In the debate over Austin Street — and other projects — the term “luxury apartments” gets tossed around a lot and sometimes, I believe, inappropriately.
What actually is a “luxury apartment?” And would 28 Austin Street be a “luxury apartment” building?
I’ve been surfing the internet and finding that there is no USDA-type agreed upon standard for what qualifies an apartment as “luxury.”
One site says “a concierge is the most important factor in whether an apartment is luxury” while Forbes offers advice about how much to tip your parking attendant and warns about costly swimming pool fees.
Yet another website says a one bedroom apartment, “even if it is accompanied by a swimming pool and Jacuzzi, can never be a luxury apartment…unless the floor to ceiling height is more than 11 feet in every room. “
Yet another site offers this…
Luxury apartments feature things like a doorman, bellman, security guards, premium countertops, top of the line appliances, premium floorings, on-site parking, valet parking, dry cleaning pickup, concierge, on-site laundry facilities, on-site exercise room, spa, restaurant, room service (more condo-hotel types), etc. etc. etc.
And then there’s this from the Boston Globe from a few weeks back:
The marketing term “luxury” has taken on a life of its own. In one sense, luxury housing is like obscenity; you know it when you see it. Sub-Zero freezers, private dining clubs, a uniformed doorman keeping 99-percenters out.
So is it appropriate to call the proposed project at 28 Austin Street – with breathtaking views of the Star Market and Mass Pike or the Senior Center and Walnut Street — a “luxury apartment” project?
I don’t think so.
28 Austin Street will not have a door man, a bell man, valet parking, subzero freezers, a swimming pool, a spa or room service (although area pizza places deliver). Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think 11 foot ceilings are in the design either.
What 28 Austin Street will have is 68 one-and-two bedroom apartments, including 17 affordable units.
Still some folks are incredulous that Austin Street Partners has been describing their 51 market rate apartments as being for “middle class households.”
Like “luxury apartments” there is no official definition for “middle class.” But in Greater Boston, the median income for a household of four is $98,500. (In Newton, it’s more). That means a middle class four person household would have incomes ranging from $49,250 (50% of median) to $147,750 (150% of median.)
As ASP illustrated in one presentation using numbers from a 2013 city earnings report, a two bedroom market rate apartment renting for $3,200 a month would be affordable — using United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards — for many couples, including two mid-level city employees.
For example, according to ASP, a building inspector and a librarian or a police officer and an English teacher or a fire lieutenant and school nurse could, according to HUD definitions, afford that $3,200 two-bedroom apartment. (This assumes allocating 30 percent of income into housing costs.)
And then there’s those 11 units that will be rented to households earning 80% of area median income and six homes reserved for very low income households earning less than 50% of median income.
Does this mean that Austin Street solves all our housing problems or that everyone, including many single wage earners, can afford to live there?
It does not.
But can we at least agree to stop calling this a “luxury apartment building”?
Good numbers Greg, my wife and I couldn’t afford 3200 a month, we pay less than 2k for a two+ but I also only work part time right now. With a full time position I bet we could. In any case this is indeed not luxury but provides housing at the slightly upper level of middle class and that’s fine.
Maybe I can get 100 grand more for my house if I station a “concierge” near the front door.
I grew up in Manhattan and still have family there, and I can assure you that just having a doorman doesn’t make it a luxury apartment. You can tell a luxury building practically from the moment you walk in the front door.
From the descriptions I’ve read, Austin St. doesn’t come close to being a luxury building. It sounds like a very nice, not-inexpensive (for the market place units) but not high-end, place to have an apartment. I could see wanting to live there if the commuter rail stop were ADA-compliant.
Hi Everyone!
