Just about everyone agrees Metropolitan Boston has a housing crisis.
That’s the opening line in a new study by a coalition of major housing industry and advocacy groups the Globe described as the first comprehensive review of zoning laws in Eastern Massachusetts in more than a decade.
Then the report’s continues….
We just surpassed New York City to become the third most expensive large metro rental market in the country. Single-family and condo prices have continued to climb, with median sale prices of nearly $430,000 across the entire metro area, a 4 percent increase since the end of 2017. Renters are being hit with rent increases and evictions, causing housing instability, displacement, and homelessness. In fact, throughout Massachusetts, one out of every four renters – and even one out of every ten homeowners – is “extremely cost burdened,” paying over 50 percent of their income for housing. For those without high incomes and substantial savings, the idea of homeownership is an impossible dream.
The expensive cost of housing not only affects individual households, but also negatively affects neighborhoods and the region. When affordable options are not available near where people work, they move farther away, resulting in more traffic congestion. The high cost of housing may also discourage companies from moving to or expanding in the region, affecting our economic competitiveness. In order to attract new businesses and retain young talent, there must be homes available and affordable to a range of income levels. One principal reason – though by no means the only one—for the region’s housing affordability crisis is the mismatch of demand and supply. This is a problem decades in the making. In February 2001, the Archdiocese of Boston and other major stakeholders issued a call to address the housing crisis in Greater Boston, releasing a report determining that 36,000 additional homes were needed in the next five years to stabilize rents and home prices. We did not meet that benchmark.
Having participated in debates over many years locally, I wonder: Does just about everyone in Newton agree that Metropolitan Boston has a housing crisis”?
Do you agree that Metropolitan Boston has a housing crisis?
Yes or no?
PLEASE NOTE: I’m not asking if you support Northland or Riverside or Washington Street or any other project or if you think those projects help or hurt the problem. We have lots of threads here to discuss this.
On this thread, I’m just interested in knowing if you agree that Metropolitan Boston has a housing crisis?
Yes or no?
Absolutely yes.
Yes
Is this a trick question?
Bugek: That wasn’t my question but I believe you just answered Allison’s.
Name another large city with high paying jobs and an unemployment rate below 3% without very expensive rents and expensive housing in safe neighborhoods…
Infact, name such a capitalistic city ANYWHERE in the world…
Boston is the only city in the world which can create a magic solution?
Greg,
There is a crisis but no solution which helps one group (lowers their costs) and hurts another(increases their costs to subsidize the other group)
Build more units for sale and investors(worldwide) buy more because of the robust economy…
In my opinion the problem was caused by the loss of middle class jobs (manufacturing). We have tech on the high end and retail on the low end. What good paying job is available without taking on crushing student debt? Even education is no longer affordable.
The pure cost of a degree is insane, where do colleges get to justify these insane tuitions? Is the tuition crisis the root cause of unaffordability?
Is there a shortage of housing or a shortage of affordable housing?
Absolutely, and it’s affecting people of all ages.
Do you believe there’s an income inequality gap that needs to also be addressed before a true solution can be found to the housing problem? Yes or no only.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. There is a housing crisis. People are incredibly cost burdened, 25% of people are paying over 50% of their income in housing costs.
That is not sustainable, it is not fair, it is not right.
Yes – Both Metropolitan Boston and Newton specifically.
We also have a transportation crisis which is exasperating the housing crunch. Traffic even within I95 is a complete mess and just solving the housing portion means we trade one crisis for another one. We need a strategy to address both of them in parallel.
A housing shortage indeed exists, and the solution does not lie purely in market forces. Those forces, left by themselves, created the disappearance of the affordable single-family home in Newton through speculative acquisition of such houses, their demolition, and subsequent replacement by McMansions costing several million dollars each. Few young couples with modest incomes and perhaps a child or two have any chance of affording such a home. Nor do they need houses of such size.
I fear that megaprojects like Northland and Riverside will produce similar results: expensive condominiums or rentals whose cost exceeds what those young couples can pay. Perhaps even seniors looking to surrender their Newton homes at high prices will be unwilling to fork over almost a million dollars or even more for a one or two-bedroom condo someone has declared “low and middle-income housing.”
