Betting on towns in the Boston area? (home, find a job)

[donewithpretty]

Konfetka, you do make a good case for Beverly! If I didn't spend so much time west and south of the city, it would be high on my list. Of course, my personal interests don't have much to do with real estate trends overall.

In the case of Melrose, I have mixed feelings. I wish it would get better, but I don't know if it has seen it's better days. The problem is the size of houses and lots.

I see your point, but isn't this also true of Arlington? Newton?

[konfetka]

Originally Posted by donewithpretty

Konfetka, you do make a good case for Beverly! If I didn't spend so much time west and south of the city, it would be high on my list. Of course, my personal interests don't have much to do with real estate trends overall.



I see your point, but isn't this also true of Arlington? Newton?

That's true. The answer is many people will choose to live in a smaller home to be close to the city, and near public transport, even though they could have more space for the same money in a comparable school district just by adding 15-20 more minutes to their commute.

I think the appeal of Melrose also is due to it's downtown, and other positive aspects of the community, and many people would be more comfortable staying there, rather then opening themselves to the unknown. So far the track record of Melrose has been strong. May be the answer is there will always be enough people who would prefer the lifestyle that a town like Melrose and Arlington provide to fill the demand for real estate there, because there a lot fewer towns like that, then more spread out towns with bigger newer houses. I would add Swampscott to that list, too.

[konfetka]

Originally Posted by miu

I just don't think that the term "bet" should be used in these discussions. It's just not good to link buying a home with gambling for high yield and profit. While real estate bubbles can benefit a few lucky ones, overall there are too many "losers" created in its aftermath.

And the original post implies that in looking for "winner" real estate transactions, those who lose their "bets" will end up with housing that loses by being worth a lot less than their original purchase price. And that leads to people walking away from their loan obligations and their homes being foreclosed on. After all, if everyone keeps examining the values of their homes, who wants to keep paying a mortgage on a house or condo that has dropped drastically in its market value?

And wouldn't it be great if we never had to live through burst real estate bubbles again?

Whether you like it or not, real estate doesn't stay the same and it goes up and down in different towns for different reasons. You can either ignore it, or make a thoughtful decision to position yourself in the upward direction.

The lower you buy the less you will lose. People will stand to loose the most $ amount (even if it's less in % terms) in the most overpriced towns, with the most downward potential (in the case of another financial crisis). In the middle of the road towns there may be more upward potential if schools improve and a town becomes more popular and less $ to lose.

My point is if you really wanted to play the real estate market, there is no point in buying in towns that have 9 or 10 schools, because there is no more potential appreciation due to schools (but depreciation is still possible). But if you buy in a 6 or 7 school district, if it goes to 8 or 9 then you will see higher demand and house prices. But to do that you would have to look carefully at the trends in that school district to determine where it's going next.

[sharencare]

Originally Posted by tikaram

I think Natick is on a rise. Not that it's been a run down town or anything, it's already quite desirable - yet still affordable. But I see it gaining on popularity and raising prices within next 5 years.

I agree, though I would say it's already getting pretty expensive for what you get. But compared to Weston, Dover, and Wellesley, anything looks reasonable by comparison. Natick is indeed only 1-2 stops beyond Wellesley, and lots of time the trains bypass Newton and the rural Wellesley stops. So the commute runs 35-50 minutes, with most of it being a straight shot into Back Bay/South Station. The only downside about the Framingham/Worcester line is that it's notorious for being late especially under extreme weather conditions (high heat/ice), to the point that the rail line to appease the riders, set up it's first wifi trials there. Natick is also near Framingham and the Mass Pike, so easy access to malls, restaurants, and theaters. It's also near a corridor full of white collar workers and local colleges, so you'll have the educated professionals with young families who want yards start to prowl the area for starter homes.

But personally, this is what would attract me to Natick
1. one of us works in Boston and need to be near a commuter rail
2. one of us works out in the MetroWest and has a car and wants to be near children's schools

Otherwise if both parents have cars and don't need the train into Boston (which is dicey on the weekends), there are plenty of other nice towns in the area that are even more affordable if you are willing to drive down a few back roads.

By the way, if you need a train into Boston, there's also Sharon. I heard the town itself is very quiet, but the housing is reasonable, the schools are very good, and the Legacy Place mall in Dedham is very close by if you need a little entertainment. The commute into Boston is about the same as Natick give or take 10 minutes.

[PantsB]

My feeling is that a shorter commute (and the feeling of being as close to town as possible) plus a good education system (as well as low crime rate) is going to win out. Generally the people who live in the Boston area are not going to value huge McMansions/yards and very low tax rates as much as the US population in general because of self-selection. If you want really large houses and yards, there are other parts of the country that are more affordable. If you want low taxes and don't mind a commute to Boston, there's NH. While lots of people value those but stay in MA for other reasons, some substantial portion will move elsewhere.

I do think walkability will be increasingly valuable, but that will not be the central driver of suburban "it"-ness.

[kingeorge]

First two categories should be merged into one. It is duplicate with exception of Burlington which is not walkable and no public transportation.

[donewithpretty]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

First two categories should be merged into one. It is duplicate with exception of Burlington which is not walkable and no public transportation.

The towns listed are just examples. Middle class towns would also include Acton, Natick, and many others. Walkable towns with town centers are not just middle class towns -- Newton, Arlington, Brookline, Winchester, Concord Center, etc., all qualify.

[Lexres2012]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

First two categories should be merged into one. It is duplicate with exception of Burlington which is not walkable and no public transportation.

You are right about no train station, but I do believe Burlington is serviced by a couple of MBTA bus lines. They also have their own town wide bus system "the B line" which provides transportation to residents throughout town and has stops near the MBTA stops.

[kingeorge]

Originally Posted by Lexres2012

You are right about no train station, but I do believe Burlington is serviced by a couple of MBTA bus lines. They also have their own town wide bus system "the B line" which provides transportation to residents throughout town and has stops near the MBTA stops.

Thanks for the info. I was unaware of that. Good for Burlington!

[Brave Stranger]

Originally Posted by kingeorge

Thanks for the info. I was unaware of that. Good for Burlington!

The 350 bus runs from the T station (red line) Alwife to the Burlington Mall if I remember. Think it runs once an hour. There might be another bus line also.