Here’s an interesting fact from the latest Dukakis Center Report on Newton, (author, Barry Bluestone). Median housing rent in Newton 2008-2012 = $1632/mo. See p. 17.
http://www.newtonma.gov/documentsexec/BluestoneDemographicsFinal.pdf
Despite Mayor Warren’s email ad (for tomorrow’s housing conference) boasting how Austin St. Project will increase housing affordability in Newton, its 51 market rate apartments (3/4 of the total) would be way over this, and put upward pressure on housing values, property taxes, and rents. 2-bedroom apartments in ASP would be twice the median household rent here (as of 2012). To say ASP will increase housing affordability is Orwellian double-speak. Instead, it would result in gentrification — a good reason for the alders to deny it a special permit.
@Peter Bruce: I’m not sure median rent statistics (2008-2012) over a period that includes the end of the last recession (2007-2009) tells us much about 2016 prices. But really, I think it’s better to talk about income anyway, because income, not prices, provides insight into what what people can afford.
And what Jerry said about gentrification. No one is being displaced by building non-luxury apartments over a parking lot.
But most importantly please explain to me how building 68 units of housing puts “upward pressure on housing values, property taxes”? Because I just don’t get that.
@Peter Bruce
Talk about doublespeak. Here’s the first definition of “gentrification” I pulled up on line.
the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.
So at Austin St:
* No “houses or stores” have been “bought and renovated”
* It’s not” families or individuals” building it.
* Newtonville is not a deteriorated urban neighborhood”
* No low-income families or businesses are being displaced
Yes, other than that Austin St is gentrification.
@Peter Bruce – as to your larger point … yes the Austin St project will contain new market rate apartments. Yes like every new market rate apartment and/or house built in the city, the rent or selling price will be way above the median Newton price. That’s true of every new house, knockdown, or new apartment built in the city.
In addition Austin St will also include some affordable units that are subsidized by the market rate apartments.
Will that solve or even make a dent in Newton’s housing problems? Obviously no. Is that better than the alternative, only building new market rate houses/apartments in the city? I don’t think so.
April 2013 Washington Post
Gentrification threatens to displace residents in inner suburbs as well as District
“Everybody knows gentrification threatens to displace poor and working-class families in the District. Less publicized, but equally severe, is the same danger in parts of the suburbs, especially in older neighborhoods inside the Beltway.”
@Greg
Its enough with Austin St already. You seem determined to keep a divisive conversation going on a topic that has been pretty much exhausted at this point.
Stop.
There are other issues in the city, and you’re odd obsession with Austin St has gone far beyond any realm of normalcy.
Its almost as if someone was paying you to push their agenda constantly.
Oh, wait…
@Paul: Typical troll comment.
But for the benefit of others reading this, since July 7 Paul has posted 20 comments….100 percent were related to Austin Street or what the Ward 2 election results mean. So much for the guy professing he cares about “other issues in the city.” His only interest is being a troll.
And don’t flatter yourself Paul, it takes only about 15 seconds to tally someone’s comments on our back end.
Too much civic time has been spent on this project at the expense of other issues in the city.
Greg: Median income means that 50% of 4-person households in that SMSA have higher incomes than that number and 50% have lower incomes. It does not offer a clue as to the range of incomes in that group!
@Sallee: I understand how median works, which is why I wrote (above)..
and why I also referred to these examples provided by ASP using city salaries.
Other than that, I don’t follow your point.
Greg: WRONG!!! It does not mean that the RANGE of incomes is distributed in any known or knowable manner. The range of incomes could be $22,000 – $400,792.32, or $4.07 – $1,005,491.92 or any two numbers with one higher than $98,500 and one lower! The only thing you know is that of all the 4 person households in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, 50% have incomes higher and 50% have incomes lower than $98,500! Ask a middle school math teacher if you don’t believe me!
@Sallee: I still don’t get your point. Are you saying the actual individuals in this illustration CAN’T afford to rent an apartment at Austin Street (even though HUD says they could under its 30% of income formula)?
No. I am saying that your sentence: “That means a middle class four person household would have incomes ranging from $49,250 (50% of median) to $147,750 (150% of median.)” is WRONG.
You cannot know the range of four person household incomes from your information, let alone know whether it is “middle class” or not. All you know is that 50% of the 4 person households make more than $98,500 and 50% make less and that those 4 person families that make $98,500 can afford $2955/month. To afford $3200/month, the family of 4 would need to make 31%-36% more than that!
