Arlington real estate prices getting close to Lexington, Winchester, Belmont (Boston: fit in, lease)

[semiurbanite]

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

Not exactly, Lexington, Winchester and Belmont are pretty walkable in parts, especially Lexington. Arlington does get the nod for being closer in and more connected to Cambridge and Boston. It is the closest one to an MBTA stop which helps.

In the lower to mid range they are getting very close. Not so much the high end.

"in parts" is the key, but overall not really. Lexington and Winchester have walk scores in the 30s. Arlington is a 65.

[A-townie]

I agree that Arlington was under priced for a long time maybe it's just catching up to its real value. Like many, I wished I would have bought years ago...

Average prices at the town level are misleading (since McMansion are impacting the numbers) so I did a kind of Comparative Market Analysis with similar properties (again 600K to 750K, SFH, 3 bedroom, in move-in condition and I'll add to the requirements 1500 to 2000 sf, 4000 to 7000 sf of land, older home).

The Zillow estimate available directly in the map is also a nice tool to get a rough idea of what the market prices may be.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

Not everyone, but more and more people are looking for that urban vibe. I think Arlington attracts those people.

These are the average price per square foot numbers for homes sold in the last year. Arlington higher than Lexington and Winchester?

Cambridge $617
Somerville $436
Belmont $407
Arlington $363
Lexington $359
Winchester $349
Medford $303

I think the trend towards urban living is possibly real but often overstated. I appreciate that you don't like the suburbs, but lots of people do. I would say Arlington is undergoing a transition from ok-to-do suburb to well-to-do suburb.

Think Millennials Prefer The City? Think Again. | FiveThirtyEight

Price per square foot doesn't tell the whole story. House price is not linear with square footage. The median home price in Lexington is $840k, it's more like $610k in Arlington. A quick look on your favorite housing site will show that comparing similar houses, Arlington is still (slightly) less expensive.

To exaggerate the difference, Dover would be way at the bottom of your list at $215, but no one is mistaking Dover for anything but a well-to-do town.

[semiurbanite]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I think the trend towards urban living is possibly real but often overstated. I appreciate that you don't like the suburbs, but lots of people do. I would say Arlington is undergoing a transition from ok-to-do suburb to well-to-do suburb.

Think Millennials Prefer The City? Think Again. | FiveThirtyEight

Price per square foot doesn't tell the whole story. House price is not linear with square footage. The median home price in Lexington is $840k, it's more like $610k in Arlington. A quick look on your favorite housing site will show that comparing similar houses, Arlington is still (slightly) less expensive.

To exaggerate the difference, Dover would be way at the bottom of your list at $215, but no one is mistaking Dover for anything but a well-to-do town.

Your article says "Whether by choice or economic circumstance"

These studies mistakenly confuse two different points. One is "where do you WANT to live", and millennials almost always say the city in every study ever conducted. However when you look at demographic data, it sometimes tells a different story because people move to where they can afford but not necessarily where they want to live. From yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...502-story.html

The way I see it, if you want to gauge where people want to live, look at prices because they reflect demand. Urban neighborhoods have appreciated fastest, thus they have the highest demand, thus this is where more people want to live. Of course it's not everyone, but there has absolutely been a big shift in demand toward cities.

And you are right, larger houses command a lower price per square foot. If you look at homes between 2000-2500 sqft you get this, probably the more expected result though Belmont is surprisingly high.

Cambridge $525
Belmont $395
Somerville $376
Lexington $372
Winchester $348
Arlington $339
medford $266

[masshawk]

Belmont being high isn't surprising to me. The town is about 2 miles by 2 miles square with a population of 30k. Subtract Habitat, McLean, all the parks and schools, and the largest properties on the hill, and you have a lot of people jammed into a tiny area a fraction of the size of Lexington but with comparable prices.

[3cents]

Now, if you check Redfin today, for the past 1 year sold SFH of at least 3 bedrooms, you'll see that the median for Arlington is $650K, and $950K for Winchester. What this means is that in general, the predominant types of housing in these two towns are just very different. Winchester has a lot of those very pretty million dollar houses, large square footage, large yard etc.

Coming back to the OP's observation, I was house hunting about 3 years ago in various towns, including Arlington and Winchester, around the $650K range. It is actually quite true that the types of houses you get at that price point is very similar, except that the Winchester houses have a larger yard, and there are way lesser Winchester houses at $650K vs Arlington. Note that this implies you could get a *better* house in Arlington vs Winchester, at $650K.

So why do some people still go to Winchester then? Some like bigger yards. And the test scores of the elementary schools differ. According to schooldigger, Arlington elementary schools rank 20, 71, 89, 90, 106, 123, 177 at the state level, while Winchester's rank 15, 26, 27, 29, 63.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

Your article says "Whether by choice or economic circumstance"

These studies mistakenly confuse two different points. One is "where do you WANT to live", and millennials almost always say the city in every study ever conducted. However when you look at demographic data, it sometimes tells a different story because people move to where they can afford but not necessarily where they want to live.

The way I see it, if you want to gauge where people want to live, look at prices because they reflect demand. Urban neighborhoods have appreciated fastest, thus they have the highest demand, thus this is where more people want to live. Of course it's not everyone, but there has absolutely been a big shift in demand toward cities.

And you are right, larger houses command a lower price per square foot. If you look at homes between 2000-2500 sqft you get this, probably the more expected result though Belmont is surprisingly high.

Cambridge $525
Belmont $395
Somerville $376
Lexington $372
Winchester $348
Arlington $339
medford $266

1) Where do you get your data? I'm not questioning it, I looked for similar numbers and had to cobble stuff together.

2) You have a good point about prices reflecting demand. I certainly know a lot of (mostly younger) people who prefer urban living, but I also know those who prefer the suburban or even rural settings. I wonder how much of that is driven by jobs; people don't like commuting and the high paying jobs tend to be in Boston and Cambridge. I wonder what the shift in jobs has been like? Certainly urban areas without high-paying jobs are being depopulated (i.e. Detroit). I suspect that even if you account for job growth, there has been a trend towards urban but some (not necessarily you) have oversold it.

[semiurbanite]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

1) Where do you get your data? I'm not questioning it, I looked for similar numbers and had to cobble stuff together.

2) You have a good point about prices reflecting demand. I certainly know a lot of (mostly younger) people who prefer urban living, but I also know those who prefer the suburban or even rural settings. I wonder how much of that is driven by jobs; people don't like commuting and the high paying jobs tend to be in Boston and Cambridge. I wonder what the shift in jobs has been like? Certainly urban areas without high-paying jobs are being depopulated (i.e. Detroit). I suspect that even if you account for job growth, there has been a trend towards urban but some (not necessarily you) have oversold it.

I used Redfin, did a search and filtered on the sqft range. At the bottom of the search results is the averages.

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by 495neighbor

Not exactly, Lexington, Winchester and Belmont are pretty walkable in parts, especially Lexington. Arlington does get the nod for being closer in and more connected to Cambridge and Boston. It is the closest one to an MBTA stop which helps.

In the lower to mid range they are getting very close. Not so much the high end.

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

"in parts" is the key, but overall not really. Lexington and Winchester have walk scores in the 30s. Arlington is a 65.

So you are basing this on scores provided by a website, not observation and experience?

[SpringMom3]

I noticed a lot of people we knew looking/buying in Arlington and Winchester once they were ready to leave the Boston/Cambridge. We lived in Cambridge, so Arlington was not far, had good schools, and easily accessible to all of the old stomping grounds. It's a great mix of suburban area with easy accessibility into a more urban area. I completely see it's appeal.

I am guessing that Arlington's school rankings will very quickly go up.