Medium-density vs low-density suburban neighborhoods

[Awalker34]

Originally Posted by thinkingotherthings

People like to soup up their cars to sound like race cars, same deal with motorcycles; or blast loud music from their car; also police sirens, fire trucks, and car alarms. It's always one thing or another throughout the day. I live on a residential street but it is close to a couple busy streets.

Sounds like my old neighborhood, south side, near Moody . Most of Waltham is not like that.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by thinkingotherthings

Thanks to everyone who has chimed in so far – the responses have been extremely helpful, and great points have been raised in favor of both low-density and medium-density neighborhoods!

I would ask folks to please refrain from further discussion on the definition of "low" density and whether Weston qualifies. When I say "low" density I just mean that houses are far enough apart that you typically don't see or hear many (or any) neighbors from your own house; and that most houses are not in walk-friendly areas with a "neighborhood feel" (often due in part to lack of sidewalks, as others in this thread have noted), and you won't usually bump into people just walking around your neighborhood.

Regardless of whether you agree with this definition, please roll with it for the sake of this thread, or use another term that you think better captures this notion; but the correctness of my definition of low-density is not the focus of this thread.

My own maybe romantic notion is that the density thing doesn’t make that much difference in how socially connected or isolated people are. MA and New England towns are self governing communities, no one is living in some anonymous sterile unincorporated development. People get involved, connected in various ways. Towns like Lincoln and Weston aren’t walkable the way Davis Square is walkable but they have many miles of trails through conservation land that connect different parts of town. And nice country roads for cycling. Higher density is great in many ways and the problem here and everywhere is how to create it given modern codes and technologies. High density cities and towns were common 100 years ago and legacy high density areas that don’t suffer from high poverty are in great demand. But people can be completely involved and connected in acre-lot zoning towns. Doesn’t mean the predominance of acre and two-acre zoning doesn’t prove an affordability and access policy issue at metropolitan scale but these are nice places to live.

[thinkingotherthings]

Thanks everyone for your continued input; this forum is really the best place to discuss and learn about Massachusetts towns!

I just wanted to share an update that at this point we are now leaning most strongly toward some of the leafier suburbs, and in particular Wayland and Sudbury, for the following reasons:

• One point often mentioned in favor of medium-density suburbs is walkability to restaurants and shops. Although I said in my initial post that I didn't want this discussion to focus in specific towns, it does matter in the following sense: for the medium-density towns we would be considering (Winchester/Belmont/Lexington/Arlington/Melrose/Needham/Wellesley), given our budget (1.5M) and house requirements (4+ bd, 2.5+ ba, 2300+ sq ft, in good move-in ready condition), I don't think we will be able to afford a house that meets all these criteria and is also walking distance to amenities (with the possible exception of Melrose). So this advantage of medium-density neighborhoods is effectively moot for our circumstances.
  
  
• Although getting used to the lower density will be a little bit of an adjustment, I think it's one we will come to appreciate. If in the worst case we end up really disliking it, our child is still under a year old so we have some years to move again before he starts school.
  
  
• The inability for our son (eventually when he gets older) to walk to his friends' houses in a real consideration, but ultimately, as defenders of the low-density neighborhoods have pointed out, between school and all the activities kids are in these days, that should provide ample social interaction.
  
  
• Our commuting needs are minimal. We are both full-time WFH right now. I might eventually start going into my office in Burlington once a week, and my wife might eventually start going into her Boston office once a week, and both Wayland and Sudbury are tolerable for this frequency. But this is the farthest out we'd want to go. We did think at one point that being in the inner ring is better in case either of us ever switch jobs and end up having to go into the office 3+ days/wk, but ultimately that is not an immediate prospect, and if that situation were to occur we can move again if the commute becomes too unbearable.
  
  
• Although we can go up to 1.5, we'd love to stay at 1.2 or below if we can, and I think there's a much better chance of this in Wayland or Sudbury compared to the medium-density towns I mentioned. Weston and Lincoln seem to be as expensive as those other towns too, hence the focus on Wayland and Sudbury.
  
  
• Although I had in previous threads expressed some interest in Reading and Burlington and the other northern 'burbs, we've decided that for personal reasons I won't go into we prefer to be geographically situated west rather than north if we are to go beyond the inner ring. Also, although Reading and Burlington both have *good* schools, Wayland and Sudbury have *great* schools (by the numbers, at least).

Having said all that.. Nothing is set in stone yet. All the towns I mentioned in this post are definitely still in play if the right house comes along at the right price!

[id77]

Originally Posted by thinkingotherthings

Thanks everyone for your continued input; this forum is really the best place to discuss and learn about Massachusetts towns!

I just wanted to share an update that at this point we are now leaning most strongly toward some of the leafier suburbs, and in particular Wayland and Sudbury, for the following reasons:

• One point often mentioned in favor of medium-density suburbs is walkability to restaurants and shops. Although I said in my initial post that I didn't want this discussion to focus in specific towns, it does matter in the following sense: for the medium-density towns we would be considering (Winchester/Belmont/Lexington/Arlington/Melrose/Needham/Wellesley), given our budget (1.5M) and house requirements (4+ bd, 2.5+ ba, 2300+ sq ft, in good move-in ready condition), I don't think we will be able to afford a house that meets all these criteria and is also walking distance to amenities (with the possible exception of Melrose). So this advantage of medium-density neighborhoods is effectively moot for our circumstances.
  
  
• Although getting used to the lower density will be a little bit of an adjustment, I think it's one we will come to appreciate. If in the worst case we end up really disliking it, our child is still under a year old so we have some years to move again before he starts school.
  
  
• The inability for our son (eventually when he gets older) to walk to his friends' houses in a real consideration, but ultimately, as defenders of the low-density neighborhoods have pointed out, between school and all the activities kids are in these days, that should provide ample social interaction.
  
