why is MA so expensive? (Boston, Worcester: rentals, how much, home)

[matrix5k]

Originally Posted by skeddy

because that's what they want and can afford. Young people starting out can only want. Same thing that happened to baby boomers 40 years ago. Your turn to struggle.

Not struggling anymore, we just bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood.

But did the baby boomers really struggle? The house we bought cost us 750k and we will have to get new floors, windows, and furnace for starters. The sellers paid 250k in the early 90s which is equivalent to 435k today and everything was brand new for them.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Not struggling anymore, we just bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood.

But did the baby boomers really struggle? The house we bought cost us 750k and we will have to get new floors, windows, and furnace for starters. The sellers paid 250k in the early 90s which is equivalent to 435k today and everything was brand new for them.

Exactly, to use a quick and dirty metric what was the home price to income ratio for baby boomers compared to today?

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Not struggling anymore, we just bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood.

But did the baby boomers really struggle? The house we bought cost us 750k and we will have to get new floors, windows, and furnace for starters. The sellers paid 250k in the early 90s which is equivalent to 435k today and everything was brand new for them.

Yep, and this is why the "Baby boomers struggled 40 years ago" argument is pointless. Yes, life was hard for them in their 20's, but the world is a lot different today.

[imperi33]

Originally Posted by simplexsimon

Exactly, to use a quick and dirty metric what was the home price to income ratio for baby boomers compared to today?

In the Boston metro it used to be about 3x in 1980, and now it's about 5x. Source: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/pr...istoric-highs/ If you hover over Boston, it shows the change of this multiple over time.

[Maddie104]

Originally Posted by missionhill

Connecticut and Mass are similar states, neighbors, many common characteristics with some differences. One is the property taxes, another is the state-local relationships. Earlier post brought up West Hartford as an example of a diversity causing problems; another poster defended West Hartford as model for greater Boston. West Hartford is diverse class-wise because early and mid-twentieth century development extended beyond the Hartford city line into West Hartford with two families and some three deckers before the zoning reached its full postwar restrictive-exclusionary form. Very similar historical pattern around Boston--Belmont and Newton and similar towns have areas of modest two families built on small lots along streetcar lines before World War I and in the 1920s before zoning was implemented or when it was less restrictive than it would be later. The economics in the Boston area have made those two-family areas much less affordable than comparable ones in West Hartford. Why can't the more recently developed towns allow areas like that with smaller lots, denser housing? Demand in the Boston metro is such that thasmallern average new houses on smaller than average lots in a town like Boxborough or Westwood would attract the same class of people that buy or rent in Newton and Belmont.

This is exactly my point -- there aren't enought "starter" homes. So, from my reading of these posts, the mentality is rent for as long as it takes, make whatever lifestyle sacrifices necessary, delay starting a family, if necessary, etc. until you can afford to purchase in the suburbs, notwithstanding parental gifts, stock options, etc. This effecively defers homeownership and prolongs renting.

The model in our area is attached townhomes, mid-large homes on small lots. In high demand areas where land prices are high, ROI is generally insufficient for new build of very small single family homes on small lots. This is a feeder system that shortens the rental period and allows homeownership sooner so with accrued equity, these home buyers can move up to the next tier housing. The feeder system creates a demand at the next higher tier so there is no decrease to home value. THe property tax yield per acre of land is sufficient to support the school system. The homes that may be impacted are the current starter homes (approx. 1500 ft) that are commanding $400+/sq. foot as supply at this tier increases with new homes. However this may mitigated by the land value of the older starter home on a larger lot.

There has been no problem selling mid-large homes on small lots as many buyers in our area prefer them.

I have a niece who is an RN and married to teacher who lives in one of these townhomes in a highly rated school district. The purchase was made a few years after college thus building up equity in lieu of rent.

This area does have public water and sewer and one poster mentioned a certain lot size is required for a septic tank system so there could be environmental issues that prohibit or restrict new build.

