500k budget, where to buy (Boston, Cambridge: house, neighborhoods, buying)

[kingeorge]

There are many relocation that certain industries brought in these last two years. People were scrambling to get into anything decent before school starts. Often they have left better housing situation behind.
Also, they can offer top dollar, as they come on sweet relocation deals. This occurrence is making Boston housing market acting very competitive, and big time so. Question is will the trend with relocation continue next year?

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

Jay,

I understand 100% what you are saying. I guess in my market it's just really hard to see that situation existing. There's just so much demand for homes in this area right now that if you value something less than what the market values it at then you don't stand a chance. Homes on busy streets take a little longer to sell, but they still sell fairly quickly if priced right. I had a listing this summer an the commuter rail practically ran through the living room but I still had a contract in about 60 days.

The trick is to find something you value more than the market (but still pay market price). If you value it less than the market you should pick something different because you'll pay the market price anyway (like you say).

[DaltoBoston]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

I believe that the whole idea of making big gain when you sell is thing of the past. Buy a home, and be prepared not to move for a while, just in case life throws you a curve-ball.Younger FTHB have too much debt, and other issues in economy to worry about.

Trick is in figuring out how to have best life (emergency fund included) on a more balanced scale, where you live great life in a great place, but not necessarily posh-est place. Inoculate yourself against "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality.

Great deals in posh towns for FTHB do not exist. Entry fee is steep. Very few FTHB can buy what they truly like, or truly need. It is all about compromise. Here in MA lot more than some other places.

I agree with you, I do not see the house being the only and primary investment because I do not see houses showing the gains it showed before the bubble went bust, but i think if invested properly, you can get back what you invested and if done at the right time and paid the right price, a little more than that, but not much, be it Natick or Waltham or Newton or wherever.... To me, it is all abt finding the balance.

[DaltoBoston]

Originally Posted by SoFresh99

I live in the Waltham highlands and the builders have moved in enforce. In the last year they have torn down 3 or 4 houses in my nbhd and built SFH that sold for $650k, a huge rehab in on the market right now at that price point. So some money is being bet on Waltham right now. The schools are no worse than Watertown and the proximity to both city and woods is extremely attractive. Not to mention our restaurants/bars/movie theater. It's a good place to spend one's 30s.

Maybe that only seems like alot of building to me though.

Actually one of the houses I liked when I went to open houses and sold real fast was in the highlands area. it is an area I do think will grow fast...

[mmyk72]

While househunting in the recent past, a lot of the houses I looked at sold pretty quickly in Waltham. The ones I made offer on many times had multiple offers. Houses that looked extremely dated and disgusting still sold, but a little longer. The ones that I saw which were decent enough went under contract in a week or less.

I doubt people are 'betting' on the wrong town. IMO, there are plenty of people who don't care or need schools - placing more emphasis on the proximity of where they live to whatever they need to get to (Boston, highway, shopping, etc.). Waltham being so close to boston, has a healthy tax base, low property tax relatively, has a lot going for it. There are many parts of town in Waltham that are not as 'pristine' as the typical Natick neighborhood, but then there are many other parts in Waltham that are quiet.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by mmyk72

While househunting in the recent past, a lot of the houses I looked at sold pretty quickly in Waltham. The ones I made offer on many times had multiple offers. Houses that looked extremely dated and disgusting still sold, but a little longer. The ones that I saw which were decent enough went under contract in a week or less.

I doubt people are 'betting' on the wrong town. IMO, there are plenty of people who don't care or need schools - placing more emphasis on the proximity of where they live to whatever they need to get to (Boston, highway, shopping, etc.). Waltham being so close to boston, has a healthy tax base, low property tax relatively, has a lot going for it. There are many parts of town in Waltham that are not as 'pristine' as the typical Natick neighborhood, but then there are many other parts in Waltham that are quiet.

According to this chart I saw on the National Association of Realtor economist's blog today, there are in fact very very few people who don't care about the quality of the local school system. The chart actually breaks out the categories by single, married, unmarried couples, etc and is based on a survery performed by the association.

http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realt...12/120312A.png

[mmyk72]

Originally Posted by MikePRU

According to this chart I saw on the National Association of Realtor economist's blog today, there are in fact very very few people who don't care about the quality of the local school system. The chart actually breaks out the categories by single, married, unmarried couples, etc and is based on a survery performed by the association.

http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realt...12/120312A.png

Interesting info! However, I interpreted the same info differently....