  
• Our commuting needs are minimal. We are both full-time WFH right now. I might eventually start going into my office in Burlington once a week, and my wife might eventually start going into her Boston office once a week, and both Wayland and Sudbury are tolerable for this frequency. But this is the farthest out we'd want to go. We did think at one point that being in the inner ring is better in case either of us ever switch jobs and end up having to go into the office 3+ days/wk, but ultimately that is not an immediate prospect, and if that situation were to occur we can move again if the commute becomes too unbearable.
  
  
• Although we can go up to 1.5, we'd love to stay at 1.2 or below if we can, and I think there's a much better chance of this in Wayland or Sudbury compared to the medium-density towns I mentioned. Weston and Lincoln seem to be as expensive as those other towns too, hence the focus on Wayland and Sudbury.
  
  
• Although I had in previous threads expressed some interest in Reading and Burlington and the other northern 'burbs, we've decided that for personal reasons I won't go into we prefer to be geographically situated west rather than north if we are to go beyond the inner ring. Also, although Reading and Burlington both have *good* schools, Wayland and Sudbury have *great* schools (by the numbers, at least).

Having said all that.. Nothing is set in stone yet. All the towns I mentioned in this post are definitely still in play if the right house comes along at the right price!

You still don't sound quite sold on low-density. Are you willing to be as flexible on the home as you are the location? That is, is having 4 bedrooms, 2300+ square feet, or newer build so important as to walk away from most of the location amenities you wanted? Giving up that bedroom or a couple hundred square feet might put some of the medium-density towns you're looking at back on the table.

[thinkingotherthings]

Originally Posted by id77

You still don't sound quite sold on low-density. Are you willing to be as flexible on the home as you are the location? That is, is having 4 bedrooms, 2300+ square feet, or newer build so important as to walk away from most of the location amenities you wanted? Giving up that bedroom or a couple hundred square feet might put some of the medium-density towns you're looking at back on the table.

I can't say I'm 100% sold on low-density yet, and that's partly because I just haven't lived that lifestyle yet so there is uncertainty; but I am genuinely excited about trying it.

As for the house – we cannot budge on the bedrooms or space requirements. We can budge a little bit on quality – for example if there are some things that are a bit dated but still serviceable that we could tolerate for the time being and get updated over time – but so many of the houses in the inner ring that meet all our other criteria are just too dated and would require too much work up front.

[MikePRU]

One other thing I'll add that shouldn't necessarily be a primary concern but it should be factored into the decision is . . . resale.

While many of the leafy suburbs you mentioned are considered desirable places to live and have highly ranked school systems, in recent history towns like these have been much tougher for resale than the medium density suburbs. Houses in the leafy burbs tend to take longer to sell and until the last year or so haven't seen quite the appreciation levels that the medium density burbs have.

For example, Sudbury took a real dive during the great recession. I had a client who bought right at the start of that and sold a couple years ago and barely made any money after commissions, tax stamps, etc. When you factor in the improvements they made like the really high end kitchen they probably lost money.

[maclel]

Past returns are not indicative of future performance. I think there is too much uncertainty to make a call but I can argue that commuting mores have seen such a momentous shift in the past 19 months that the deprioritization of office proximity we have seen will continue. Given the limited carrying capacity of many of these low-density towns, it does not take much demand diversion to overwhelm supply, as we have seen in the past year.

Originally Posted by MikePRU

One other thing I'll add that shouldn't necessarily be a primary concern but it should be factored into the decision is . . . resale.

While many of the leafy suburbs you mentioned are considered desirable places to live and have highly ranked school systems, in recent history towns like these have been much tougher for resale than the medium density suburbs. Houses in the leafy burbs tend to take longer to sell and until the last year or so haven't seen quite the appreciation levels that the medium density burbs have.

For example, Sudbury took a real dive during the great recession. I had a client who bought right at the start of that and sold a couple years ago and barely made any money after commissions, tax stamps, etc. When you factor in the improvements they made like the really high end kitchen they probably lost money.

[MikePRU]

Originally Posted by maclel

Past returns are not indicative of future performance. I think there is too much uncertainty to make a call but I can argue that commuting mores have seen such a momentous shift in the past 19 months that the deprioritization of office proximity we have seen will continue. Given the limited carrying capacity of many of these low-density towns, it does not take much demand diversion to overwhelm supply, as we have seen in the past year.

Very true. Only time will tell what affect the pandemic has had on consumer preferences in the real estate sphere. Still, I think people value convenience in a very general sense and that can be hard to accomplish in a leafy suburb whether you're talking about commute or how long it takes to drive to the grocery store. So while there's been an increase in demand for larger lots and leafy suburbs my opinion, I'm not entirely sure everyone who's moved to these locals knows exactly what they were getting themselves into.

Personally, I don't think this change in consumer preference is permanent (as they never are) and I do feel there will be somewhat of a return to the office. It's just not going to be 100% of the staffing levels we saw pre-pandemic doing 100% of the office time we saw pre-pandemic. Also, I'm already hearing a lot of stories from people who moved to NH or even just to Hingham or Lexington that have regretted the move and are now headed back to Cambridge or Boston or where ever they came from. Also, I do go into Dover quite often and I'm starting to see the market soften there while the market right next door in Needham hasn't lost any steam. So in my opinion this isn't a change in preference that will even end up being long term.

You're absolutely right though that lower density burbs have much smaller supply levels and even a small difference in demand can create a seller's market there. Generally speaking things are still very much in flux as they always are and we'll never know exactly how this will play out until it's already over. Remember when all the newspapers were saying millennials will never buy houses instead they'll just rent their whole lives and will never move to the suburbs either? Both of those things turned out to be incredibly untrue.