At June 2026, ZIP 75007’s Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI) is $1,778 per month. The direct Zillow history records a 4.8% exact-same-month increase over one year, compared with annualized changes of 0.4% over three years and 4.8% over five years. The latest direction thus confirms the longer five-year pace but breaks from the subdued middle path. Annualized monthly-return variability is 2.8%, and the maximum drawdown was a 6.0% decline. The series has 100% coverage. Its provided national discovery ranks among history-eligible ZIPs are 1,223 for momentum, 1,241 for stability, and 1,099 for the balanced measure; a lower rank is higher. These are backward-looking measurements, not forecasts or investment recommendations. The observed variability and decline mean one current index snapshot offers limited precision for a particular listing, even while it remains a useful ZIP-level benchmark.
Different source universes materially alter the comparison. The matched Census ZCTA’s ACS 2024 five-year survey reports median gross rent of $1,668 among occupied renter homes, including selected utilities. That is 6.6% below ZORI, but neither measure substitutes for the other: ZORI is a typical observed asking-rent index blended across rental types, whereas ACS describes surveyed occupied homes. The five-digit label 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. HUD’s FY2026 local two-bedroom FMR/SAFMR is a bedroom-specific administrative standard of $1,990, not asking rent; the current index is 10.7% below it. This timing, universe, and purpose separation is why the three figures should be read alongside rather than merged.
Bedroom estimates extend the ZIP index only through a model, not through measured bedroom rents. They scale ZORI by the local HUD ladder to produce monthly modelled ZIP estimates of $1,456 for a studio, $1,519 for one bedroom, $1,778 for two bedrooms, $2,243 for three bedrooms, and $2,850 for four bedrooms. The sequence preserves the local HUD bedroom steps around the all-type index, but it does not observe leases or establish asking rents in each size class. The HUD ladder itself remains an administrative benchmark, and its geographic construction may be ZIP SAFMR or county-derived. A listing’s stated bedroom count, unit layout, and lease terms therefore remain separate from these modelled estimates.
The current index translates to a $71,120 annual required-income screen at 30% of gross income. That screen is arithmetic, not financial advice and not an applicant qualification rule. Against the matched ZCTA’s all-household median income of $111,521, annualized index rent represents 19.1% of that median. This is a broad comparison, not a renter-income measurement and not a budget for any household. In the ACS burden tabulation, 3,364 of 6,786 renter households report gross rent at or above that threshold, or 49.6%. The burden share describes survey respondents in aggregate; it does not prove that a particular unit is affordable or that any tenant will face a given payment outcome.
Housing stock gives the index an important scale limit. The matched ZCTA contains 21,696 housing units, including 908 vacant units, for a 4.2% all-housing vacancy rate. Of those, 424 are classified as vacant for rent. Renter households account for 32.6% of occupied homes, while the ACS structure categories show a predominantly single-family stock rather than large multifamily stock. These area-level counts and classifications do not identify a unit’s condition, effective price, or whether it can be leased at the time of review. They establish context for supply labels, not proof of availability in a particular property.
Wider geographies supply useful reference points but are not substitutes for the ZIP market. For wider context only, the Carrollton city asking-rent index is $1,618, the Denton County asking-rent index is $1,706, and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX metro asking-rent index is $1,673. The ZIP index is higher than each of these contextual values. Their city, county, and metro scopes make them comparison points, not alternate ZIP estimates, and they do not establish why rents differ. Similarly, broader renter shares, income measures, and vacancy measures remain context only because their source universe and geography differ from the matched ZCTA.
Property-level reconciliation is necessary before treating any aggregate figure as a listing comparison. Relevant records include the advertised rent and quote date, the address used to establish ZIP market geography, bedroom and bathroom configuration, lease length, utilities billed, recurring fees, concessions, furnishing, and availability. The HUD ladder’s ZIP-based or county-derived geography also needs confirmation before using the bedroom proxy. These records permit a defensible comparison with an asking-rent index, a modelled bedroom ladder, and survey aggregates without assuming any of them describes the unit. Which documented lease terms still differ after the listing is aligned with those measurement rules?