Median is actually a more informative metric than mean is for highly skewed distributions, especially for things like income. Warren buffet makes us all look better off if we average his income in with ours.
Sorry…please erase my last sentence. End with $2955/month.
Sallee makes a valid point. Median income is useful in statistics but it’s not a good measure of what people in an area actually make. As she says, it can be skewed by wide variations on one side or the other.
HUD uses those statistics to set affordability factors using 30% as a maximum allowable payment. Maximums are not optimal if they can be avoided.
Couples whose combined incomes equal the ones you link should really think twice about committing to 30% of their combined income to rent. It makes much more sense to shoot for saving as much of the second income as possible.
Using $134,000, the highest listed in your example, as a combination of two incomes, that would be a GROSS income of $11,167/month. I would not advise that couple to pay $3350./month for rent plus parking space. Illness, loss of job or any number of things would force them out, because neither could pick up the difference for even a short while.
So, yes I think the market rate apartments are expensive. That’s not to say couples won’t pay it, but I don’t think it would be a good financial recommendation.
@Marti: Living at 28 Austin Street may be more expensive than you recommend for some middle income couples but buying a house in Newton is even further out of reach. And you need to live somewhere.
To purchase a median priced house in Newton, a household would need more than $160,000 of income per year plus have $188,000 in cash for a down payment. And on top of that, there’s all the added maintenance and upkeep that comes with home ownership.
@Greg
Your ad hominem attack is just weak.
The reality is that anyone with a shred of journalistic integrity would have recused themselves from acting as editor in procuring threads on Austin St once they had a professional stake in the outcome. Once the Chamber endorsed, you were no longer just a member of the community commenting on Austin St, but had a professional stake in the outcome. Yet you continue to flagrantly abuse your position on Village14 by posting an extraordinarily disproportionate number of posts on Austin St., with not even a hint of neutrality in your presentation.
Its been an astounding display in conflict of interest. I get this is just a blog, but if its a community resource, you should not be able to procure topics that the Chamber has stated an interest. Comment like anyone else, but to make the determination that something is worthy of an initial post is not something you’re able to do when you have such a clear conflict. The actual volume of posts on Austin St, and the one-sided advocacy taken in many of them, demonstrates the problem.
I appreciate you have many supporters on the blog who can just shout me down, but that doesn’t change the facts. Its clear that you should not have a role in starting threads on topics that the Chamber is advocating a position. Conflict of interest 101.
No, it can’t. That’s exactly why median is better in these cases than the mean, which “can be skewed by wide variations on one side or the other.”
Renting a market rate Austin St apartment may be cheaper than buying a single family home in Newton, but it’s MUCH more expensive than much of the existing rental units within blocks of the village center, as Bob Kavanagh’s column pointed out.
@Alderman Norton: And your point is?
I’m with Jane and Paul. Enough with Austin st already. Like Paul, I don’t get the obsession.
@Greg: That was my point.
Greg,
I think that Emily’s point about the price for the market rate units is that they will push the price point ceiling above the current rent for typical 1 and 2 bedroom units in the area. As often happens with real estate during a seller’s market, when property pushes the ceiling upward the lower priced comparable units in the area also move upward in price. It’s really no different than selling one’s home and looking to see what the market will bear and adjusting the asking price so that it reflects the fair market asking price of your property.
Lisap, the key word is “comparable.” The units that Emily keeps talking about are not comparable to the units that would be created at Austin Street. Demand for such low cost units, however, will have the predicatble effect of pushing up prices. Right now in Newton, there are around half the number of low cost units needed to meet the existing demand, using HUD figures for what households should be paying for housing (30% of income). And increasing supply to meet demand tends to move prices in the opposite direction. Short of a law imposing limits on what landlords can charge for rent (which would be an unconstitional takin, in my opinion), the market forces will continue to force housing prices higher unless we start increasing the supply.