The key point is that increased housing density does not absolutely mean low income, downgrading of school ranking, increased property tax if done in a well planned, controlled manner in the right locale.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Maddie104

This is exactly my point -- there aren't enought "starter" homes. So, from my reading of these posts, the mentality is rent for as long as it takes, make whatever lifestyle sacrifices necessary, delay starting a family, if necessary, etc. until you can afford to purchase in the suburbs, notwithstanding parental gifts, stock options, etc. This effecively defers homeownership and prolongs renting.

The model in our area is attached townhomes, mid-large homes on small lots. In high demand areas where land prices are high, ROI is generally insufficient for new build of very small single family homes on small lots. This is a feeder system that shortens the rental period and allows homeownership sooner so with accrued equity, these home buyers can move up to the next tier housing. The feeder system creates a demand at the next higher tier so there is no decrease to home value. THe property tax yield per acre of land is sufficient to support the school system. The homes that may be impacted are the current starter homes (approx. 1500 ft) that are commanding $400+/sq. foot as supply at this tier increases with new homes. However this may mitigated by the land value of the older starter home on a larger lot.

There has been no problem selling mid-large homes on small lots as many buyers in our area prefer them.

I have a niece who is an RN and married to teacher who lives in one of these townhomes in a highly rated school district. The purchase was made a few years after college thus building up equity in lieu of rent.

This area does have public water and sewer and one poster mentioned a certain lot size is required for a septic tank system so there could be environmental issues that prohibit or restrict new build.

The key point is that increased housing density does not absolutely mean low income, downgrading of school ranking, increased property tax if done in a well planned, controlled manner in the right locale.

Be careful with all that common sense-you may be labeled the boogyeman by some.

There are many who wont be satisfied, or think there needs to be some sort of policy change until MA is THE single most expensive state to live in. Or until the GBA has starter homes that are on par with the Bay Area'sin terms of price.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by Maddie104

This is exactly my point -- there aren't enought "starter" homes. So, from my reading of these posts, the mentality is rent for as long as it takes, make whatever lifestyle sacrifices necessary, delay starting a family, if necessary, etc. until you can afford to purchase in the suburbs, notwithstanding parental gifts, stock options, etc. This effecively defers homeownership and prolongs renting.

My suggestion to do the above is actionable and will get someone into a home because it is necessary if one wants to own around here.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

There are many who wont be satisfied, or think there needs to be some sort of policy change until MA is THE single most expensive state to live in. Or until the GBA has starter homes that are on par with the Bay Area'sin terms of price.

One could use the Bay Area as an example in support of price appreciation despite the housing density, although it's also an example of how density negatively impacts quality of life. There are very few suburbs there that are like the leafy suburbs around Boston.

[Maddie104]

Originally Posted by simplexsimon

One could use the Bay Area as an example in support of price appreciation despite the housing density, although it's also an example of how density negatively impacts quality of life. There are very few suburbs there that are like the leafy suburbs around Boston.

Quality of life is subjective; one sees large lots with frontage and leafy surrounds as a positive; another a negative. I had a friend and commented on all the lovely mature trees and all she complained about was the cost of maintaining the grounds and leaves. Be careful of judging something from a personal point of view.
My sister lives on a relatively large lot with a mid size home and the realtor told her many young people do not want large lots. They work long hours, don't want spend weekends mowing the lawn. Children go on play dates, are in organized sports and activities at younger ages and large yards are rarely used for play any more beyond the first few years at least in our area.

My area is not a concrete jungle -- far from it. As I mentioned there needs to be standards for development and my township is strict about preservation of trees, historic buildings, tree replacement plantings, sidewalks, etc. The development has to retain the character of the area in certain key aspects.

[Maddie104]

Originally Posted by simplexsimon

My suggestion to do the above is actionable and will get someone into a home because it is necessary if one wants to own around here.

Acknowledged that "puritan" way in my post above but also pointed out it is not the only way but it takes vision of other possibilities.