It’s clear to me that government must partner with the private sector to create housing so that at least some of the workers we dream of employing in a burgeoning private sector in Newton might have a chance of living nearby. I won’t even mention city workers who’d like to live here or retirees who want to stick around. Pure capitalism will fail at this task; Newton will continue to trend towards being the home of society’s winners, with an ever increasing median income. Some of you like that vision…but I don’t.
Absolutely, and despite what Bugek says, building more housing–whether it is subsidized or market rate–will help to address the critical shortage of affordable and accessible housing the Greater Boston Metropolitan area. In Eastern Massachusetts, the dramatic increase in housing costs correlates with equally dramatic reductions in housing starts.
We can reach the “pareto optimality” where the impact of more housing will be offset by the
costsbenefits. A Pareto optimality or efficiency is a state of allocation of resources from which it is impossible to reallocate so as to make any one individual or preference criterion better off without making at least one individual or preference criterion worse off. That is where we need to get to, and the only way to do it is to building more housing.Not “costs”, *benefits*.
Ted,
Name a city world wide with under 3% unemployment and high paying jobs with affordable housing for everyone (not just a select few) in safe neighborhood and close to work…
Somehow building more will work in boston but did not work anywhere else worldwide in the last 3 decades?
I would argue a japan style bullet train would do more the solve the affordability than anything else. A current 2hr commute would be down to 30 mins or less with bullet train(100 mile radius to boston at 200 mph).. last time i checked, towns 2hrs out are affordable if you work in the city
Even a more frequent commuter rail would be more effective than simply just building continuously until demand disapears(the point at which prices will fall)
Government policies intended to reduce housing costs have been a total failure. Rent control, the mortgage interest deduction, backstopping FNMA and the FHA, Section 8, rent control, government housing projects, and, yep, 40B. The list goes on. All total failures. Look at the states where bureaucrats tried to fix the housing market 40 years ago. How are they doing today?
I grew up in a house in Erie PA that Zillow’s today for $125k. My mom grew up in house in Fall River that Zillow’s today for $85K. My dad grew up in a rental in Fall River that pales in comparison to my mom’s house. All of us gladly chose to leave this “affordable” housing.
There is nothing wrong with me choosing to move to Newton with expensive housing and there is nothing wrong with someone choosing to move to Fall River with inexpensive housing.
Japanese-style bullet trains would be a terrific solution–but see the previous thread: our government can’t even keep the commuter rail running smoothly!
You must also consider the negative impacts of over building.. a single recession will put everyone underwater
As people abandon their homes because their home now costs less than the mortgage.. you get blight which spirals downward…
End result is an affordable s*hole
This is what happens when you try to manipulate the market
@Bugek, bullfeathers! Newton has never had a collapse in housing prices. And most of the metropolitan area has not either.
You are making claims without substantiation. Show your work.
Forgive me for saying so, Jeffrey, but you have always been sort of a snob. For which anti-snob zoning is the remedy.
Jeff, dude, yours and my houses are worth what they are worth through government distortion of the market.
You can’t claim government intervention in housing never works and then fight to maintain exclusionary zoning.
I mean, obviously, you can, but it doesn’t make sense.
Sean. Yes, you are absolutely correct. Government “worked” in that it made things worse. On the surface, allowing people to deduct home loan interest and having government backstops, sounds “nice,” but it increases housing prices. Yes, I would love to see these policies go away. It would reduce the price of housing, including my house, but society would be better off.
Example of hands-off government control for development:
Hong kong 1980 to present day
There probably isnt a undeveloped plot available which doesnt have a mid or high rise on it. Large green spaces are rare because its pretty much built out…
And what do we have? One of the most unaffordable places on earth to buy…
Why? Because unemployment is low and people can make lots $$. Pray for a recession if you want lower prices..
Still waiting for the name of this mythical city with low employment and high salaries with affordable housing in a safe neighborhood for the majority of people.. it doesnt and will never exist outside communism/socialism
@Jeff – Here’s the thing, you stated that “There is nothing wrong with me choosing to move to Newton with expensive housing and there is nothing wrong with someone choosing to move to Fall River with inexpensive housing.”
