The sharpest cross-market tension in this ZIP is between steady asking-rent evidence and a softer for-sale price signal. Redfin’s direct rolling-three-month ZIP resale observation reports a $263,440 median sold price, down 4.2% year over year, with 195 homes sold and a median 47 days on market. Inventory stood at 230 homes and 3.6 months of supply. Buyers paid an average 98.45% of list price, while 17.38% of sales closed above list. Those are resale-market liquidity and pricing signals, not rental transactions. The 7.68% annualized-ZORI-to-median-price screening ratio is only a cross-source screen; it is not a cap rate, net return, expected return, or property yield. Falling resale prices challenge the otherwise stable rent path and the local income screen, without establishing a causal link.
Zillow’s current ZIP asking-rent index is $1,686. Same-month rent change was 1.91% over one year, 1.72% annualized over three years, and 4.08% annualized over five years. Recent direction therefore confirms a longer upward path, but it is slower than the earlier five-year pace. The history has 100% coverage, making the time series complete for the supplied period. Annualized monthly-return variability is 1.71%, indicating relatively limited month-to-month movement in the index. Its worst peak-to-trough decline was 0.96%, also modest. Transparent national discovery ranks among history-eligible ZIPs were 1,609 for momentum, 31 for stability, and 604 for the balanced measure, where lower ranks are stronger. Together, low variability and a shallow drawdown support more confidence in the continuity of this one rent snapshot than a highly erratic series would, but these are backward-looking measurements rather than forecasts.
The five-digit label 32244 is both Zillow’s ZIP market identifier and the matched Census ZCTA; a ZCTA is a statistical area and is not identical to a USPS delivery ZIP. Zillow ZORI is a typical observed asking-rent index blended across rental types, whereas the ACS reports a $1,470 median gross rent from a five-year survey of occupied renter homes that includes selected utilities. The asking index is 14.7% above that ACS gross-rent benchmark. That gap does not by itself show mispricing: the measures differ in timing, sampled homes, occupancy status, rental-type mix, and utility treatment. It instead marks a source-universe difference that should remain visible when comparing current advertised rent conditions with resident-reported housing costs.
The bedroom ladder is a set of modelled monthly ZIP estimates, not measured bedroom rents. By scaling ZIP ZORI with the local HUD ladder, the estimates are $1,380 for a studio, $1,400 for one bedroom, $1,686 for two bedrooms, $2,080 for three bedrooms, and $2,603 for four bedrooms. The underlying HUD standard rises from $1,400 for a studio to $2,640 for four bedrooms. HUD FMR or SAFMR is an administrative, bedroom-specific standard rather than an asking-rent observation, so it supplies the relative ladder used in the model rather than proof of available units at those amounts. The model is most useful for maintaining a transparent bedroom relationship while preserving the ZIP’s observed all-type asking-rent level.
Income and burden data create a separate affordability tension. The matched ACS ZCTA reports median household income of $62,204 with a $3,730 margin of error. Applying the stated 30% rent-to-income arithmetic to the current asking index produces a required annual income of $67,440, equivalent to a 32.5% asking-rent-to-income screen. This is arithmetic, not advice and not an applicant qualification rule. ACS also estimates that 5,854 renter households, or 53.4% of renter households, paid at least 30% of income toward rent. That burden statistic describes surveyed occupied renter households, not the payment position of a particular applicant, lease, or vacant home. Still, it provides important context for the difference between the ZIP’s current asking index and its reported household-income level.
The matched ZCTA contains 26,652 housing units, of which 1,592 were vacant, producing a 6.0% vacancy rate. Renters occupy 43.7% of occupied housing, indicating that both owner and renter households are material parts of the local stock. The structure mix includes 17,656 single-family units and 2,731 large-multifamily units. These ACS stock and vacancy counts describe a survey-based area-wide housing inventory, not a live count of rental listings or evidence that a specific home is available. Likewise, vacant housing can have several statuses and should not be treated as proof of current rental choice. The stock figures nonetheless frame the scale and tenure composition behind the rent and burden measures.
Jacksonville city context asking rent is $1,599.67, Duval County context asking rent is $1,616, and Jacksonville, FL metro context asking rent is $1,708; each is a wider-geography context value rather than a ZIP rental observation. The ZIP asking index sits above the city and county context measures but below the metro context measure. City and county context also show lower renter shares and higher vacancy rates than the matched ZCTA, while the metro context should not be substituted for direct ZIP resale or rent evidence. These comparisons sharpen the interpretation of the ZIP without changing its source boundaries: city, county, and metro figures are reference points, while the Zillow, ACS, HUD, and Redfin measures each retain their distinct universes.
All evidence here has limits that matter for property-level interpretation. ZORI does not identify an individual unit’s condition, lease terms, concessions, included utilities, or availability. ACS is a survey estimate of occupied homes, HUD is an administrative standard, and Redfin describes resale activity rather than rental economics. A concrete review should verify the property’s actual bedroom count, current advertised rent, utility responsibility, concessions, lease duration, comparable-unit condition, listing history, sale condition, and geographic fit with the relevant ZIP or ZCTA scope. It should also separate a unit’s availability from area-wide vacancy and separate a household’s burden from any particular renter. The remaining decision question is whether property-specific evidence aligns with the stable rent history while acknowledging the weaker direct resale-price signal.