Revolutionizing · Modernizing · Simplifying
Revolutionizing · Modernizing · Simplifying
Parker. Number 87 in the entire country.
That is where Colorado's best showing landed on the U.S. News and World Report's 2026-2027 best places to live list. And if you know Parker, you are probably not surprised. If you do not know Parker, here is the quick version: it sits about 25 miles southeast of downtown Denver, it has been one of the fastest-growing suburbs in the state for years, and the numbers back up what people living there already feel.
Median household income of
U.S. News compared 250 major cities using four main factors: value of the place, desirability, quality of life, and job market strength. That last bucket includes income and cost of living together, which is where things get interesting for Colorado. Because a high income number does not save you if home prices are eating the whole thing.
Parker scored well specifically because it offers higher value compared to other cities its size. That is the phrase from the study. Value. Not the cheapest option, not the flashiest, but the best return on what you are spending to live there.
Here is where it gets honest. Parker was the only Colorado city in the top 100. Everyone else had some ground to make up.
Centennial came in at 107. Castle Rock at 133. Arvada at 247. Littleton at 273. Those are all still reasonable showings for suburbs that are genuinely good places to raise a family, keep a stable job, and own a home without completely wrecking your finances.
Then you scroll down and things start to sting a little.
Colorado Springs at 315. Thornton at 317. Commerce City at 341. Westminster at 398. Fort Collins, which people genuinely love and will argue about at dinner parties, came in at 423 with a median home value of $577,979 and a household income of $88,276. The math on that one is tighter than Fort Collins folks like to admit.
And Boulder. Number 642, with a median home value of $987,135 and a median household income of $93,960. Nearly a million dollars in home value against a household income that does not clear six figures. I mean, that is the whole Boulder story in one line.
Denver landed at number 576. That is not a typo. The city with a $633,340 median home value and a household income of $98,691, sitting at 576 out of 640 ranked cities. And yes, Commerce City at 341 beat Denver. Thornton at 317 beat Denver. That is the part worth sitting with.
The study is direct about why. Housing costs in Denver are nearly double the national average. That single factor drags the value score down hard. The job market helps a little. Unemployment in Denver runs below the national average of 4.54%, so it is not that Denver is struggling for work. It is that the work is not keeping pace with what it costs to actually live there. That gap is the whole ballgame right now.
Hayley and I have watched this play out in real time over the past few years. The people moving to Denver are not necessarily getting a better deal than they would in Parker or even Centennial. They are paying more for the zip code, for the walkability, for the proximity to things. Whether that trade-off is worth it is genuinely a personal call. But the numbers do not lie about the value equation.
The top of the national list, for context, is Carmel, Indiana. Median monthly household income of
Parker is the closest Colorado gets to that formula right now. Not perfect, but the ratio works better than almost anywhere else in the state.
Grand Junction at 398 has a median home value of $382,444 and a rent of $998 a month. Pueblo at 679 has a median home value of
The real story in these rankings is not that Denver is bad. It is that Denver is expensive in a way that no longer pencils out as a value play compared to its own suburbs. Parker at number 87 is not just a feel-good headline for the southeast suburbs. It is a signal about where the math actually works along the Front Range right now.
And if you are a homeowner in Parker watching that number 87, you already know what it means for your equity.