Let's say the potential buyers were not looking for a house in a town with the top school in the first place, then they won't be compromising at all. They may already know their budget allows them the mid-tier school upfront and therefore do not feel they were compromising.

I don't disagree that decent schools are important. I also think that school quality is an "indicator" of the town's potential to hold value (again no one can predict the future but we always try). This can be a perception someone develops (whether with data supporting this or not) about the quality of the town itself, the type of residents/neighbors who are in majority (well educated / high income vs. blue collar), how safe the town is or feels, whether the people running the town are doing a good job, etc....

Case in point, I know friends who bought in Randolph 20-30 yrs ago. The schools are way below par and in association with that, you'd see a lot more kids hanging out and most people associate this situation with petty crimes. Even though R town is close to Boston, I've not seen anyone mention this as 'the next big turnaround' and property prices has been depressed for years. No one wants to spend hard-earned money in a town like this when there are better choices to be had for the same money.

[DaltoBoston]

Originally Posted by mmyk72

I don't disagree that decent schools are important. I also think that school quality is an "indicator" of the town's potential to hold value (again no one can predict the future but we always try). This can be a perception someone develops (whether with data supporting this or not) about the quality of the town itself, the type of residents/neighbors who are in majority (well educated / high income vs. blue collar), how safe the town is or feels, whether the people running the town are doing a good job, etc....

I agree with you here. I also think if one studies the trends of the elementary schools one can guess the trend the town will take, reason, you cannot have a good middle and high school system if the elementary schools ard town suck. So be it Natick or Arlington or Newton or Waltham, if the elementary school systems are getting better and better, then you know the direction the town will go in general over a longer period of time. Also, if you start hearing abt overcrowding, you know the town has peaked and will plateau from there, from an investment stand point. Why do I say so, most towns with the top rated school systems will be on the higher end of price which generally is out of reach of most FTHB (generally folks in their 20's and 30's) unless they are willing to compromise like crazy, resulting in them moving to towns that have an average system, meaning, there is an influx of younger population, and if the town wants them to stay, they first will have to pay attention to the schools that will keep that population so as to have their tax base, which in turn allows them to attract more folks, which widens the tax base and you now have more money to invest in the schools, which in turn has other effects on the neighborhood. Now if you have inept town council folks, then this all goes to moot, but this is what I have noticed.... this is my novice theory and could be completely wrong . One assumption here is that most people are looking to buy what they can really afford and not go for the million dollar home when they really can afford only a 300K home and that banks are not being jerks in telling them they can afford them......

[donewithpretty]

According to this chart I saw on the National Association of Realtor economist's blog today, there are in fact very very few people who don't care about the quality of the local school system. The chart actually breaks out the categories by single, married, unmarried couples, etc and is based on a survery performed by the association.

http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realt...12/120312A.png

The numbers show that people care about school system but not that they care about being in the top districts. Only 3% of home buyers felt they were compromising on schools. In order for "top schools" to be everyone's priority, that would mean that 97% of homes sold were in top school districts. Obviously, that's not possible. Instead, the data show that the majority of people were fine with not being in one of the top-ranked districts.

[Cato the Elder]

I think the long-term track record (and eventually the reputation that invariably follows) of a school district is what matters. In this regard, it's like steering the Titanic. Schools don't become good or bad overnight and their reputations are even slower to change. For this reason, most of the traditionally well-regarded districts don't break too much of a sweat trying to achieve a top five ranking; they just need to stay somewhere near the top. This would included Lexington, Winchester, Concord, Wellesley, etc. Arlington seems to have broken through but they now need to work hard and stay there for a generation. If Belmont keeps it up, I think they can fall from excellent to merely good. If Waltham could go from bad/average to good, I think they could follow in the footsteps of Arlington. Its location is too good and it's too interesting of a town to be perceived the way it is. I think Waltham's upside is greater than Melrose's for various reasons.