Do you think MA retirees will sell their homes en masse by 2015? (Boston: houses, neighborhood)

[MichelleLane]

There are 78 million Baby Boomers and the first wave are turning retirement age now. The span of oldest to youngest baby boomers is about 15 years. So, it would take 15 years before they (we) all turn 65. When that happens, we will have the greatest percentage of retirement age seniors that we have seen in this country. SO, there is a chance that over the next 15 years more of their homes will come on the market as they downsize or pass away. But it will not happend suddenly in a 2-year period. Most New Englanders seem to pass away living in their homes. I should know as I specialize in the sale of senior homes and estate sales. I sell far more homes AFTER they have passed away and the homes have wound up with the heirs.

There will always be a need for housing. The US population grows by the state of RI every year. Think of that - that is a lot of growth for a need in housing. But it will not be a need for high-end housing. Economists predict that the next generation - the echo boomers - will be the first generation that is not better off than their parents - combine that with the fact that they have been caught in the middle of this recession and I would guess that generation is looking to buy more modest homes than their parents did. In the greater Boston area, the need is fairly steady as the job market is far more robust here than in other parts of the country.

So I agree that it is likely we will see a lot of larger homes getting bought out by builders who will turn them to condos (given zoning laws permit). Taking the homes that fewer people can afford and turning them into housing that more people can afford and making a profit in the process.

[sharencare]

Look, if I chose to become a stay at home mom, I would never blame my sisters who choose to pursue careers and fight the good fight for all of us. To blame women for the rising costs of Boston housing (a phenomenon that has happened mainly in the last 15-20 years and has many more factors contributing to it besides women pursuing careers--e.g. 'white flight' from Boston schools, tech industry moving in, zoning laws), is a very narrow view of local real estate and the Boston area economy.

It's degrading to have all of society's woes put squarely on the shoulders of women. Fathers, politicians, employers, and schools also have to own up that they have a stake and can take action to make family life better. Things like parental leave, adjusting school schedules, and telecommuting policies could really make a difference.

Sigh. This is the last I'll say anything about it. This was meant to be a thread about retirees and real estate. Please, let's get back on topic like the moderator suggests.

[kingeorge]

Two interesting articles/research.
First link says that "baby boomers" will not move out of their homes and in retirement community. Staying "home" is preference. And second makes claim about "boomers" being largely unaffected by recent downturns, but since living longer and healthier, are not willing to retire as "early" as some previous generations. This one also hints that "boomers" will not be leaving their homes anytime soon. Not in huge numbers at least. They are as generation most invested in notion of "home-ownership".

http://udini.proquest.com/view/baby-...oid:276475335/

Don't Weep for Boomers Close to Retirement - Businessweek

[konfetka]

I know it's off topic, but this is too important to leave without explaining. This is really not about blaming, or boasting about your personal choice at the expense of others. No doubt women deserve credit for working and trying to help their husbands and families financially. I think women's choices have to do more with what others around are doing and not enough focus and understanding in the greater society. But it is really not about women, mothers and parents.

It is about children, and their psychology. When they only see their parents for 2 hours at night after you pick them up, there is only time for dinner and then it's bedtime. All day they are forced to spend with a bunch of other kids, kind of like living with the Duggars. Some of them will become friends and some of them will annoy them all day. But all of them will suddenly disappear. Kids need a safe loving home where they can spend time pursuing whatever they please without having to constantly share with 20 other kids. They need their own space, things and time. They need a caregiver they can always rely on and never have to part with. Kids get very attached to their nannies and caregivers and changing them is a personal tragedy for them. It might lead them to believe they were not worthy for them to stay around. Attachment with a parent is a foundation and a model for all future relationships. The younger kids are the more true it is. After about age 6 or 7 kids become a lot more social and are ready to let more people in and out of their lives.

Clearly a kid who spends a day with someone who unconditionally loves him, will be a lot happier and emotionally healthier then a kid who spends a day with someone who will not be able to give him enough attention or care to get emotionally invested.

Their crying when dropping off at daycare is not a normal thing, it's a sign of psychological trauma caused by separation they are not ready for.

Sadly in our society attachment to a parent is something that is looked down upon, and then they wonder why teenagers have so many problems and where did it all begin.

As far as fathers taking care of kids while mothers are working, good for them for trying, but mothers are simply better equipped biologically for childcare of younger kids, because they have more patience and empathy, while at the same time fathers are better equipped for bringing home the bacon, because they are more biologically inclined for competition and achievement.

Now, let's get back to the topic.

[kingeorge]

Even in MA, land of plenty, we should take note of this trend. If there are no FTHB there are no trader-uppers, and consequently, those big beautiful colonials in attractive suburbs might be sitting on the market for a very long time.

Post-college life struggles delay housing recovery | REwired

[495neighbor]

Getting back to the original topic, I think retirees in moderate homes will stay in them as long as they are physically able. Younger baby boomers and Xrs living in trophy homes will sell as soon as the last child is out of h.s. I find this group typically has the least emotional investment in the community and home itself. They often buy into the towns with the top schools as a cheaper alternative to private schooling. I imagine an oversupply of mega-mansions within the next fifteen years. My 20ish and 30ish friends with decent careers have no want of these oversized monstrosities.

[brightdoglover]

I was going to ask what "big, beautiful colonials" are- the new straight-front "colonials," the kind that can come in on a truck in boxes, are expensive and supposedly what buyers want. They also tend to be in a lot of suburbs, where there was some space to build them (or a more modest house to tear down). They are also butt ugly.
In my town, the only teardowns are former summer shacks, by and large, like the one I had, which basically fell down. Three rooms, badly built, failed systems and had to be totaled. Often, when houses like that are torn down, people do build the basic straightfront "colonial", usually for spec sale. They're so...ordinary.

[kingeorge]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

I was going to ask what "big, beautiful colonials" are- the new straight-front "colonials," the kind that can come in on a truck in boxes, are expensive and supposedly what buyers want. They also tend to be in a lot of suburbs, where there was some space to build them (or a more modest house to tear down). They are also butt ugly.
In my town, the only teardowns are former summer shacks, by and large, like the one I had, which basically fell down. Three rooms, badly built, failed systems and had to be totaled. Often, when houses like that are torn down, people do build the basic straightfront "colonial", usually for spec sale. They're so...ordinary.

I agree. Most newer homes lack grace, good proportion and scale. Quality is often very questionable too. I love older homes with some history when it comes to RE, however we in MA have too many homes that are just too old and too expensive to save. Economy is is not in favor of costly rehab and remodels. Younger generations will be looking for more renovated/newer and much more practical housing. Unfortunately, I think that many well-off buyers during 80' and 90' jumped on those colonial-monstrosities, and validated their existence. Even now many are looking for big new homes, and big new homes are all the same. So, I do stand corrected, it should read "huge suburban homes". Beauty is in the eye of beholder.

[brightdoglover]

I'd rather buy a '50s ranch and modernize it. After I bought my crumbling cottage, I did see that often some houses are worth saving, but I still wouldn't want one of those boxes. The typical layouts are lousy, too- people often feel they "don't have enough space" when there's a lot of space- it's just laid out in such a way that you don't use it.

[495neighbor]

I have quite a few friends in their 20s and 30s updating older homes.