2021 Real Estate Observations (Boston, Quincy, Newton: estimate, metro, requirement)

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

….
Methamphetamine is hazardous to your health, sir.

Seriously- we gotta ban this guy.

Homie, your grift is up as I have predicted - new bandwagon has arrived and all those BLM lawn signs have turned blue and yellow

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Happy medium would be 100% market rate, non-subsidized rentals/condos which would be welcomed with open arms but we can't have that because green new racial thermal justice equity deal says so.

Do you mean like the condos I showed and you called it hamsterdam? Got it.

[msRB311]

I still think there are condos and townhouses in MA. Whether they are affordable for people I dont know but I've definitely seen that type of housing.

Unfortunately MA has become a city of corporate greed not really actually interested in the city itself.

[maclel]

I will answer both messages here:

It is not just Boston that is missing those "middle" jobs. They have shrunk because the value they added is not there any more when so many of the tasks can be automated, done away with and/or outsourced. It is a fact of life and better for the "common good" as those savings are mostly passed to consumers because every office is doing the same thing.

Well, Boston would be Detroit if we let central planner wannabes have their way and raze the suburbs. I believe it is actually the town government form that you so deplore that prevented Boston becoming another Baltimore as the suburbs were isolated from the social experiments run in Boston and preserved the human capital in the area. I disagree on the triple deckers. A block of modern multifamily housing is both more dense and also provides more utility than a decrepit triple decker. The advantage is that the triple deckers are usually located in areas which have infrastructure more apt to higher density dwellings than the areas where SFHs are.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by maclel

Housing has become more unaffordable everywhere due to various global economic forces. Areas of the country with dynamic high-value industries continue to attract high-caliber people. We should celebrate the Greater Boston area is even facing this problem. The alternative will be Detroit.

In terms of what can be done to ameliorate the housing situation. Frankly, what is possible is already taking place without central planners helicoptering in. Piece by piece, developers are replacing triple-deckers with multi-family housing WHERE IT MAKES SENSE . It is probably at least 50 years too late to materially change the areas urbanization. The areas close to Boston have been fully subdivided and there are very very few plots that have not built up already. What would we do at this point? Demolish existing dwellings and build two houses were there was one before? Come on. Beyond the obvious moral and legal impediments, there are also practical ones involving street frontage, utilities, roads, etc. Not to speak of the fact that you would destroy the appeal of the city. The "solution" is worse than the problem.

There is no precedent of a city in modern times in a liberal democracy that has undergone a momentous zoning transformation like the one being discussed here. The ideas been floated in this thread are reminiscent of Soviet-style planning. I am sorry but some of us would rather have grassroots decision-making than having a bureaucracy decide what is best for the "common good". Just look at their track record.

Another extremely aloof (if not deliberately obtuse) post. In this thread and others in the forum, land has been identified that would accommodate more growth in the suburbs. What we have going on right now, is a market that isn't being served. In a free market capitalistic society, the government's role (one that wants to be successful anyway) is to nurture and foster growth where there is demand. Provide the infrastructure. Work with the towns. Tear down whatever hurdles there are that are hindering progress. The interest of the state is very different than that of a small NIMBY suburb. The latter has proven very successful at fighting for its own interest, the prior is an abysmal failure at it.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by maclel

Well, Boston would be Detroit if we let central planner wannabes have their way and raze the suburbs. I believe it is actually the town government form that you so deplore that prevented Boston becoming another Baltimore as the suburbs were isolated from the social experiments run in Boston and preserved the human capital in the area. I disagree on the triple deckers. A block of modern multifamily housing is both more dense and also provides more utility than a decrepit triple decker. The advantage is that the triple deckers are usually located in areas which have infrastructure more apt to higher density dwellings than the areas where SFHs are.

More nonsense and fear mongering. The suburbs of Baltimore are also isolated from the city. Baltimore "County" is entirely separate from Baltimore "City".

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Do you mean like the condos I showed and you called it hamsterdam? Got it.

I am talking about the current "affordable" requirement in general, where no project gets approved unless a certain percentage of units is given away for next to nothing in the name of green new equity. And as I have stated previously, it only takes one or two problem renters to ruin the entire building and ultimately the entire neighborhood.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Whoever these 95k households are, are both people working? If not then the other person in the couple might want to get a job.

It's very common for a guy to earn $45K-$65K/year, and the wife/mother $30K-$50K/year working PT, FT pink collar or whatever. Far more common than your dual income $250K/year each couple. Please tell me you understand that.

Originally Posted by msRB311

I think this ship has sailed in the Boston area. Unless something drastic happens in the economy I dont see things changing much here.

That I agree, for reasons already noted here.

Originally Posted by msRB311

I still think there are condos and townhouses in MA. Whether they are affordable for people I dont know but I've definitely seen that type of housing.

There are just nowhere near enough. And most of the townhouse style places are older. New construction is mostly the sardine can style I gave examples of in my other post.

[maclel]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Another extremely aloof (if not deliberately obtuse) post. In this thread and others in the forum, land has been identified that would accommodate more growth in the suburbs. What we have going on right now, is a market that isn't being served. In a free market capitalistic society, the government's role (one that wants to be successful anyway) is to nurture and foster growth where there is demand. Provide the infrastructure. Work with the towns. Tear down whatever hurdles there are that are hindering progress. The interest of the state is very different than that of a small NIMBY suburb. The latter has proven very successful at fighting for its own interest, the prior is an abysmal failure at it.

I might be obtuse, but what land have you identified that would accommodate more growth? I have only read people saying partition existing plots or use eminent domain to raze buildings. I think you do not understand the cost of replacing existing infrastructure once a town has been built up would be astronomical and hugely disturbing to the resident population. It is a completely different game than shaping mostly empty or rural land. That is why it just NEVER happens.

The role of the state is NOT to "nurture and foster growth where there is demand". The market can figure that out with no assistance, thank you. The role of the state is to intervene where there are clear material externalities. This is not such a situation. I would not call what you describe progress but the wanton destruction of human fabrics and natural ecosystems. Also, FWIW, the NIMBY gov't is as much the state as the state politicians are and I will say a much more important and generally altruistic one.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

More nonsense and fear mongering. The suburbs of Baltimore are also isolated from the city. Baltimore "County" is entirely separate from Baltimore "City".

Baltimore isn’t a suburb so how would building in the suburbs turn Boston into Baltimore?

The DC and Baltimores suburbs I showed are economically similar to if it above your average Boston suburb. Especially the DC ones. Especially in Virginia. This is plain fact and observable on the ground. The crazy fear mongering is outrageous.

The worse part of Baltimores suburbs are those inside 695 and immediately adjacent to the city’s east and west sides. They have 1940s era townhomes that were converted to section 8 after places like Bethlehem Steel shut down in the 80s (not about to happen in MA). Outside of that it’s smooth sailing. The only thing Boston should do with its suburbs is prevent some of the ugly strip malls they have here. A plac like Howard County or Montgomery county are (well over) 6 figure income counties with minimal to no blight. Baltimore county, outside of 695 is the same.

The worst parts of DCs suburbs are a small sliver in between DCs south and east side in Prince Georges inside of the beltway. And most of that are garden style apartment and small bungalows/shot gun homes- detached. Not townhomes.

MA folks need to travel more. The geographic isolation leads to ideological isolation to the detriment of its own people.