Why is housing so expensive in Boston? (Somerville, Waltham: townhouses, safe neighborhood)

[Catras]

Thank you all for all the replies. I have been to Boston only a few times but the first time I went, I wanted to live there but life as it is always got in the way. Now I am older and wiser and still want to live there.

I have been doing research on some of the neighborhoods and communities. I would love to live right in Boston or at least very close like Cambridge or Belmont. My in laws lived in Belmont and I liked it. I will be getting a job in the medical field and I know there are lots of hospitals in Boston!

Do the T and commuter trains make the city fairly accessible even being out 10 miles or more? My brother in law lived in Norwood and we all went out one night and rode on the T. It was an interesting experience :-) I can't recall which color it was I think Orange. He worked near Bunker Hill.

The biggest city I ever lived in was Seattle, and I'm not sure how it compares in size but I lived on Capitol Hill in a very shady area. It was fine in the daytime but not at at night alone. Now I live in a suburb of Portland, OR about 10 miles west of the city.

I have a daughter so I guess I'll need to find an area with good schools. I have looked at the Boston Public Schools website and it is daunting since I don't know much about the various communities. I noticed they had lots of pilot schools. I will keep researching and coming back here for more information.

Thanks again

Cathy

[TAM88]

The commuter rail makes a very accessible city if you live in the surrounding suburbs. Very few cities have such an extensive commuter rail network. The subway also does this as well, but to closer cities and towns and with more frequency. Example: the red line makes Quincy very accessible to the city. The orange line makes Malden accessible to the city.

I once went to an ice cream place in Capitol Hill in Seattle, it was right next to a big sports field park. Good stuff.

Boston is probably the best city in the country to live if you are working in the medical field. Houston is also good, but Boston has more top hospitals thanks to MGH and Brigham.

[Verseau]

In addition to basic supply and demand, it's also crucial to note that the Boston metro area has one of the highest average salaries in the nation - $57,250 as of last year. That's higher than the average salary in the New York and Los Angeles metro areas! The housing market reflects this.

[missionhill]

I don't know if any of you have read Edward Glaeser in the Globe but he's made a pretty good argument about Boston's and Eastern Massachusetts" high housing prices. The only areas with high population density are the areas built up before World War II and earlier, times when few people had cars and people usually walked to the streetcar at the corner and shopped locally, etc. Virtually all the towns outside Route 128 have very restrictive zoning, meaning large lot zoning. If developers could build houses closer together, as they were able to do years ago, there'd be a lot more supply. Similarly, if developers could build multi-story housing at transit locations in the suburbs there would be a lot more supply. But no one wants houses close together and no one wants high-density housing in their communities. Residents want as little change as possible. They like their large lots. The zoning also works to the disadvantage of young families. Large lot zoning keeps a lid on the influx of young families and the towns like it that way because otherwise they'd be under the gun for new schools, greater costs, etc. I think that's really the problem, the general resistance to building anything other than widely spaced, expensive single-family houses. There isn't a lot of buildable land any more because so much of it is taken up with low-density housing. The towns keep their small town character and remain more scenic than they would be otherwise but you have to admit, it keeps the supply quite low.

[brightdoglover]

I don't know about any Boston public schools OP would want, unless it's a magnet school or something like Boston Latin.
Belmont is wonderful and very good public transport to Harvard Sq. (which then is the red line to MGH and downtown). Public transport absolutely depends on where you are and where you want to go, plus when you want to go. The public transport lines are a hub, not a grid, and it is very hard to go cross-town. Also, the trains don't run after, I think 1am and start up again at 5am. The commuter lines are very much aimed at people working normal business hours, M-F, and going in towards Boston for the day and then out in the evening.
There are plenty of hospitals and facilities outside of the big names downtown. A lot of suburban places have great staff who got tired of being downtown as they got older or had families (like Emerson, in Concord). Of course, you'd likely be car-dependent in a suburb, but so are most of us!
Regarding suburban schools, I always said that, if I had a kid, I'd squeeze myself into an apartment in Acton (out Rt.2 easy drive to Emerson) and get the great Acton schools for a rental price. There are lots of decent apartments along 2A for rent in Acton.
Relatively few apartments in Belmont, and most are floor-through apartments in multi-family houses, meaning sort of big and therefore sort of not affordable, but you could get lucky.
Any other areas OP has thought of?

[Cato the Elder]

Originally Posted by missionhill

I think that's really the problem, the general resistance to building anything other than widely spaced, expensive single-family houses. There isn't a lot of buildable land any more because so much of it is taken up with low-density housing. The towns keep their small town character and remain more scenic than they would be otherwise but you have to admit, it keeps the supply quite low.