Ted, I’ve always understood comparables to encompass properties that are similar in size, location, fixtures and amenities. So, I would consider a 2 bedroom 1 bath unit with similar fixtures and parking in Newtonville to constitute a comparable to the 2 bedroom units in 68 Austin. Where there are very few properties available then I think comparables tend to include properties with a wider range of differences in features. Whether two properties can command the same exact price per square foot gets into a bit of fine tuning. The best comparable of course would be one that is also brand new or completely renovated and on that point I agree there don’t seem to be comparable properties that are newly built. But, if I am the owner of a 2 or 3 bedroom unit which provides similar amenities, is in excellent or very good condition and provides parking I would certainly view that as a comparable for determining the price. As I write this, I’m viewing an ad for a really lovely 3 bedroom, 2 bath renovated unit in Newtonville asking $2800 per month which I would think is an appropriate comparable for any market rate apartment in Newtonville.
The Northeastern/Dukakis Center study which was just released attributes housing prices, including rentals, to overall supply and demand. The authors suggest the way to bring down prices is to increase supply. From pages 38-39
I really urge everyone to read it, but here’s a few more excerpts
I’m a bit mystified at some of the comments here about how Austin St will drive prices up.
If the Austin St project had torn down a bunch of modestly priced apartments and replaced them with more expensive apartments, then yes, that would be a concern.
In this case a developer is adding to the supply of housing. They will receive in rent whatever the market dictates for apartments of this size and quality. Should the developer price the apartments at substantially more than the going rate for apartments of this kind, they won’t rent. That’s what a market is.
I’m no economist, but even I’ve heard of the law of supply and demand. If you increase the supply of apartments of a certain kind, the only likely effect is that it would cause downward pressure on apartments of that type. As for less expensive apartments, that downward price pressure would most like be insignificant, but certainly not upward.
So please, explain again how increasing the supply of apartments in Newtonville is likely to raise the overall prices of existing apartments … and why the law of supply-and-demand, and free markets don’t apply in Newtonville?
Oh my! Adding a condo building on top of a parking lot represents gentrification?
That said, paying $3200/month for a two-bedroom condo with a view of the Star Market and Mass Pike does sound a tad steep…
Who in their right mind , after living in the lap of luxury, would choose to spend $3200 dollars a month, to share with another 100 or so folks, a dark underground garage, a single smelly elevator, a dingy hotel like corridor, and views from a little box apartment ,.. of parking lots, an ugly supermarket, a bunch of roof top A/C units and a noisy polluting turnpike ? Get a grip ASP supporters, and try and imagine a little reality here. When the paint starts peeling those lovers of high rise apartment life will run like rats from a sinking ship to neighboring sweet little 2 families with some green space, peace and quiet. And the market forces at work ??? Who knows .
The developer might WANT to rent out at $3200 but factors like being close to the Pike or near the Star will weigh on what they will rent for. But for folks who value be that close to the village that could easily offset negatives.
The market will decide.
Thank you, Bill.
You make an excellent point.
If or when renters in the market finds new apartments on Austin Street no more attractive than those nearby (i.e., “comparable” as Lisap suggests), the rents on new apartments on Austin Street will have to drop to the same level or lower than those rents on existing apartments or renters will rent existing apartments and Austin Street apartments will remain empty until the rents are lowered.
And then we won’t have to discuss whether new supply will lower rents because you have just shown how it will.
While some people will always prefer single family house living, some people can’t afford it and need a lower priced alternative. And some people prefer the convenience of apartment living or, in the case of accessibility, require it.
Well-designed, bright, and fully accessible but modestly-sized elevator-served apartments with modern kitchens and baths with large windows and state of the art energy-efficient systems and well-lit garage parking should be a choice for people living in Newton.
No snow shoveling, no grass mowing, no leaf blowing, no maintenance living close to shopping, restaurants, and transit is not without its attractions.
It’s may not suit everyone but neither do single family houses.
