Is $2,200 too much for rent? (Boston, Cambridge: crime, house, neighborhood)

[id77]

Originally Posted by Space_League

What if places like Brookline, Milton, Belmont and Metro West Suburbs decided to increase density by 10-30x to match the level of demand and bring their land use patterns in line with other suburbs like Quincy, Malden, Watertown, Medford?


Probably not going to happen... but what if?

They would cease to be the desirable areas they are now. The increased density would drive out the affluent populations and the decreased tax revenue per capita would bring those cities to be about equivalent to a JP or Dorchester, so either way the middle class would be living in the same general place. Only thing that would change is which direction from downtown that housing is.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Over the past few decades rents have risen, but they haven’t dramatically diverged from the increase in salaries in the area. Real estate purchase prices are another story.

Haha. Yeah, because many of the lower earning people have in large part been replaced by higher earning people and/or more sharing of units.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Rent cooled off a bit last year, but with colleges all coming back in the fall and more jobs requiring people to be in-person in the coming months for at least a few days a week, the prices are increasing.


My 1 bedroom with coin laundry in the basement in Marlborough was just increased to $1800 a month. Marlborough! That covers heat and hot water, parking, and a pet fee as well, but there are still tons of people moving in. If a complex in Marlborough can demand that much for a 1 bedroom, certainly apartments closer to and in the city can demand $2200. Whether someone can afford that is a different story.

I believe you will see more rising rents in outlying areas now than in the city, as more urban dwellers are in flux to burbs.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

Are you ok with a 3 bedroom in a high-rise tower? If we're talking affordable housing in the city, that's the form it's going to take for people who think it's expensive now. The only way the city can build enough housing to make it affordable to the middle class is to demolish triple-deckers in neighborhoods like JP and Dorchester and build high-rises in their place.

Originally Posted by Space_League

What if places like Brookline, Milton, Belmont and Metro West Suburbs decided to increase density by 10-30x to match the level of demand and bring their land use patterns in line with other suburbs like Quincy, Malden, Watertown, Medford?


Probably not going to happen... but what if?

Originally Posted by id77

They would cease to be the desirable areas they are now. The increased density would drive out the affluent populations and the decreased tax revenue per capita would bring those cities to be about equivalent to a JP or Dorchester, so either way the middle class would be living in the same general place. Only thing that would change is which direction from downtown that housing is.

This has come up here over and over again. Boston is crowded enough, so is Cambridge. So is Quincy, and so is Somerville. At this point, it's on the nearby ultra low dense suburbs to start doing their part. These communities do not need to be entirely transformed or have their desirability destroyed, if the development is tasteful and targeted to the right areas. If each of those towns increase their housing inventory by 50%, that will have a profound impact on the region's supply. Meanwhile, most in town won't even realize they are there (again, if tucked away in the right spots). I'll be dead before this happens, but it's what has to happen for the issue to be resolved.

[Space_League]

Originally Posted by massnative71

This has come up here over and over again. Boston is crowded enough, so is Cambridge. So is Quincy, and so is Somerville. At this point, it's on the nearby ultra low dense suburbs to start doing their part. These communities do not need to be entirely transformed or have their desirability destroyed, if the development is tasteful and targeted to the right areas. If each of those towns increase their housing inventory by 50%, that will have a profound impact on the region's supply. Meanwhile, most in town won't even realize they are there (again, if tucked away in the right spots). I'll be dead before this happens, but it's what has to happen for the issue to be resolved.

Brookline might be the absolute worst offender. How can so much of it be <1000 ppsm in such a central location... it doesn't even qualify as an urban area by census standards LMAO yet they have ... 15? T stops not counting all the stops right outside the border on Comm Ave, Mission Hill etc

Adjacent blocks are posting densities literally 40x higher than theirs. Brighton has some of the lowest rents in the entire city.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Space_League

Brookline might be the absolute worst offender. How can so much of it be <1000 ppsm in such a central location... it doesn't even qualify as an urban area by census standards LMAO yet they have ... 15? T stops not counting all the stops right outside the border on Comm Ave, Mission Hill etc

Adjacent blocks are posting densities literally 40x higher than theirs. Brighton has some of the lowest rents in the entire city.

Eh, I don't think Brookline has much empty space to really develop though? When you talk about wasted land that would be perfect for development (highway/transit access, near to jobs...), the W towns are what come to mind the most. And to an extent places like Canton, Westwood, Sharon. Bedford to the north...

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

This has come up here over and over again. Boston is crowded enough, so is Cambridge. So is Quincy, and so is Somerville. At this point, it's on the nearby ultra low dense suburbs to start doing their part. These communities do not need to be entirely transformed or have their desirability destroyed, if the development is tasteful and targeted to the right areas. If each of those towns increase their housing inventory by 50%, that will have a profound impact on the region's supply. Meanwhile, most in town won't even realize they are there (again, if tucked away in the right spots). I'll be dead before this happens, but it's what has to happen for the issue to be resolved.

And, like has been brought up time and time again including your post, these towns will not ever do this because their tax-paying and voting base is very much opposed to it. These towns are doing their part by keeping such development far away, because that's exactly what these towns' tax base wants, and high-wealth low-density is the best of both worlds option for a town. They get more tax revenue per capita and have to use it to service a smaller population.

So, any remotely realistic conversation about building more urban housing has to start with the areas that are willing to build. To borrow from Boromir, one does not simply build ample affordable housing in the gold-plated W towns. It is folly.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

And, like has been brought up time and time again including your post, these towns will not ever do this because their tax-paying and voting base is very much opposed to it. These towns are doing their part by keeping such development far away, because that's exactly what these towns' tax base wants, and high-wealth low-density is the best of both worlds option for a town. They get more tax revenue per capita and have to use it to service a smaller population.

So, any remotely realistic conversation about building more urban housing has to start with the areas that are willing to build. To borrow from Boromir, one does not simply build ample affordable housing in the gold-plated W towns. It is folly.

Folly does not fit as a term. The way we have been doing it, is what's a folly.



Multi-unit housing does not necessarily harm the tax base, in fact it's often the opposite.



Case in point, next door Waltham has a lower tax rate than Weston and offers far more bang for the buck in the amount of services provided.



https://patch.com/massachusetts/bost...ma-communities


Towns like Weston actually get screwed because they have little to no commercial property, homeowners pretty much pay for it all. But that's how they want it, so...

[msRB311]

Well I guess not many more people will be able to move here unless they take what's available. Is that such a bad thing? It's a populated enough area. There are other cities/states to live in.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Well I guess not many more people will be able to move here unless they take what's available. Is that such a bad thing? It's a populated enough area. There are other cities/states to live in.

The problem is they already came, and the jobs are very poorly distributed in relation to where people live.