Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Yeah, that's one of the top reasons I moved away. Even if you can technically afford Boston it's just a raw deal unless you are wealthy or never plan on having a family. If prices were on par with Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Philly would be worth moving back.
Boston is fine if you are single or own real estate in the city. If you have 3 kids and make less than 200k you might as well just burn the money at this point.
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.
I mean, it's really both the city and the lower density 'burbs that need to continue/start doing their part.
Metro Boston really lacks the type of higher density nodes around transit that you see in metro New York, DC, the Bay Area, etc. I think it's largely a function of MA giving so much control and oversight to municipalities rather than counties. Granted, there are many benefits to municipal government, but you can bet there'd be more development around spots like Kendal Green in Weston (commuter rail, close to 128 and 20) if it was a Middlesex County decision rather than a Weston decision. Similar examples play out all over the metro area - we're crippled by small towns that really fight any/all development tooth and nail. Even outliers like Weymouth where there are opportunities (the old Naval Air Station), progress is slow and nobody takes full advantage.
And while Boston may be one of the most densely populated cities in the country, it still has a good deal of room to build. No, of course it doesn't have wide open spaces like the 'burbs, but Boston (and Somerville, Cambridge, etc.) still has a ton of un and underutilized industrial spaces, surface parking lots, etc. to build on. Anyone can take a quick look at google maps and see just how much land in places like the Seaport (particularly around the Convention Center), Inner Belt, Cambridge Crossing, Sullivan Square, Newmarket, Widett Circle, Lower Allston, etc. is open or expansive (and underutilized) surface parking and within walking distance to the city center or easily transit accessible. The amount of undeveloped surface parking lots around the Convention Center alone is comparable in acreage to the entire Financial District. This is to say nothing of the land occupied by single story, suburban style storefronts which really don't belong in an urban core. I realize there are plenty of people who don't like cities and think Boston is "too crowded," but it really isn't and that attitude is part of the problem. Boston's still well over 100,000 people shy of its historic high population (over 800,000 people lived in Boston in 1950 - 684,000 live here today), and there are plenty of cities (a few in the U.S. and many more overseas) that are bigger, denser, and still very livable. Boston can definitely accommodate more people and more development. In fact, it needs to in order to remain even slightly accessible to anyone other than the uber-wealthy.
So in order to meet the demand, both the city and the burbs need to rise to the occasion. It can't be all (or even mostly) on one and not the other. And right now, it's really just Boston/Cambridge/Somerville shouldering the load.
I mean, it's really both the city and the lower density 'burbs that need to continue/start doing their part.
Metro Boston really lacks the type of higher density nodes around transit that you see in metro New York, DC, the Bay Area, etc. I think it's largely a function of MA giving so much control and oversight to municipalities rather than counties. Granted, there are many benefits to municipal government, but you can bet there'd be more development around spots like Kendal Green in Weston (commuter rail, close to 128 and 20) if it was a Middlesex County decision rather than a Weston decision. Similar examples play out all over the metro area - we're crippled by small towns that really fight any/all development tooth and nail. Even outliers like Weymouth where there are opportunities (the old Naval Air Station), progress is slow and nobody takes full advantage.
And while Boston may be one of the most densely populated cities in the country, it still has a good deal of room to build. No, of course it doesn't have wide open spaces like the 'burbs, but Boston (and Somerville, Cambridge, etc.) still has a ton of un and underutilized industrial spaces, surface parking lots, etc. to build on. Anyone can take a quick look at google maps and see just how much land in places like the Seaport (particularly around the Convention Center), Inner Belt, Cambridge Crossing, Sullivan Square, Newmarket, Widett Circle, Lower Allston, etc. is open or expansive (and underutilized) surface parking and within walking distance to the city center or easily transit accessible. The amount of undeveloped surface parking lots around the Convention Center alone is comparable in acreage to the entire Financial District. This is to say nothing of the land occupied by single story, suburban style storefronts which really don't belong in an urban core. I realize there are plenty of people who don't like cities and think Boston is "too crowded," but it really isn't and that attitude is part of the problem. Boston's still well over 100,000 people shy of its historic high population (over 800,000 people lived in Boston in 1950 - 684,000 live here today), and there are plenty of cities (a few in the U.S. and many more overseas) that are bigger, denser, and still very livable. Boston can definitely accommodate more people and more development. In fact, it needs to in order to remain even slightly accessible to anyone other than the uber-wealthy.
So in order to meet the demand, both the city and the burbs need to rise to the occasion. It can't be all (or even mostly) on one and not the other. And right now, it's really just Boston/Cambridge/Somerville shouldering the load.
A few things. Mainly, households are significantly smaller now than when population peaked. To achieve that level of people again in 2021, will require a lot more to be paved over. A lot more infrastructure. You also had "slums" razed and replaced by renewal projects that are now ingrained. I agree that there are underutilized areas that could accommodate more housing, but I don't want Boston to be Manhattan or Hong Hong. I don't think anybody does, nor does it have to be.