You're thinking in the right direction for many exurban towns that never really had significant town villages. They go the opposite extreme and favor SFHs to the exclusion of denser housing. For many other towns (like Concord), the issue is to build in a sustainable manner, which most definitely includes townhouses, condos, apartments, etc. Rather that buying farms up and letting developers have a go at it with little oversight (wonder why NJ has the highest taxes when utilities have to be constantly stretched to remote areas?), there are zoning laws and a process in place. You can't just build wherever you can buy land and do whatever you want. This is enough of a deterrent to easy profit that builders often go elsewhere. This is the way it should be, IMHO. Or else we would have become suburban Detroit or Chicago years ago.

[Bruins_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin

Boston.com did a piece on "bargain" towns. Properties avail under $250k.

Bargain towns below $250,000 - Boston.com

Under $250k...but yuck That is a very tough price point around here. If you can get into the low $300s, the condo options get much better, i.e., updated kitchen and bathrooms are possible, and even a few can be found in more desirable towns like Marblehead, though still slim picking.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by Cato the Elder

You're thinking in the right direction for many exurban towns that never really had significant town villages. They go the opposite extreme and favor SFHs to the exclusion of denser housing. For many other towns (like Concord), the issue is to build in a sustainable manner, which most definitely includes townhouses, condos, apartments, etc. Rather that buying farms up and letting developers have a go at it with little oversight (wonder why NJ has the highest taxes when utilities have to be constantly stretched to remote areas?), there are zoning laws and a process in place. You can't just build wherever you can buy land and do whatever you want. This is enough of a deterrent to easy profit that builders often go elsewhere. This is the way it should be, IMHO. Or else we would have become suburban Detroit or Chicago years ago.

I'm guessing that the farmland that hasn't been turned into subdivisions survives because the owners care more about farming than money (there are a few) or because somebody (maybe the town) bought either the land or the development rights to keep it as open space. The zoning laws are more an agent of sprawl than an inhibitor. Zoning provides for development; it enables it. The only thing it restricts is a) the density of development and b) mixed land uses. So you don't get dense housing and commercial areas, as in (I guess) suburban Detroit or Chicago, but you don't save the old working landscapes either (except as noted). What you get is many patches of woods and wetlands interspersed with large-lot subdivisions. If all those dwelling units--or even half of them--could be squeezed together into walkable townscapes with shops, schools, parks nearby, there would be much more land saved for agriculture and more space for housing as well. I love the wealthy rural-residential suburbs of Boston--there are so many of them--Concord especially. They make wonderful places to live in (for the few) and, for others, to visit, hike and bicycle in. But the cost to the whole metropolitan area of all that restrictive zoning is expensive housing. Sure, some of the more liberal towns admit a few affordable units somewhere. That's good but it's a pretty small dent. The general anti-development policy squeezes the housing supply and drives the prices up. In the cities too--in most other developed countries someplace like Porter Square, with a rail and subway connection, would be densely built up with housing and offices, etc. But Porter has barely changed since the red line went in. It's just gentrified. Developers running rampant and causing a huge bust, as in Las Vegas and other places, isn't so great either. Hard to know the solution. New Jersey and similar states that have a lot of dense sprawl have county government. I suspect that has a lot to do with it. Too big to be accountable to local citizens, and with the county executives' dealings with developers well concealed, development is rampant and any sense of place gets paved over. The New England town has many pluses--local governance keeps the lid on and the towns are great, if you can get in, but all at a cost.

[miu]

Originally Posted by missionhill

I think that's really the problem, the general resistance to building anything other than widely spaced, expensive single-family houses. There isn't a lot of buildable land any more because so much of it is taken up with low-density housing. The towns keep their small town character and remain more scenic than they would be otherwise but you have to admit, it keeps the supply quite low.

And how is this a problem? You do realize that if it weren't for this type of zoning, the greedy developers would have ruined the character of the Boston area and we'd be crowded with high density housing and little green around it... and with this economy, we'd have tons of empty units and areas that were formerly attractive would be ugly.

Stop thinking short term and instant gratification. And there's nothing wrong with those who can't afford Boston to move to places that they can afford.

Anyway, you would ruin much of the appeal of Boston by adding in more housing units in every empty space possible.

[MassVt]

The housing density within the city of Boston is VERY dense, with all the triple-deckers, apartment houses, etc. The density decreases the further out from the core you go, but even bordeering communities such as Somerville are just as dense....

if your in-laws are from Belmont, then perhaps they can make some recommendations. Belmont, while quire nice, can be fairly expensive, but a reasoanbly-priced apartment can be found if you're diligent..

Why is Boston so expensive? Lots of wealthy out-of-state college students, limited urban space, lots of amenities, and quite a bit of non-taxable entities ( schools, churches, hospitals, etc)..