Just to add some perspective:
We do know the income distribution in Newton from the US Census via realtor.com:
Range Households
$0-$9k 1,322
$10k-$19k 1,734
$20k-$29k 1,648
$30k-$39k 1,455
$40k-$49k 1,319
$50k-$59k 1,450
$60k-$74k 1,981
$75k-$99k 3,350
$100k-$124k 3,097
$125k-$149k 2,517
$150k-$199k 3,792
$200k-$249k 1,335
$250k-$499k 4,685
$500k+ 2,028
Household income distribution represents the distribution of Newton income brackets at the household level. Overall, the median household income for Newton is $124,904, which is 53% higher than that of Middlesex County ($81,673). Income data for Newton is sourced from census, 2015.
@Jerry, I’m no expert either, but I agree that the market economy will dictate the prices. As for supply and demand, I always thought that prices drop when demand decreases and supply surges. If the demand and supply remain equal then prices I think tend to remain stable. When demand exceeds supply, prices tend to go up – which is why our real estate market in Newton has remained very bullish where demand has exceeded supply. Maybe I’m not listening closely enough (which is entirely possible because I’ve largely tried to just be a casual observer of this whole project) but it was my understanding that there is a high demand and need for the additional units to house folks. If I’m an owner of a unit in Newtonville I’m looking to what other landlords are charging for their units. If a new development comes in and it sets a price point that is much higher than I charge and it rents to capacity, why wouldn’t I re-evaluate what I am charging in rent to see if I can raise what I charge?
@Austin Street Partners – great post, thank you and apologies – I was writing as you were posting.
Thank you, Lisap.
*If or when renters in the market FIND new apartments…
Sorry for the typo!
Adding relatively expensive apartments to the rental stock does not in of itself increase the average price of other units. Other factors do push the prices up, including demand exceeding supply, relative to vacancy rates. This is the status quo in Newton and elsewhere now. The argument that the introduction of $3,000-a-month apartments pushes up the price of $2,000-a-month apartments reveals an utter misunderstanding of supply-demand economics. The same can be said for so-called McMansions: If the little ranch next door is replaced by a house twice the size, it doesn’t cause the city to assess the surrounding little ranches at a higher price.
Just for clarification..
I am not the “Paul” that is posting as Paul.
Newton is a CITY, not a TOWN.
In case anyone who has lived here for more than a decade hasn’t
noticed, we have already been “urbanized”.
Maybe transplants from NY(KKG), California(Pitts)
and others who have relocated here and settled into their million dollar homes
should be thinking about relocating to Wellesley or Weston etc if they want no
“urbanization” because thats where we are, and that’s where we are going.
Find other things to whine about, you could be in Paris or Syria…
In addition to the many good comments made throughout this thread, I’m going to add one point, which is that one’s definition of “luxury” is based upon his or her perspective. When you grow up in public housing without consistent heat or food, your perspective on housing is going to be quite different than someone who grew up on West Newton Hill. To suggest that no one in Newton should perceive the proposed Austin Street project as luxury is to reject the perspective of many in Newton. If there’s one thing that this process has taught me, it’s that our city could benefit from a more balanced perspective amongst our decision-makers.
@Tom: You are, of course, correct in a global sense. In some cultures a grass hut is considered luxury. But in our housing market, luxury carries a different and specific connotation. Don’t believe me. Google “luxury apartments Greater Boston” and you’ll get the idea.
But Tom, pardon me if you’ve explained this, but given your own life experiences and compassion for the less well off, can you remind us why you oppose building 11 apartments for households earning 80% of area median income and six homes for very low income households?
@Greg: Well – you might consider going to this:
Please help us celebrate the Groundbreaking for The Residences of Kesseler Woods on Tuesday, December 8 at 2:30 PM at 189 LaGrange St.
Chestnut Hill Realty is very excited to begin construction of 88 new luxury apartment homes in Newton.
Who knew this would be a development of “luxury apartment homes in Newton” – oh – wait – it was supposed to be market rate units with 12 affordable….. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/62352
@Fig: Apologies: I had thought I voted for this but it appears I did not.
