Is this the future of suburban housing? (Boston, Springfield: low income, section 8)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a nutshell recent UMass grads didn't leave due to getting remote jobs. UMass reopens for in person learning. Little to no new housing made. Some going as far south as Hartford for housing. 50 miles and close to an hour away at best.
This proves a few things
1) Remote isn't going away
2) Spillover happens to other areas
3)People are willing to stay and hire to those in western mass
Do away with the low income housing requirement for every residential construction project and most of the opposition will go away. Any well-off town will fight a project with subsidized rentals tooth and nail but they won’t have much of an issue with renters who are at the same income level as the rest of the town.
Beyond the students who graduated and have found remote work and seem to prefer to stay in the area - increasing demand, the article cites the demolition of the on-campus Lincoln apartment complex - which so far they have not replaced - decreasing supply, and an increase in out-of-state students enrolled and an increase in graduate students enrolled - increasing demand. So it's several factors that seem to be combining to make a perfect storm.
Do away with the low income housing requirement for every residential construction project and most of the opposition will go away. Any well-off town will fight a project with subsidized rentals tooth and nail but they won’t have much of an issue with renters who are at the same income level as the rest of the town.
Many of these renters aren't at the same income level as the rest of the town. Low(er) income housing is exactly what there's a shortage of.
It doesn't make sense to lower 40B requirements when not all places are there. The thing is though new production isn't there so you have a odd situation where people are now staying. Amherst could be argued to be a second Boston if this continues in the next 5-10 years if it fills up the region. Holyoke used to be 60K people and it's now to about 37K. Springfield peaked at 175K and it's I think 158K. There's enough space to accommodate another 40K people but it might mean more new home production and increased rents and prices. They've already demolished some public housing in springfield and the mayor has openly said they aren't going to make more.
If you ask me just make a multi university dorm at Tower Square. It's class A office space and this could be done. You already have transit to UMass, infact there's already a satellite campus right there. So....convert offices to dorms and that could solve some of this. Maybe this is 1989 for the Tofu curtain.
Do away with the low income housing requirement for every residential construction project and most of the opposition will go away. Any well-off town will fight a project with subsidized rentals tooth and nail but they won’t have much of an issue with renters who are at the same income level as the rest of the town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutdoorLover
Beyond the students who graduated and have found remote work and seem to prefer to stay in the area - increasing demand, the article cites the demolition of the on-campus Lincoln apartment complex - which so far they have not replaced - decreasing supply, and an increase in out-of-state students enrolled and an increase in graduate students enrolled - increasing demand. So it's several factors that seem to be combining to make a perfect storm.
Cities and towns need the low income housing because not everyone can afford market rate prices. People need a place to live while they are getting their lives back together. I was friends with several people in Amherst low income housing back in the day and they were divorced women raising a kid. All got good jobs and moved on.
What OutdoorLover said is spot on. They demolished Lincoln apartments, and so on. Besides, I noticed these students are looking for apartments. What ever happened to room mates? Lincoln apartments were not that big and were for married couples so it shouldn't have much effect. Some developer probably has an agenda.
Also, there has always been a housing shortage around Amherst and UMass employees had to commute from up in Greenfield due to the students taking all the local apartments. UMass has been a mess for a long time--a lot of wasteful spending, hideous architecture, and new buildings that fell apart. Remember the Big Dig? UMass is like that.
Eh....I wouldn't say UMass is that bad but the latest new business wing I don't get. I'm all for humanities but tens of millions for...business? maybe stem. I don' think bloomberg terminals validate tens of millions, anyway.
Roommates is kinda a foreign word in western mass because the values are so much less. Then again I find sometimes people with small families looking for a FIVE bedroom apartment, do you mean a condo? Most apartments in the area are one and two and threes are very rare. I've never seen a four or five. Fears of going to springfield and holyoke have ebbed. There's plenty of space and better access to services.
I just searched apartments.com and frankly the are apartments but depending on the town you are looking at 75-90% of them being occupied and you aren't person #1. So as a landlord what you do you prefer? market rate, section 8, students or something else?
Well yes, and that's why those towns don't want them. People spend seven figures on houses in the suburbs so their kids can attend schools where principals don't get beaten half to death - propose a luxury apartment complex only affordable to six figure earners and no one would bat an eyelash, propose something that will bring in the crowd that makes BPS so great and you'll be told exactly where to shove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by id77
Many of these renters aren't at the same income level as the rest of the town. Low(er) income housing is exactly what there's a shortage of.
Well yes, and that's why those towns don't want them. People spend seven figures on houses in the suburbs so their kids can attend schools where principals don't get beaten half to death - propose a luxury apartment complex only affordable to six figure earners and no one would bat an eyelash, propose something that will bring in the crowd that makes BPS so great and you'll be told exactly where to shove it.
You are confusing affluency and class. Private schools are well known for hiding things for quite some time. Just look at the Catholic church. I also know of a private university dean who has been pretty much fired place to place but they don't give him a bad reference. Don't even get me started on the real estate agents that moderate facebook groups and message boards like these (not this one on CD but others). The lack of local media and obsession's with privacy lead to a lack of transparency. Heck Duxbury and Concord are quite affluent and look what happened.
Is the homebuying market in the Pioneer Valley any more friendly than the rental market?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