For most people, affordable housing isn’t a choice, it’s a necessity. 89% of the people who work in Newton don’t live here. It’s not because they like taking an hour to get here. It is because they can’t live here. And that is wrong.
@Ted. I was working in DC during the 87 crash, but I seem to recall that the price of our home in Newton did drop 10 to 15 percent in terms of the likely selling price. I can’t recall how long it took to recoup this loss and I don’t believe it caused our property taxes to drop.
So, Bob Burke, you may be right. But, since 1992, the assessed value of your home has increased from $290,500 to $950,400. In other words, your assessed value has more than tripled in the last twenty-seven years. Respectfully, you have more than recouped any loss you suffered in the 1987 crash, my friend.
Just keeping it real.
Bryan
What % of people work in Boston and cannot afford to live the city? Should we be crying a river for all of these folks too?
I wish I could walk to work, but I also wish I could have free healthcare. Now free healthcare.. that’s a cause worth fighting for…
The following are not “god given rights”
– to live in an affluent town
– to work and live in the same town/city
There are plenty of other higher priority issues… “MUST” live in Newton is not one of them
There is a housing crisis. It is compounded by wage disparity, and overall wage insufficiency at the low end.
Our ability to solve the housing crisis is confounded by wage disparity. The well-paid can always buy down, but those with limited means can’t buy up. That means that in a low-availability market, the well-paid will “win” the bids for limited number of units. Unfortunately, the market equilibrium adjusts to that, and even families with two good salaries are soon squeezed.
To go all math geeky like Ted, without a combination of housing supply, reduced wage disparity, and good government policies, we at best have Nash equilibrium: everyone, working independently, gets their own best outcome in a system with known rules that everyone follows.
Unfortunately, those rules are stacked against the “have-nots” and “have-littles” more so than at any time since the 1920’s.
So, Greg, do we have a wage crisis in Newton? Yes or No?
Read “A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.”</a? If you have a soul, it may change the way you think about why you all you honkeys can afford to live in Newton.
Why is it Local councils are changing zoning ordinances to limit short term rentals? Because investors are buying up this much needed housing and making money. Meanwhile needy locals are being displaced.
So yes, we have a crisis. Wealthier people are doing very well. Poorer people are being displaced.
Rental properties are way to high in Boston something needs to be done….more people will become homeless and the rich just keep getting richer…
@Mike Halle you nailed it. Just increasing supply alone will not make the kind of societal changes that say Bryan Barash wants. I’ve been in Newton over 30 years, and I can recall that back then very few people who worked in Newton lived here. My kid’s schoolteachers especially did not live in Newton. I know a few local police who grew up in Newton still lived in Newton. The fire chief lived a few houses down.
@bugek is correct- this is a worldwide trend, caused by many factors- boomers living longer ( 30 + years ago, houses turned over by people croaking) , huge wage disparity/ wealth accumulation. The wealth accumulation of Newton residents on their housing is just paper- it’s meaningless until you sell. The wealth accumulation that is happening world wide doesn’t need differential equations to figure out. You just have to play the game monopoly to realize the common sense that unless you redistribute gains somewhat, the game is over when one person has all the money. Socialism, government intervention? Not at the extreme. Just get rid of trust fund loopholes and progressively tax capital gains to keep the game going. Otherwise your cousin will get mad and flip the board over.
In summary, go nuts. Build all the density you want. It will barely scratch the problem, especially since developers want to maximize their profits and are going to build upscale. As for tear downs, a builder friend of mine who builds large residential homes on the north shore told me years ago he can’t make a profit unless he tears down and builds larger. He told me flat out he wouldnt even break even. He wouldn’t take the job.
There are no easy answers, and there never are. Without the dampening filter of taxes, and regulations ( think Glass Steagal ) the economy is going to boom and bust all the time because humans ( myself too, I’m human last I checked) are dumb by and large.
If you believe we have a housing crisis, propose a solution. Please provide specific examples of communities that have successfully adopted your solution.