To add on to your city underutilized places and the S Weymouth NAS, there's also a considerable amount of places in non-NIMBY suburbs where it's a crime that housing hasn't taken off. Mishawum in Woburn. Also the 128 Station in Westwood, where housing was supposed to be include along with the glamorized strip mall that exists now. What the heck are they waiting for???
...is $2,200 too much for an apartment? I think this is crazy.
How does that number relate to the weekly take home pay (after taxes, WH's, etc)?
If their total MONTHLY housing costs tracks their WEEKLY income closely enough they'll be fine.
How many weekly checks do YOU have to burn to cover your monthly housing bills?
A few things. Mainly, households are significantly smaller now than when population peaked. To achieve that level of people again in 2021, will require a lot more to be paved over. A lot more infrastructure. You also had "slums" razed and replaced by renewal projects that are now ingrained. I agree that there are underutilized areas that could accommodate more housing, but I don't want Boston to be Manhattan or Hong Hong. I don't think anybody does, nor does it have to be.
To add on to your city underutilized places and the S Weymouth NAS, there's also a considerable amount of places in non-NIMBY suburbs where it's a crime that housing hasn't taken off. Mishawum in Woburn. Also the 128 Station in Westwood, where housing was supposed to be include along with the glamorized strip mall that exists now. What the heck are they waiting for???
Sure, households are smaller today than in 1950, but population distribution is also different. People are living in places today where they never lived before (i.e. Seaport, downtown, etc.). We're also building much larger buildings (far more housing units) than people were living in in 1950. So it's not as if Boston's bursting at the seams because of smaller households. There's a LONG way to go before Boston is Manhattan or Hong Kong. Boston today has a population density today of 14,400 people per square mile. Mahattan is about 73,000 people per square mile. Boston could become 5 times as dense as it is right now and still not be as dense as Manhattan. Extremely manageable and livable cities like Geneva, Copenhagen, Lisbon, Milan, etc. are all a good deal denser than Boston currently is. Obviously nobody wants to see Boston become 5 times as dense as it is, but there's clearly quite a bit more room to grow without even nearing the same stratosphere as Manhattan.
But outside of Boston, I completely agree. It's extremely frustrating and we need places like that to take some of the burden off of Boston. It's not possible for the metro area to grow to meet demand without the suburbs playing a big part.
How does that number relate to the weekly take home pay (after taxes, WH's, etc)?
If their total MONTHLY housing costs tracks their WEEKLY income closely enough they'll be fine.
How many weekly checks do YOU have to burn to cover your monthly housing bills?
Just above one post tax. Pretax it would cover it. There's no reason for the city of boston to expect that people should move in just to struggle because they think they get something extra. In all due respect many businesses have hq's in boston because for a long time it was easy to get to and because of that it meant more potential applicants which means better hiring etc. People liked it as well due to higher numbers of employers...the ended. As more moves online (I said this precovid) the higher property values mean higher commercial rents with a harder ROI to justify. covid was the straw that broke the camels back.
I just was talking to my folks and a cousin of mine is moving into an apartment. I don't think there's a roommate but given everything going on is $2,200 too much for an apartment? I think this is crazy. the cousin is not in their 20's so I don't see what the "extra" is going to be for that. I could say $1,700-$1,900 but this is nuts
With all due respect, this is incredibly non-descriptive. What city/neighborhood is this apt. in? How many bedrooms? Is it a centralized location within the city or further out? In real estate, the golden rule is location, location, location!
You're not giving me a lot to go on here (not trying to be an A-hole, but it's true), but according to the most recent data I could find, which was updated May 15, 2021, $2200 is only slightly higher than standard for a 1-bedroom apt. within the City of Boston. And this is updated to reflect rental prices going down with Covid-19. They were higher just a few years ago.
So, depending on what the details you're not giving us are, your cousin could be getting screwed or she could be getting the deal of a lifetime. Hard to say.
Back in 1996, you could rent an entire floor of a triple decker with all 3 bedrooms for just $750. Building enough housing for everyone who needs/wants to live in this city and raise families so they don't have to shell out 4-5 times that money, now that would be reasonable. It can be done but no one in power wants to do it.
From 1993-2000, my mother (parents divorced) paid $625 for a 3-bedroom for my brother and I and her in a 2-family house near Davis Square in Somerville.
The landlord was an old Italian lady who never raised the rent. And then her weirdo son took over and jacked up the rents to an astronomical rate and so we were forced to move out, along with the upstairs tenant.
Place is probably like $3k now, and the 2-story larger unit upstairs is like $3.5k (or would be if it were rented, last I heard is that it's owner-occupied by the new owner).
I just was talking to my folks and a cousin of mine is moving into an apartment. I don't think there's a roommate but given everything going on is $2,200 too much for an apartment? I think this is crazy. the cousin is not in their 20's so I don't see what the "extra" is going to be for that. I could say $1,700-$1,900 but this is nuts
Is it too much? Yes.
Is it typical for Boston? Yes
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