@Amy–wow great find! Yes to many people market rate units are indeed luxury, including the folks responsible for marketing the new Kesseler Woods properties.
@Alderman Norton: Surely you’re not suggesting there’s something wrong with people having pride in their living conditions? The question is not do people find their homes “luxurious” (in some corners of the world, a cement floor is luxurious), it’s can low and/or middle class folks afford to live there?
@Greg – by that measure I’d have to say that the,Austin St Market rate apartments are luxury aparents then.
A $2500 or, $3000 per month rent ( if that is indeed what they end up renting for) is definitely out of this mddle class guy’s,budget.
Totally understand Jerry. I’d have trouble living there on my non-profit salary, kid in college, etc., as well. And buying a house in Newton is even worse (a household would need more than $160,000 of income per year plus have $188,000 in cash for a down payment, plus maintenance and upkeep that you don’t have when renting.)
If you’re not fortunate enough to have it already, finding housing anywhere right now is scary. As you’ve acknowledged above, we have a significant supply and demand problem. I find this illustration informative but no solution is going to work for everyone; which is why the experts all say we need to diversify our housing stock.
@Greg: I’m not going to argue semantics with someone who has a direct stake in the outcome of this project as that doesn’t get anyone anywhere. I will reiterate, however, that in the eyes of many, this proposed project is luxury. I only commented because I believe that you’re trying to paint the perspective of a large portion of Newton residents as unreasonable, which would be wrong. And in regard to why I don’t support the proposed Austin Street project, my opinion is irrelevant at this point. Suffice it to say that the proposed project is a bad deal for the people of Newton that we should not accept. I believe that we can do better.
@Amy: Thank you for adding this to the discussion as it further highlights the importance of reading between and behind the lines when it comes to political talk.
@Jerry: You’re exactly right.
@Tom: It’s unfortunate that you don’t want to explain your personal reasons. You’ve shared your own history but I’m not sure you’ve connected the dots to why you oppose a project where one out of every four units are affordable under state law.
Meanwhile, you are mistaken to suggest that I have a “direct stake in the outcome,” unless by stake you mean I’ve devoted a lot of time to this, but lots of good folks on all sides have done that.
The Chamber’s board of directors endorsed 28 Austin and I agree with that position. But the chamber and its directors has no financial stake either. In fact, Austin Street Partners and their affiliated companies, aren’t even members of the chamber (not something I’ve been particularly happy about, but that’s a different story). Membership in the chamber was not part of the criteria my board considered in its deliberations. The decision was made purely on its merits.
Tom, the problem is we don’t do better, we oppose every proposal and won’t even try a modest project like Austin Street at least this project will provide 6 units for people at 50% of AMI more affordable units that have come online in the city in the last five years.
@Tom Davis – I think where we disagree is that I think having those market rate “luxury apartments” subsidize 17 below market rate apartments is a good thing. The alternative at this point is not building any apartments at all.
I apologize in advance because this is kind of long, but here is an excellent piece concerning the changing housing market that developments like Austin Street are made for. Oh, and the author even gets in a little dig at Newton.
“How can we help these young people stay in the city rather than move to some far away place without sewers?”
Hey, I grew up in one of those “far away places without sewers”! My parents couldn’t afford Newton where my dear Mom grew up, or Winthrop where my Dad lived, so they moved outside of “the City” to a place without sewers but with farms, fields and Route 1 which allowed my Dad to commute to work in Boston for the newspapers (back when Boston had 4 daily papers). I suspect that my parents would have much preferred to live in Newton, but on their incomes it was simply out of reach then as it would be now. Septic systems may not be cool, but plenty of the communities that need to use them are! 😉
“Move to some far away place without sewers … ” what is the deal in this story about sewers? I’ve lived in some very nice suburbs with 450′ wells and septic systems. The well water was delicious and we never had any problems. The yards were large and luscious with blooming trees, streams and gardens. No hardships experienced, except long commutes, but that was by choice.