The premise of the title is incorrect, from what we’re hearing. We don’t actually live in Metropolitan Boston; we live in the village(s) of Newton.
From the original post….
“one out of every ten homeowners – is “extremely cost burdened,” paying over 50 percent of their income for housing. For those without high incomes and substantial savings, the idea of homeownership is an impossible dream.”
What is Northland to actually help with the Crisis?
– Market rates will consume the majority of Millennial and elder incomes/savings
– They can do better than 18% affordable units
– All apartments (paired with market rates) further removes any opportunity for homeownership
The strategies being currently proposed by Northland is a short term solve for the housing crisis…and in the long run, only Northland benefits.
Follow the money.
We do have a housing crisis, but I’m afraid that these new apartments and condos will still be prohibitively expensive for the people that would want to live there such as new families with little kids, downsizing seniors, and young professionals. When I first moved here in 2005, there was still some diversity in the housing stock and you could live in a small cape or a condo in a two-family home for a reasonable price, but more and more of those smaller and less expensive options are disappearing in favor of very expensive condos. I’m waiting for the day that developers want to knock down my block of old small homes to build pricey condos.
I should also clarify that just because adding housing in isolation can’t solve the housing crisis doesn’t mean it isn’t part of the solution. It just means we can’t stop there. No excuses to throw up our hands. Building physical structures is the easiest part. Rebuilding a middle class and bringing people up into it is really hard but noble work.
And there are plenty of other reasons to encourage denser, carefully-integrated multi-use development. When small trips to stores or grocery become walking trips, we begin to recreate the advantages of Newton’s historic self-sufficient villages while keeping more cars off the street.
We also build a sense of place and identity that has traditionally been strong in Newton’s villages but is at risk with greater social isolation. Families are a big part of building this kind of community.
We also provide a natural customer base for businesses both inside and adjacent to new development. That helps maintain beloved institutions and build new ones.
And these advantages hold even when more services are provided by delivery or on-line. Package delivery is more efficient. Bike or car share is more efficient. Improvements to mass transit are more efficient.
Our challenge is to get most of the good with as little bad as possible.
The region has a housing shortage, but wealthy towns have no incentive to help solve the problem. Adding dense affordable housing lowers property values of existing property owners and burdens town services. Towns are reluctant to sign up for that, despite hectoring and appeals to our better angels.
If the state wants towns to help solve the problem, it needs to give them incentive to do so with carrots such as public transportation improvements and more state aid for schools tied to zoning changes.
Laurie,
This is precisely why not a single councilor (running or seated) is banging the table to build affordable high density(multiple stories) buildings in Waban or Newton Centre (which has frequently public transportation.. T)
Show my ANY link on their website highlighting Waban or Newton Centre as priority to build…
I was expecting Brenda Noel to specially advocate building in highlight Waban/Newton Center on her website since she wants use Newton as her social engineering playground. Would it help or hurt her re-election chances?
Laurie says “Adding dense affordable housing lowers property values of existing property owners and burdens town services.”
I would suggest a web search for “does affordable housing lower property values?” and see the studies that come up. I see no evidence that affordable housing of density anywhere near what is being considered in Newton or surrounding municipalities has any negative effect on property values.
It also doesn’t happen in places like Jamaica Plain where a neighborhood development corporation (the JPNDC) is building 100% affordable units and home prices have remained hot for years. (Residential price per square foot is higher in JP than in Newton.)
I would agree, though, that the state could step up local support for higher density development if it wanted to encourage it.
Does Greater Boston have a housing crisis? That’s a good question, for which there isn’t a straight forward answer. If you were to listen to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), then one might say “Yes” to the question. The MAPC has stated that…” Eastern Massachusetts will need an estimated 435,000 units of housing by 2040 to meet demand.”
“Housing production isn’t just a Boston problem and no one community can solve our housing crisis alone. Home prices are rising throughout the region, and even as demand has grown, production has lagged. Today, these local and state leaders are stepping up to tackle the housing crisis head-on, because our residents can’t wait,” said Marc Draisen, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston, which staffs and facilitates the Metro Mayors Coalition.
