Greenville's Housing Affordability Crisis

Greenville’s growth story has been a point of pride for the Upstate—new jobs, new neighborhoods, and a steady stream of people who want to call this place home. But under the good news sits a harder truth: affordability is slipping. Not in the abstract, not as a talking point, but as a measurable shift that touches families deciding whether they can buy at all, where their kids will go to school, and what commutes and neighborhoods will look like in the years ahead.

This episode cuts through the noise. It defines how affordability is measured locally, shows where the trend line is actually pointing, and makes the case for a practical path forward: more homes paired with smarter infrastructure—without handing the keys of every decision to clumsy, cosmetic zoning moves that can make real-world outcomes worse.

Housing Affordability Crisis

The Greater Greenville Association of Realtors tracks a housing affordability index that compares median household income to the income needed to purchase the median-priced home at prevailing interest rates. On this index, a higher number means more affordable. An index of 120 would mean the median household earns 120% of what’s needed to qualify for the median-priced home. Slip below 100, and the median household earns less than what’s needed to qualify—affordability, in practical terms, has broken.

Right now, the Upstate sits at 101—“barely qualifying” territory. The line has been trending down for years. In the local data, affordability peaked in the 180s around 2011–2012, then steadily declined beginning in 2013. In prior lows (around 2007), the index drifted to roughly 110; last year finished a little above that. Now at 101, the region is on the precipice of dipping under 100—a meaningful threshold for median families who want median homes.

How the index translates to everyday decisions

• Median family, median home: At 101, the “typical” family can just clear the qualifying bar for the “typical” home. Any nudge—price pressure, rate shifts, or income stagnation—pushes more buyers to the sidelines.

• Winners and strugglers: Existing owners celebrate appreciation. First-time buyers and renters trying to become owners carry the weight, forced to consider less familiar neighborhoods further out from the school clusters everyone knows by name.

• A one-way trend (so far): The direction has been remarkably consistent since 2013—down. Not because people don’t want to buy, but because home prices have outpaced incomes.

What’s driving the squeeze

Greenville is popular, full stop. People are moving in—from around South Carolina and far beyond—and the Upstate has seen demand outstrip supply. New construction is everywhere, from Fountain Inn and Lower Simpsonville to Five Forks, Greer (east and west), and toward Travelers Rest. Even with cranes and concrete, the math is stubborn: in recent months, inventory sank to roughly two months—an unprecedented figure locally. In plain language: if nothing else came on the market, current homes would be absorbed in about two months. That’s not a balanced market; it’s a scarcity market.

The only durable fix is more homes

It may not be fashionable to say, but the episode does: housing affordability improves when there are more homes. Full stop. When supply meets (or exceeds) demand, buyers have choices, price growth cools, and median families can afford median homes again.

But “more homes” can’t be “any homes, anywhere.” New rooftops strain roads, utilities, and schools. That’s why the call here is both/and:

• Allow development so builders can respond to demand.

• Build up infrastructure alongside it, so communities don’t choke on their own growth.

Five Forks gets a nod as an example of pairing growth with infrastructure planning that kept the area functional as rooftops multiplied.

The elections that matter most to affordability

Local races—especially County Council—drive the levers that affect supply: planning policy, infrastructure prioritization, and the tone of cooperation with builders. Voters are urged to study candidates’ views on development, infrastructure, and affordability. It’s not about letting anything go anywhere; it’s about avoiding the trap where government says it’s solving affordability—then over-controls the process and slows supply, pushing prices up further.

There’s also a cautionary note: when the government tries to micromanage outcomes, it can slide into arbitrary decisions or “workarounds” that don’t follow its own guidelines. That hurts credibility and, more importantly, hurts actual residents.

When zoning turns cosmetic—and counterproductive

One real example captures the problem. After a full renovation in the Parkins Mill area—permitted, inspected, and green-lit—a new ordinance was applied after the home went under contract, forcing a compliant 15-foot two-car driveway to be cut down to 10 feet, effectively a single-car driveway. The buyer walked. The seller complied. The result? More street parking on an already narrow street, exactly the kind of safety and congestion outcome the community didn’t need. The policy didn’t fix an infrastructure problem; it enforced a cosmetic preference and created a real-world headache.

That’s the episode’s point writ large: if policy focuses on surface “tidy” wins and ignores how families actually live—cars, guests, deliveries—the community pays. Affordability suffers when regulation makes ordinary homes less functional or harder to buy.

Why “just say no” to growth backfires

Some voices rail against new construction entirely, but Greenville’s affordability slide is what happens when people arrive faster than homes are built. Appreciation looks great on paper—until a median family can’t purchase a median home. With the index hovering at 101, “no growth” isn’t the safety brake it’s advertised to be; it’s a price accelerator.

What “more homes, smarter infrastructure” looks like in practice

• Green-light buildable places: Encourage homes in corridors that can absorb them, rather than scattering growth with no plan.

• Invest where growth is headed: Roads, utilities, and school capacity should move in step with development, not three years behind it.

• Keep rules consistent and clear: If you change an ordinance, apply it prospectively and predictably. Don’t upend compliant projects mid-stream.

• Let form follow function: Policies that make homes less usable (like slicing driveways for looks) don’t solve congestion; they create it.

What buyers and owners should expect if the trend continues

• Push to the perimeter: If affordability ticks below 100, more median families will search in less familiar neighborhoods, trading proximity for price.

• Competition where it’s “standard”: The classic, well-kept, $250k-ish Greenville-County home draws fast interest. If those sit, it’s usually price or condition.

• Construction pressure: New-build demand isn’t a fad; it’s people looking for openings the resale market can’t supply.

Why does this matter more than a national headline?

The episode makes it plain: While national politics grab attention, local decisions—the ones about roads, schools, utilities, and development rules—will shape Greenville’s affordability far more than a presidential tweet will. Voters can influence the direction now by understanding which candidates see the balance clearly: support building, build the infrastructure, and skip the cosmetic fixes that make neighborhoods less livable.

Watch Or Listen To The Selling Greenville Podcast

Subscribe to the Selling Greenville podcast for real-time insights, bold perspectives, and unfiltered takes on the Upstate housing scene. Whether you’re buying, selling, or simply watching the market unfold—this is where Greenville goes to stay informed.

Bottom Line

Greenville's Housing Affordability Crisis isn’t theoretical; it’s a number—101—and a direction—down since 2013. As more people arrive and inventory sits near historically tight levels, prices will keep pressuring median families unless supply catches up. The most durable solution is simple and hard at once: build more homes, and build the infrastructure to carry them. That means local leaders who welcome development and plan roads, schools, and utilities to match; it means avoiding rules that prize optics over function; and it means voters who understand that the most important affordability decisions are made close to home.

Ien Araneta

Journal & Podcast Editor | Selling Greenville