
|
213.9
|
113.9
|
Housing Surplus/Shortage
CSI estimates the number of homes needed in the mountain counties to achieve a healthy housing market by calculating the difference between the actual number of homes available in a county relative to the number of homes needed to maintain a more stable market for the local population. The data on the number of housing units and households come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).
Homes held off the market – Total homes held off the market reflect existing housing units not available for purchase by the local population. The estimate includes a count of second homes at the county level released by the National Association of Home Builders.
Desired ratio of total units to the local population – To estimate the target number of housing units, the value of 1.1 housing units per household was used to represent a healthy market. This value is derived from historic vacancy rates.
As of 2023, five of the seven counties have housing shortages and two, Grand and Routt counties, have slight surpluses. Garfield County has the largest shortage at 1,975 followed closely by Pitkin County with a shortage of 1,500. Demand for housing is based on full-time households and does not include seasonal and temporary resident households.
Housing Shortage/Surplus 2023
|
|
Households
|
Target Housing Units
|
Housing Units
|
Homes Held Off the Market
|
Available Housing Units
|
Housing Units Surplus/ Shortage
|
Eagle
|
20,911
|
23,002
|
33,455
|
11,866
|
21,589
|
-1,414
|
Garfield
|
23,071
|
25,378
|
24,640
|
1,237
|
23,403
|
-1,975
|
Grand
|
6,460
|
7,106
|
17,037
|
9,633
|
7,404
|
298
|
Pitkin
|
9,031
|
9,934
|
13,350
|
4,915
|
8,435
|
-1,500
|
Routt
|
10,619
|
11,681
|
16,913
|
5,155
|
11,758
|
77
|
San Miguel
|
3,998
|
4,398
|
6,606
|
2,688
|
3,918
|
-480
|
Summit
|
12,347
|
13,582
|
31,849
|
18,886
|
12,963
|
-619
|
Source: U.S. Census, NAHB
|
Permitting
Building permitting data comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Figure 5 shows the number of housing unit permits from 2012 through 2024 for the seven counties. Since 2012 Summit County has issued 4,573 permits, Eagle County 4,405, Grand County 3,096, Routt County 2,910, Garfield County 2,782, Pitkin County 961, and San Miguel County 637. Statewide, 461,640 housing unit permits have been issued over the same time period.
Figure 5 Housing Unit Building Permits
Housing Unit Building Permits
|
Total Units
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
2020
|
2021
|
2022
|
2023
|
2024
|
Eagle
|
95
|
130
|
256
|
188
|
346
|
426
|
382
|
630
|
403
|
439
|
268
|
426
|
416
|
Garfield
|
96
|
65
|
83
|
138
|
156
|
194
|
189
|
327
|
334
|
631
|
240
|
155
|
174
|
Grand
|
182
|
240
|
137
|
128
|
161
|
198
|
213
|
223
|
234
|
467
|
375
|
244
|
294
|
Pitkin
|
23
|
45
|
98
|
103
|
54
|
53
|
83
|
51
|
72
|
97
|
99
|
36
|
147
|
Routt
|
54
|
60
|
132
|
102
|
163
|
115
|
170
|
250
|
285
|
215
|
438
|
329
|
597
|
San Miguel
|
25
|
22
|
36
|
32
|
35
|
68
|
53
|
51
|
34
|
80
|
70
|
74
|
57
|
Summit
|
139
|
279
|
207
|
195
|
306
|
475
|
643
|
401
|
318
|
407
|
400
|
545
|
258
|
Source: HUD
|