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-commits-increase-housing-part-area-coalition
435,000 seems like an absurd number. But the MAPC does not and should not speak for the residents of the region, for they are an unelected board.
On the other hand, I like to read the quarterly reports from Dr. Glenn Mueller, who reports on different real estate trends nationwide. https://daniels.du.edu/assets/Cycle-Monitor-19Q1.pdf
On page 5, you can see that Boston (I assume he means the GBA) is still in the expansion phase, approaching the hypersupply.
And the Fed just announced that interest rates are going down, which will mean it will cheaper for developers to borrow money for their projects. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/business/economy/powell-fed-trade-wars.html
My take on Greg’s question; There is a shortage of affordable housing. The private for-profit developers are building luxury units, which are not the greatest need, nor will it solve the “housing crisis” that they are trying to address. We should not let the for profit private housing developers hide behind the “housing crisis” narrative because their developments target the more affluent and excludes the everyday person.
Bottom line: we will continue to see more housing being built in the GBA, whether we need it or not is a question for another blog post. I think it is important not to produce an excess amount of new housing.
Question to anyone: How many new housing units have been built in Eastern Mass/Greater Boston Area since 2015?
@tarik, your line that “the MAPC does not and should not speak for the residents of the region, for they are an unelected board” suggests to me that don’t have a good sense of what that group actually does. But let’s put that aside for the moment.
Behind the MAPC number is the fact that the region has grown jobs, but not housing units. We have people moving in, but fewer units in which to put them. Coupled with housing prices that rise faster than wages, and you can’t deny a housing crisis. You can see it on the roads with the increase in traffic. People need to move farther away from their jobs to afford housing, these are directly related. Everyone complains about the traffic… and yes, it’s bad. It’s gotten worse.
During the panel after Amy Dain released her report, there was a discussion about how the number of housing units being built regionally is dropping, even as our need increases. I’m sorry I don’t have my notes handy, but when I grab them I’ll check to see if I have numbers. I wish you were able to attend, it was an interesting discussion and likely would have provided answers to your questions.
Yes. We have a housing crisis.
Bugek: Hiroshima (Prefecture), Japan.
https://stats-japan.com/t/tdfk/hiroshima
2.7% unemployment
Average monthly rent 4,8421円 (under $489) for 48 sq. Meters (480 sf)
Minimum wage of 720円/hr (over $7/hr)
7th richest prefecture in japan
“Well paying jobs” are not listed there but sone googling shows a a number of positions for around $30,000 USD for a bachelors with 1-2 years experience.
The prefecture is pretty much the extended metro area around Hiroshima city, so I think it’s fair. They have 2.86 million people in 2,358 sq km (total prefecture of 8k km2 – forested/undeveloped area of 6k km2)
If we look at Norfolk, Suffolk, and Middlesex counties there’s a total population of around 2.1 million people in 3,295 sq km land (not including water, including forests/undeveloped)
I could probably repeat this for any “minor” city in Japan and get the same results.
Yes – the cost of food, water, clothing, etc. is high. Japan is an island (these things are also expensive in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Nantucket) but housing is not, because at this point – all across Japan – supply EXCEEDS demand.
What we are saying with our current policies is that we, as a society, prefer bidding up housing (both to own and rent) to these ridiculous rates (and subjecting those who can’t pay to housing insecurity) over allowing the market to build (likely up, in towers) until housing costs are proportional to building costs.
[Note: I work for the MBTA. These are my personal observations and are made without reference to MBTA policies and statements]
People tie themselves in knots to deny basic economics. The supply of housing in the region has not kept up with demand. Places like Newton are built out, but only in the context of exclusionary zoning. If we got rid of the market-distorting ban on multi-family housing that controls what gets built in most of the city, we could contribute to alleviating the regional supply crunch. Prices would go down. Our homes are worth more, because of artificial scarcity. Zoning reform alleviates the artificial scarcity.
Would zoning liberalization create more truly affordable housing in Newton? Probably not. Our city will still remain more desirable than other places. But negative displacement of folks in other communities who are currently locked out of Newton, makes things better regionally. If somebody moves out of Framingham because some more housing becomes available in Newton, prices go down in Framingham.
