Some questions about housing in Northern MA / southern NH

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by Leo58

Yeah, this is a point that I have had some trouble understanding. I've been told that the Boston region is all built out, no land available for new housing. Yet everywhere I look are forests and undeveloped land. Most houses in the suburbs seem to sit on 1 or 2 acre lots, which is huge by most standards. I've owned four houses in different states, and all were between 0.25 and 0.5 acre lots. I'm told that here it is because of zoning. I suppose the intent is to preserve some sort of rural or vintage character to the towns, but the actual result is an area filled with rundown old houses that nobody can afford.

The large amount of forested acreage is protected by either the state or the town. New developments often come from tracts of farm land that is sold off. You aren't going to find that if you are looking at towns close to Boston. Those towns have smaller lots and they were built out many, many years ago.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Leo58

Yeah, this is a point that I have had some trouble understanding. I've been told that the Boston region is all built out, no land available for new housing. Yet everywhere I look are forests and undeveloped land. Most houses in the suburbs seem to sit on 1 or 2 acre lots, which is huge by most standards. I've owned four houses in different states, and all were between 0.25 and 0.5 acre lots. I'm told that here it is because of zoning. I suppose the intent is to preserve some sort of rural or vintage character to the towns, but the actual result is an area filled with rundown old houses that nobody can afford.

It's one of the downsides of having extreme local control. The NIMBYism on steroids you find in MA benefits the individual town, or at least those who already own property there; but at the expense of the whole region's progress.

[gf2020]

Originally Posted by Leo58

I've been told that the Boston region is all built out, no land available for new housing. Yet everywhere I look are forests and undeveloped land. Most houses in the suburbs seem to sit on 1 or 2 acre lots, which is huge by most standards. I've owned four houses in different states, and all were between 0.25 and 0.5 acre lots.

One of the impediments to new development is the lack of sewer systems. Many north of Boston communities like Lynnfield, North Reading, Middleton, Boxford, Rowley, Georgetown, for example, do not have municipal sewer systems, all of the homes are on septic systems. Some of these communities also do not have town water systems, the houses are on private wells.

In many cases, the undeveloped privately owned land you see may contain wetlands or have other soils that will not support a septic system. In other cases, as mentioned above, the land is owned by the state or not for profit land trusts.

I'm not really sure why you accepted the job in Andover and moved out here if you are so unhappy with the housing choices in the area. Seems like you should have done more homework before making the move. I hope you at least enjoy the new job.

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by Leo58

I suppose the intent is to preserve some sort of rural or vintage character to the towns, but the actual result is an area filled with rundown old houses that nobody can afford.

This is known as New England charm.

[Seacrane]

Leo58,

I lived in St Louis for 22 years and have been up in Mass for the last 17 years. Part of this time was in Boston, but for the last 10 years I've been in Merrimac, MA. The home prices remain affordable here and it's well located: 20 min to Andover and close to shore-- 10 min from Newburyport. I grew up in a midwestern subdivision and I was glad to get away from them up here. However there really have been a lot of new neighborhoods going in recently. Two farms in my town were just developed into small neighborhoods with well sized houses with garages. You can definitely find something for $600k or less. Taxes are also affordable!

I appreciate the New England charm but not the rundown old houses. Luckily our neighbors in Merrimacport have done a nice job caring for their homes.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by Leo58

Yeah, this is a point that I have had some trouble understanding. I've been told that the Boston region is all built out, no land available for new housing. Yet everywhere I look are forests and undeveloped land. Most houses in the suburbs seem to sit on 1 or 2 acre lots, which is huge by most standards. I've owned four houses in different states, and all were between 0.25 and 0.5 acre lots. I'm told that here it is because of zoning. I suppose the intent is to preserve some sort of rural or vintage character to the towns

You're right! As Casey B points out, the large forested tracts are conservation areas. But one or two-acre lots eats up a lot of land that could have accommodated many more houses.

...but the actual result is an area filled with rundown old houses that nobody can afford.

Don't think large lot zoning produces rundown houses but it seems to make things much more expensive, partly because the buyer has to pay for that huge wooded lot and partly because it constricts the supply.

Glad to hear news from Valerie C of larger scale development. In theory, with good regional urban/town planning you could preserve community character, conserve natural areas, protect open landscapes, and fit in a lot more housing than what we get with the decentralized town-by-town system. But no one likes large scale planning since Jane Jacobs threw it under the bus in 1961, especially here in the land of home-rule.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by gf2020

One of the impediments to new development is the lack of sewer systems. Many north of Boston communities like Lynnfield, North Reading, Middleton, Boxford, Rowley, Georgetown, for example, do not have municipal sewer systems, all of the homes are on septic systems. Some of these communities also do not have town water systems, the houses are on private wells.

In many cases, the undeveloped privately owned land you see may contain wetlands or have other soils that will not support a septic system. In other cases, as mentioned above, the land is owned by the state or not for profit land trusts.

Transplants and locals equally underestimate what 'fully developed' looks like for a given town. I'm surrounded by hundred of acres of cleared and wooded land, however, I will not see it developed in my life time as it's largely tied up in a series of conservation trusts, gov managed wachusett watershed, functional/financially solvent generational farms, utilities easements, and a whole bunch of acreage which cannot be viably developed due to perc issues, heavy bedrock, steep elevation changes, etc.. So despite hundreds of acres of undeveloped land, there are marginal 1 acre lots selling for $140-220k. Such is life in an area of the country which has been developed for 300+ years and has not contained large scale farming in over a century.