Rents rapidly climbing (Boston, Worcester, Springfield: real estate market, apartment complexes, leasing)

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

If it wasn't sustainable, then the rents would level off and/or drop. But clearly people do have the money because these apartments are being rented out.

A lot of luxury apartments are Airbnb’s, ”hotels” temporary housing, companies subsidized housing for some relocating employees, foreign investments etc. this means owners and developerssee them as rented although their actually not often occupied. As a result we’re not seeing the trickled down or market adjustments that are being talked about by economists and planner.

Real story: a friend of mine had a friend of his from college visit in Boston. We hung out for the day and eventually went to visit his cousin. His cousin was relocating from Syracuse to Boston working for Simon-the mall development company. They were housing him temporarily in a luxury unit in Chinatown until the luxury condos in revere were being built. He had no rent to pay in Chinatown and would be getting the first 3-6 months (I forget exactly how long) paid when he moved into his luxury condo in Revere.

I walked the halls for the luxury building in Chinatown before we go to his room and the eventually rooftop pool. Many units had doors slightly ajar but with no sound coming out, Some units had doors wide open-totallybunoccupied. Common areas and lobbies shows evidence of being somewhat unfinished and fresh looking. A couple young Asian folks who looked like they might be students based off their age and dress. I don’t know how new the building was but it was far from fully occupied seemed about 30-40% empty to me. The two floors I saw.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Because no one wants to live there!!!!!!

Then we wouldn't see anyone there... I have people in my complex that go to Boston and NYC. One uses it as a cheap midpoint.

I would also point out that Austin still has a residency requirement for its Municipal Employees meeting that about 30,000 people and Boston cannot move if they want to keep their City Job. If I got rid of this residency requirement that would free up at housing granted would increase traffic. The other part is that they just perform short-term rentals. So you have to stay there a maximum of a month . State laws. However are not sending a minimum. There are many local governments that are working on local laws for this and I would generally expect within the next three to four years. Most of the state will have laws on the books.

I've gone over many of these regulations and there's a general consensus on a few things. If there's any hot tub it counts as a quasi-public. Hot tub they also don't want people that have events for that might have a blowback and then there are debates on parking of course.

There are other aspects that do factor into valuations such as deed restrictions, historical district, the 30% rule on renovations. , Ada, sometimes height restrictions. For a long time Springfield at a height restriction, which resulted in the house is not going Beyond a given point. The only city I know of that has significant height restrictions is washington-dc to ensure that people can see the landmarks. San Francisco on the other hand has pretty strict historical preservation laws. To the point where you cannot add more units and us a drive the price up further. And of course behind all of this is zoning.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Then we wouldn't see anyone there... .

You kind of don't. Last couple of times there for work over the past year and it was pretty much a ghosttown. Felt like one.

[bugelrex]

The high rents simply mean there are more people who make more money than you... or are willing to spend a higher % of their income on rent.

It could also mean that all units being built are 'luxury' which bumps up the base rent considerably.

If you want low rents, safe location and short commute to Boston then pray for a recession or Bernie Sanders(socialism)

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by bugelrex

The high rents simply mean there are more people who make more money than you... or are willing to spend a higher % of their income on rent.

Or (more likely) more incomes per household.

[bugelrex]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

Or (more likely) more incomes per household.

True, 2 tech workers sharing a 1 or 2br can pretty much outbid everyone. Maybe its just a reflection of the high income jobs in Boston the last 10 years.

Ideally, jobs should be spread over the entire metro boston so everyone is not competing for the same locations to live

[yesmaybe]

Originally Posted by bugelrex

True, 2 tech workers sharing a 1 or 2br can pretty much outbid everyone. Maybe its just a reflection of the high income jobs in Boston the last 10 years.

There are surely a lot of three income households out there. Maybe more.

[yellowstatus]

Originally Posted by bugelrex

True, 2 tech workers sharing a 1 or 2br can pretty much outbid everyone. Maybe its just a reflection of the high income jobs in Boston the last 10 years.

Ideally, jobs should be spread over the entire metro boston so everyone is not competing for the same locations to live

Or owner residents in the 128 ring suburbs could allow more housing density. The jobs are largely in the Boston core, and I doubt that will change quickly. Boston is an amazing city for the high income. It's a real shame to me that the resident housing policy and resistance to public transit imposes a crushing financial burden on the middle class. When you limited housing, household incomes exceeding $300k, and allocation based on market prices, the result is predictable.

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by yellowstatus

Or owner residents in the 128 ring suburbs could allow more housing density. The jobs are largely in the Boston core, and I doubt that will change quickly. Boston is an amazing city for the high income. It's a real shame to me that the resident housing policy and resistance to public transit imposes a crushing financial burden on the middle class. When you limited housing, household incomes exceeding $300k, and allocation based on market prices, the result is predictable.

I think Boston is slowwwlllyyy changing. 2007 Boston was fiercely against any public transportation or development. Now we just are moderate NIMBYs, but those NIMBYS (although down in number) pack a punch.

[bugelrex]

Originally Posted by yellowstatus

and resistance to public transit imposes a crushing financial burden on the middle class..

Are there towns that dont actually want a rail/T stop? I thought the public transportation was terrible because the MBTA is rotten ftom the top