We should aspire to have more truly affordable housing in Newton. Zoning reform isn’t going to solve that problem. But, zoning reform won’t hurt.
PS — Exclusionary zoning has an ugly, racist origin story. We should be ashamed that single-family-only zoning is enshrined in our ordinances. And, single-family-only zoning in the urban ring is terrible for the environment.
Mike,
Zoning reform lowers home values. Feature, not a bug. See, Seattle.
Ann,
2 things about Hiroshima
– This was where 10s of thousands of innocent women & children died the most horrific death imaginable + ground radiation. Not exactly a place most people would “choose” to live
– I assume this location has a VERY robust public transportation, even a bullet train. This means housing does not have to be clustered in a central location. You can pretty much live within a 100 mile radius (assuming bullet train) and still have a sane and reliable commute
Perhaps this means the solution is not to focus on building more housing near the core but to build more reliable and FAST public transportation TO THE core from a larger radius.
Sean,
no one is literally “locked” out of Newton anymore than people are locked out from the following
– eating at expensive restaurants
– owning an expensive car
– working in a decent paying job
– being accepted in a top college
Because we live in a market economy, nice things cost money. No one is literally locking anyone out.
Bugster,
Some of the items you list are subject to some artificial constraint on supply, but none as substantial as single-family-only, exclusionary zoning.
Way to move the goal posts. Hiroshima meets your original criteria. But, to answer your concerns:
– millions of people in Hiroshima would seem to disprove it being it being a place people don’t “choose” to live in. (Anecdotally, when I was there I met young people who had immigrated from other parts of Japan for the “peace culture”)
– because the bombs exploded above ground, the radiation went into the air (unlike meltdown radiation that seeps into the earth and water). As a result current radiation levels in Hiroshima are no different than background radiation at sea level anywhere on earth.
– Actually, by Japanese standards, Hiroshima doesn’t have good public transit at all. No subways. It has 1 main JR station for a bullet train, and 4 JR local lines going out from the city (2 north, 1 east, 1 west), and 8-street level tram lines in the city core/downtown. There are also some busses.
Hiroshima was redesigned after WWII by the same American city planners that gave us the messes we have today in America. (I assume out of guilt for the bomb; Tokyo burned to the ground but we didn’t meddle in rebuilding there) Hiroshima has a grid-layout, wide streets, low(er) buildings, and is the most car-centric city I have seen in Japan.
– the bullet train is not for daily commuting. They usually run downtown-downtown (think Providence-Boston for the Hikari/slower train, or NYC to Boston for the Nozomi/faster train) and are expensive. Except in Hiroshima, the main JR station where the trains stop is north of the entire downtown area and you’ll have to take a bus or tram to get to your final destination.
The closest station is an 11 minute ride away, and will run you ¥2,890 each way. In contrast, you can take a JR local line in from the north side of the same town for ¥560 – it’ll take 37 minutes. The bullet train will save you almost an hour a day, but will cost an extra ¥4660 – over $40!
If I’m willing to spend a premium of $40/day, or $900 month on the bullet train (and live downtown in the next city over so I don’t have to commute to/from the bullet train to my house) and then take the tram in Hiroshima proper I imagine I could rent or buy a pretty sweet place for that same $ – remember the average rent is under $500 – and not commute at all.
[As always, these are my personal observations.]
Ann,
Why do you think Hiroshima is affordable while tokyo is not?Perhaps its income disparity, without a strong finance or tech industry in Hiroshima perhaps the gap between incomes is moderate… ie there is a solid middle class
If this is the case, the answer is income disparity which cannot be solved by simply adding more density. We need to fix income disparity..
Once again, Greg ( and those like-minded) monotonously bang the gong for “more housing, more housing!”, stumping for the real-estate industrial complex and its weapons of mass displacement. How many times have I and others called out this Trojan horse? Must we do it again?!
Bugek,
I’ve sat on this a few days, trying to decide how to answer. Here it is:
You asked for a capitalistic city, anywhere in the world, with good jobs, unemployment under 3%, housing in safe neighborhoods, and affordable housing costs.
