2023 Real Estate Observations (Boston, Springfield, Lowell: transplants, homeless, businesses)

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Just how is it the corporations' "fault"???


I mean, shame on them for bringing high paying jobs to the area...

there's no shame in it but anyone who doesn't get one of those high paying jobs (which is a good amount of people) gets left out of the crazy housing market and can't find a decent place to live. Who knew?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

there's no shame in it but anyone who doesn't get one of those high paying jobs (which is a good amount of people) gets left out of the crazy housing market and can't find a decent place to live. Who knew?

I posted this in another thread. While not the greatest source (and it's overlooking some key points imo), it helps explain some of the issue.



A hundred years of choking housing growth catches up with Massachusetts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/real...ts/ar-AA19FSos

[msRB311]

I read that. I'm not sure how I feel about it as I don't think the answer is to destroy what nature we have left to build more homes. The problem is the amount of money people have and are willing to pay for basic homes. Seems like people hate that answer but it is what it is.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I read that. I'm not sure how I feel about it as I don't think the answer is to destroy what nature we have left to build more homes. The problem is the amount of money people have and are willing to pay for basic homes. Seems like people hate that answer but it is what it is.

OK let's start confiscating wealth then, since we can't let the free market solve the issue.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by massnative71

OK let's start confiscating wealth then, since we can't let the free market solve the issue.

I didn't say that either but crowding towns is not what people want either.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I didn't say that either but crowding towns is not what people want either.

Nobody said they did. But it's also unrealistic to expect anywhere 45 minutes from a major city to remain frozen in time.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I read that. I'm not sure how I feel about it as I don't think the answer is to destroy what nature we have left to build more homes. The problem is the amount of money people have and are willing to pay for basic homes. Seems like people hate that answer but it is what it is.

You seem to think that a “basic home” is a single family home. Land is too expensive to do that. If you can’t afford it, a basic home is a condo in a high rise that is hopefully near good public transportation and has a pretty good walk score. Boston/Cambridge where people want to live fight those to the death.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Nobody said they did. But it's also unrealistic to expect anywhere 45 minutes from a major city to remain frozen in time.

Not sure what you mean by frozen in time? I've seen that said here more than once. I don't think ANY town 45 min within Boston is frozen in time at all. I am about 40 min from Boston (without traffic) and there's been new homes and developments going up to the point that it does seem to be a bit much. Also more and more new restaurants. It's certainly not the same place it was 4 or 5 years ago. What is happening in the towns that are even closer to Boston?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Not sure what you mean by frozen in time? I've seen that said here more than once. I don't think ANY town 45 min within Boston is frozen in time at all. I am about 40 min from Boston (without traffic) and there's been new homes and developments going up to the point that it does seem to be a bit much. Also more and more new restaurants. It's certainly not the same place it was 4 or 5 years ago. What is happening in the towns that are even closer to Boston?

"Frozen in time" might by hyperbole (though it does seem like that's what some people would like to do), but growth in MA is not keeping the pace with demand by a long shot. If you spend some time in other metro areas it's hard to miss how much more rapidly they're developing.

It's a complex issue. For all of the "Boston's too crowded!" talk, there is a ton of undeveloped in and immediately adjacent to the city (Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Revere, Chelsea, Quincy, etc.) and underutilized space that could accommodate higher density development and the city itself is still around 150,000 people short of its historic peak. But it needs the T to work efficiently in order for that to happen. We know how that's going. Our "gateway cities" should be targets for reinvestment rather than being left to decay. Many have stagnated or shrunk and have housing stock, space, and infrastructure to accommodate more growth. But developers are still largely hesitant to invest and there aren't many incentives on the federal/state/local level to encourage more investment. Suburban areas should at least have pockets where large scale development is encouraged. Obvious spots would be around transit stations, abandoned or underutilized space (i.e. Devens, Weymouth NAS, old industrial parks, etc.), and major highway interchanges. Even in areas where this is sort of happening (i.e. Weymouth NAS), it's been allowed to stagnate and/or been caught up in an overwrought regulatory process (which opponents use to their advantage to kill projects dead).

You don't need to destroy all of forested Eastern MA to drastically increase the housing stock.

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by lrfox

"Frozen in time" might by hyperbole (though it does seem like that's what some people would like to do), but growth in MA is not keeping the pace with demand by a long shot. If you spend some time in other metro areas it's hard to miss how much more rapidly they're developing.

It's a complex issue. For all of the "Boston's too crowded!" talk, there is a ton of undeveloped in and immediately adjacent to the city (Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Revere, Chelsea, Quincy, etc.) and underutilized space that could accommodate higher density development and the city itself is still around 150,000 people short of its historic peak. But it needs the T to work efficiently in order for that to happen. We know how that's going. Our "gateway cities" should be targets for reinvestment rather than being left to decay. Many have stagnated or shrunk and have housing stock, space, and infrastructure to accommodate more growth. But developers are still largely hesitant to invest and there aren't many incentives on the federal/state/local level to encourage more investment. Suburban areas should at least have pockets where large scale development is encouraged. Obvious spots would be around transit stations, abandoned or underutilized space (i.e. Devens, Weymouth NAS, old industrial parks, etc.), and major highway interchanges. Even in areas where this is sort of happening (i.e. Weymouth NAS), it's been allowed to stagnate and/or been caught up in an overwrought regulatory process (which opponents use to their advantage to kill projects dead).

You don't need to destroy all of forested Eastern MA to drastically increase the housing stock.

You speak god's words lol. C/D told me to stop reppin you.