These metros are the worst for first-time homebuyers

They are definitely struggling in California

These metros are the worst for first-time homebuyers

America’s would-be first-time homebuyers are facing several issues right now with supply and affordability among the barriers to making their move.

But which of the nation’s 50 largest metros are especially tough for new entrants to the housing market?

Based on factors including affordability, job market, market tightness, culture, and safety, a new analysis from Bankrate.com, San Francisco comes out as the worst metro for first-time homebuyers.

Despite the city’s appealing aspects – diversity, arts, and nightlife put it 9th overall for culture – it ranks 49th for both affordability and market tightness. Even the strong jobs market (24th) does not put it on the list of markets that first-timers should prioritize.

California overall ranks poorly with 6 of the 10 worst metros for first-time homebuyers; San Francisco is joined by Los Angeles (49), Sacramento (48), San Jose (47), Riverside/San Bernardino (45), and San Diego (44).

So where should they buy?
The study found that Pittsburgh is the top ranking metro for affordability and safety.

The Steel City also ranks well for market tightness (8), available culture (12) and a good job market (15). Raleigh, N.C., Oklahoma City, OK, Hartford, CT and St. Louis, MO round out the top-five metros for first-time buyers.

“Young homebuyers better be ready to compromise," said Bankrate data analyst, Adrian Garcia. "Affordability and convenience might be the tradeoff to moving to a major metro with a little less culture or popularity. Buyers have to find the balance that works for them and their financial situation. Make sure you’re making a sound investment. You can always upgrade later.”