UBS thinks Boston Real Estate is fairly priced (Worcester, Beverly: 2015, rent)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

Again, you told us you don't want to talk about (perceived) cheap real estate. You're contradicting yourself again.

I'm actually not, and I know you don't understand why.

[turf3]

The whole point is that there was an article that attempted to claim Boston real estate is "reasonably priced". Only by comparison to the most expensive cities in the world (New York, Paris, London, etc.) could one make that claim. By comparison to most of the rest of the USA, Boston is an extremely expensive place to live.

One can make a reasonable case for paying the high prices here in view of other amenities that are available. That's fine. But in the context of the rest of the USA (with certain exceptions for coastal cities) you can't say that $180k for a studio apartment of 400 sq. ft. is "reasonable".

By analogy, you could make the claim that a $100,000 Mercedes is "reasonably priced". By comparison with $200,000 Bentleys and Rollses. But in a world of $20,000 Toyota Corollas and $35,000 Buicks, you CANNOT say the $100k Mercedes is "reasonably priced". Yes, the Mercedes offers amenities that are not available with the Corolla. Still doesn't make it inexpensive.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by turf3

One can make a reasonable case for paying the high prices here in view of other amenities that are available. That's fine. But in the context of the rest of the USA (with certain exceptions for coastal cities) you can't say that $180k for a studio apartment of 400 sq. ft. is "reasonable". .

Don't the large majority of Americans live on the coasts? I believe they do. Or a significant majority anyway. It would be pretty weird to say lets exclude where most people live. That's kind of the mentality so many conservatives have when they say, if it wasn't for the cities, democrats would never be in office... well, most people live in cities.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Don't the large majority of Americans live on the coasts? I believe they do. Or a significant majority anyway. It would be pretty weird to say lets exclude where most people live. That's kind of the mentality so many conservatives have when they say, if it wasn't for the cities, democrats would never be in office... well, most people live in cities.

If by coast, we mean northeast and Pacific coast, I think not.

https://www.census.gov/popclock/data...mponent=growth

This census data includes DC in the South which you could quibble with fairly. But even adding it to northeast, it doesn't really change the picture much.

The Midwest holds a lot more people than most realize. It's only a recent development that the west has become larger. Still, the Midwest is relatively close

[WillRunForBeer]

^Not sure why you'd limit the Atlantic coast to only the North east.

[yellowstatus]

Originally Posted by turf3

The whole point is that there was an article that attempted to claim Boston real estate is "reasonably priced". Only by comparison to the most expensive cities in the world (New York, Paris, London, etc.) could one make that claim. By comparison to most of the rest of the USA, Boston is an extremely expensive place to live.

One can make a reasonable case for paying the high prices here in view of other amenities that are available. That's fine. But in the context of the rest of the USA (with certain exceptions for coastal cities) you can't say that $180k for a studio apartment of 400 sq. ft. is "reasonable".

By analogy, you could make the claim that a $100,000 Mercedes is "reasonably priced". By comparison with $200,000 Bentleys and Rollses. But in a world of $20,000 Toyota Corollas and $35,000 Buicks, you CANNOT say the $100k Mercedes is "reasonably priced". Yes, the Mercedes offers amenities that are not available with the Corolla. Still doesn't make it inexpensive.

By your analogy, why are you even talking about Corollas and Buick? The article is clearly about Mercedes, Bently, and Rolls. This thread is funny to read as a stub for random posters to talk about their pet issue.

Real estate for the global finance audience to Boston house affordability to gun violence to US housing affordability.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by WillRunForBeer

^Not sure why you'd limit the Atlantic coast to only the North east.

Seems to me that that's usually what people (especially in NE) in common speech think of as the "East coast." But even including the larger definition, the bulk of that "Southern" population is not coastal. So the point stands regardless.

[turf3]

Well, let's be more specific about "coastal".

San Diego
Much of LA
San Francisco and much of the Bay Area
Portland, Ore.
Seattle

Boston
NY
DC
Miami? don't know much about this city's housing prices.

I would not consider, for example, Pensacola, Port Arthur, or Newport News as high end coastal cities like the above.

Similarly I would not consider Spokane or Fresno or Richmond or Atlanta to be "on the coast" even though they are near the coast.

I'm not going to take the time now to do the detailed figuring, but out of a population of around 300 million, I don't think anything close to a majority live in the metro areas of the 9 cities listed above.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by turf3

The whole point is that there was an article that attempted to claim Boston real estate is "reasonably priced". Only by comparison to the most expensive cities in the world (New York, Paris, London, etc.) could one make that claim. By comparison to most of the rest of the USA, Boston is an extremely expensive place to live.

One can make a reasonable case for paying the high prices here in view of other amenities that are available. That's fine. But in the context of the rest of the USA (with certain exceptions for coastal cities) you can't say that $180k for a studio apartment of 400 sq. ft. is "reasonable".

By analogy, you could make the claim that a $100,000 Mercedes is "reasonably priced". By comparison with $200,000 Bentleys and Rollses. But in a world of $20,000 Toyota Corollas and $35,000 Buicks, you CANNOT say the $100k Mercedes is "reasonably priced". Yes, the Mercedes offers amenities that are not available with the Corolla. Still doesn't make it inexpensive.

The article never said anything about reasonably priced. It was about being fairly priced, meaning specifically that it's being driven by local supply and demand and is not an investment bubble.

As I said in the very first post, Boston is an affordable city when compared to other global cities and very expensive as compared to most other American cities. Costs are quite reasonable if you've got a high paying job that requires you to live in a global financial center, but quite unreasonable if you've got a job that pays around the minimum wage. Outside of all context, the concept of something being reasonably priced loses meaning. A $20k Corolla may be affordable in the context of people you know, but it's impossibly expensive for a typical person in Mozambique and a downright thrifty for someone who makes $10m a year.

I'm not sure why you object so strongly to that concept. If I posted something about 6'3" Kyrie Irving is short for an NBA player (where average height is 6'7"), would you get upset and point out that the average American height is 5'10" and he isn't really short at all? He's short for the NBA and tall for most Americans.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

If by coast, we mean northeast and Pacific coast, I think not.

Actually coast means all Atlantic and Pacific coast, at a minimum. It's roughly 40% of the population that lives on counties right on the coast, and that land mass is about 10% of the total. While not a true majority of the population directly on the coast, if you consider that it only includes counties directly on the coast, so say, Middlesex county wouldn't be coastal, it's pretty clear that yes, the majority of people live in communities that are along one of the coasts (I think most people would reasonably consider even Worcester Co to be coastal in the grand scheme).