Here Are the Best (and Worst) Cities for Renters Who Have Furry Children—Er, Pets

published Feb 1, 2020
We independently select these products—if you buy from one of our links, we may earn a commission. All prices were accurate at the time of publishing.
Post Image

Not all cities are created equal when it comes to accommodating pets. Whether you already own an animal or are thinking about becoming an owner, knowing where your city ranks in pet-friendly real estate when renting can be an important figure to consider—and this new study tells all. just released rankings based off of the percentage of pet-friendly rentals (apartments, condos, townhouses, etc.) in a given city. Interestingly enough, the study found that the best cities have a plentiful amount of companies who integrate pets into their business models, too. We don’t know which one inspired the other, but they clearly benefit one another.


Louisville, KY, took the gold trophy home with 68.53% of the rentable real restate being pet-friendly. It might not be a shock for those living there, though, as pet boutique shops, grooming salons, and even hotels with “yappy hour” fill the streets. The same high-level of pet hospitality is received in cities like Indianapolis, IN (62.1%), Atlanta, GA (59.85%), Tampa, FL (59.54%), and Riverside, CA (59.12%), just to highlight the top five.


But what about the cities that are the least convenience to renters who own pets? The top spot goes to Houston, TX, with a record-low score of 4.43%. The real estate market in the Texan city is extremely expensive and competitive, which probably plays into the lack of spaces that let dogs and cats come through. For the same reason, NYC came in second place (6.86%) followed by Worcester, MA (6.87%), Detroit, MI (10.47%), and Virginia Beach, VA (10.89%).

In truth, these rankings aren’t meant to discourage pet lovers living or looking to move into these cities, it’s simply the reality of the matter. You might have to just step up your apartment search a little bit more!