Permits are issued for both single-family and multi-family housing units. Since 2012 Grand County has issued the highest percentage of single-family permits with 83%, followed by San Miguel County with 76%, Pitkin County 68%, Summit County 64%, Garfield County 61%, Routt County 57%, and Eagle County with 47%. Statewide 56.9% of all permits were for single-family housing units. Annual permitting percentages for single-family homes are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Percent of Single-Family Housing Permits
Percent of Housing Permits for Units in Single-Family Structures
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
2020
|
2021
|
2022
|
2023
|
2024
|
Eagle
|
94%
|
80%
|
41%
|
86%
|
55%
|
71%
|
69%
|
25%
|
37%
|
44%
|
37%
|
26%
|
34%
|
Garfield
|
38%
|
92%
|
95%
|
92%
|
89%
|
63%
|
65%
|
45%
|
48%
|
44%
|
81%
|
80%
|
62%
|
Grand
|
75%
|
67%
|
86%
|
90%
|
92%
|
92%
|
93%
|
91%
|
88%
|
82%
|
75%
|
94%
|
72%
|
Pitkin
|
100%
|
100%
|
65%
|
71%
|
89%
|
85%
|
57%
|
76%
|
83%
|
80%
|
48%
|
94%
|
31%
|
Routt
|
100%
|
67%
|
56%
|
100%
|
71%
|
100%
|
91%
|
64%
|
55%
|
96%
|
42%
|
39%
|
28%
|
San Miguel
|
100%
|
100%
|
75%
|
84%
|
86%
|
69%
|
77%
|
67%
|
68%
|
66%
|
100%
|
64%
|
65%
|
Summit
|
83%
|
64%
|
83%
|
79%
|
79%
|
83%
|
47%
|
72%
|
76%
|
66%
|
64%
|
28%
|
62%
|
Source: HUD
|
Figure 7 shows the percentage of permits that were issued each year for multi-family housing units. From 2012 through 2024 Eagle County issued the highest percentage of multi-family housing units with 53%, followed by Routt County at 43%, Garfield County at 39%, Summit County at 36%, Pitkin County with 32%, San Miguel County with 24%, and Grand County at 17%. Statewide, 43.1% of all permits were for multi-family housing units. Annual permitting for multi-family housing units is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 - Percent of Multi-Family Building Permits
Percent of Housing Permits for Units in Multi-Family Structures
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
2020
|
2021
|
2022
|
2023
|
2024
|
Eagle
|
6%
|
20%
|
59%
|
14%
|
45%
|
29%
|
31%
|
75%
|
63%
|
56%
|
63%
|
74%
|
66%
|
Garfield
|
63%
|
8%
|
5%
|
8%
|
11%
|
37%
|
35%
|
55%
|
52%
|
56%
|
19%
|
20%
|
38%
|
Grand
|
25%
|
33%
|
14%
|
10%
|
8%
|
8%
|
7%
|
9%
|
12%
|
18%
|
25%
|
6%
|
28%
|
Pitkin
|
0%
|
0%
|
35%
|
29%
|
11%
|
15%
|
43%
|
24%
|
17%
|
20%
|
52%
|
6%
|
69%
|
Routt
|
0%
|
33%
|
44%
|
0%
|
29%
|
0%
|
9%
|
36%
|
45%
|
4%
|
58%
|
61%
|
72%
|
San Miguel
|
0%
|
0%
|
25%
|
16%
|
14%
|
31%
|
23%
|
33%
|
32%
|
34%
|
0%
|
36%
|
35%
|
Summit
|
17%
|
36%
|
17%
|
21%
|
21%
|
17%
|
53%
|
28%
|
24%
|
34%
|
36%
|
72%
|
38%
|
Source: HUD
|
Bottom Line
Housing in Colorado mountain counties has more than doubled in price since 2012 and permitting has been, in most cases, for single-family homes. As a result, most counties have housing shortages or very small surpluses of homes available for sale or long-term rent.
Most of the housing units in mountain counties that are not occupied by full-time, year round residents are held off the market for long-term rental. Instead, many owners opt to offer their properties for short-term rentals utilizing vacation rental platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo. This results in many locals and seasonal workers finding it hard to find a place to rent or purchase. In response, they move farther away from their place of employment or leave the area completely, making it difficult for employers to find workers.