The people in situations described in this article with starting salary jobs, student loans and other bills generally don’t want to commute and are definitely the ones who need places to live. Austin Street (and Kessler Woods) are not being built for them. Read their discretionary income, percentage being paid to rent and their circumstances. They need places to rent for $1700 to $2300 to be able to get by and maybe save a bit.
In addition, Newtonvile’s transit isn’t any where near what is needed. The commuter rail is late as much as it is on time. My son and his friends, teachers, lawyers and medical professionals, used to take it to go into Boston but were late so many times they use other means now. The bus that makes regular runs to Boston through Newtonville only stops if the driver sees you. Now that it’s dark so much earlier, they pass right by a lot. The drivers have said to use smart phone flashlights to wave when the bus is approaching and they will know to stop. When you leave early or work second or third shift at hospitals, these are the transit options.
I don’t have the answers for increasing the type of housing these young people need and want. Market rate may not equal luxury, which is just a marketing term, but in this market it does mean expensive.
In Newton it’s great to build market rate housing for those who can afford it in order to subsidize housing for lower income households. That still leaves a gap for the others that may just stay there when the older multi family homes with middle income rentals are all sold off.
@Howard: What do you consider to be modest about the proposed Austin Street project?
@Jerry: We may disagree on this specific project as developing affordable housing is a very nuanced issue. If the people of Newton decided to develop the Austin Street lot, I don’t believe that we should settle for this project just because. We’ve got so many identified needs that we need prioritize which the project on the table does too little to address.
@Greg: Why is it unfortunate that I’m not sharing my personal reasons with you? As I said, at this point, my personal reasons are irrelevant. Why continue the circular argument?
Yeah,.. Austin Street is modest ? 4-1/2 stories tall,.. Rents at $3200 a month,.. Land costs at $1000000 over a 99 year period,.. It’s modest only in the amount of service available from the MBTA and the fact that you can’t have two cars and live here.
@THM: You’re fighting hard to pass the proposed Austin Street project, so let me ask you: In Newton, what’s the percentage and absolute number of millennials at each luxury/market-rate development near transit? How about in Boston and San Francisco, too, since these two cities continue to be cited as examples for Newton.
Tom, you appear to have missed the point. While demand is way up in the greater Boston area (hence high RE prices), housing production is way down. Our economic prosperity is inextricably linked to the supply of workforce housing, and without places for employees to live affordably, neither millennials nor employers are going to look at the Boston area to relocate or even stay.
Marti and Lisap, as someone who also grew up in one of those towns without a sewer outside Route 128, I think Larry DiCara’s description of the burbs was intended to be tongue in cheek.
Happy Thanksgiving, all.
@THM: I didn’t miss the point. Are you able to answer my question? If not, do you know who would be able to?
@Tom Davis,
I’m not sure whether this website – http://boston.curbed.com/tags/rent-check will answer your question, but they sure seem to be directed towards the 20-30 something millenial crowd. Interesting data there on some of the other apartments under construction or newly opened next door in Waltham. I was particularly intrigued because I drove past Currents on the Charles last night and it seemed, rather, under occupied. It’s at the corner of River Street and Pleasant Street in what I always think of as Watertown but is in fact Waltham. Pretty swank amenities (swimming pool, yoga studio, dog wash station, river views, garage parking, etc., etc.) beginning at a price point below Austin Street (2 bedrooms start at $2525.)
@ Amy S-
When is the “affordable” component slated to begin building at Kessler Woods?
The city, under the aegis of the Community Preservation Act(funded by all
Newton taxpayers), paid five million dollars for property at Kessler Woods years ago. (including an undevelopable swath of resident buffering swamp land). There is conservation property there, but included in part of this purchase was an agreement to include affordable housing. How much will there be and when will it happen? Kessler Woods is in Ward 8. All residents of Ward 8 declined to support the CPA or the school override, but the largest amount of CPA money has been spent in Ward 8 if you include Angino Farm which was another five million of CPA money.