Hiroshima fits this description, and as a bonus, shares several other demographic characteristics with Boston.
But by labeling Hiroshima’s housing as affordable, I did not label Tokyo’s or Osaka’s as unaffordable. I just thought the cities did not meet the applicable criteria. If you’re willing to go down the coast from Boston you can easily work in NYC – for a similar distance from Hiroshima you could be in Osaka or Tokyo.
While all cities in Japan are safe, and since they have a national curricula, the differences in school quality are much smaller, the mega cities of Japan don’t quite meet your economic criteria.
Tokyo has a population of 12.9 million (of the ~70 million on the greater Kanto metropolitan region), but an unemployment rate of 3.2%. Rental units are, on average, smaller: 39.5 square meters (400 sf), and go for ¥7,8552/mo (about $750).
Osaka has a population of 8.8 million (out of the ~50 million in the greater Kansai metropolitan region) and one of the highest unemployment rates in Japan at 4%. Anecdotally, because of the larger number of people on welfare and Non-Japanese in Osaka, it has a bit of a seedy/unsafe reputation. Regarding housing, Osaka is closer to Hiroshima than Tokyo: the average rental is 44.4 sq meters, for ¥5,4349 (a bit over $500/month)
Affordability is a combination of lot of things – costs of housing, healthcare (Japan has a national health system), food, water, fuel/energy, clothing and other necessities vs. the amount you make. Japan has 99 problems with overall affordability, affordable housing isn’t one.
[Note: While I am employed by the MBTA, these are my personal views and analysis.]
Can I just address Pat Irwin’s comment above?
“Greg ( and those like-minded) monotonously bang the gong for “more housing, more housing!”, stumping for the real-estate industrial complex and its weapons of mass displacement. How many times have I and others called out this Trojan horse? Must we do it again?!”
You state that you keep calling out this “Trojan horse” again and again. Just curious Pat, did you mean to use those words? The Trojan Horse story from Greek mythology would be an unfortunate way to describe newcomers to our city. Or are the developers supposed to be the invaders? Either way, the metaphor seems to imply that this additional housing is a trick to invite the unwanted into our fortress of a town.
Words/metaphor matter. It rang false to me, even if you just meant it as a quick and easy turn of phrase.
Although it was a nice reminder of Virgil’s famous line by one of the Trojan priests “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (“I fear Greeks, even those bearing gifts”).
Happily, not every (or even any) stranger wants to throw down our walls and sack the city…
(any invaders wouldn’t be able to navigate the Circle of Fear in Newton Corner anyway).
Anne,
What options does Boston have to emulate Hiroshima?
– very very low immigration
– deflationary environment for the past 30 years
– a housing bubble that is still below its peak 30 years later
– or how about the 100/50 year mortgage which is available in Japan?
Bugek,
I propose we emulate Japan (and Hiroshima) by building housing at a rate that matches it exceeds population growth in that area. Japanese metro areas have population growth, the interior of the country/the rural areas have extreme population shrinkage.
From approx 2000 to 2010, in Tokyo, the population grew by 1% annually, and housing units grew by 2%. Keep it up, and boom! Housing for all. (I don’t have specific stats for a Hiroshima at my fingertips)
I also propose we don’t get so hung up on the past. Most buildings in Japan will be torn down after 30-40 years. Some might make it 60-70. A new one will go up, matching the current market conditions, and bam! Housing.
Even without accounting for seismic damage/repair, it’s cheaper and easier to tear down and build new than to rehab. These are zoning changes. We could do that here.
[Note: While I am employed by the MBTA, these are my personal views and analysis.]
@ Fignewtonville: yes, I meant to use those words. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math here lately. And absolutely “beware of ‘Greeks’ bearing gifts!”
For those who don’t think metro Boston has a housing crisis, have you seen this?
Rental Price Burden In Mass. Surpasses New York And D.C., Report Finds
The region’s housing crisis is not fake news. The only way prices will go down is by building a lot more housing.
But the best way to equitably increase the affordable housing supply is to employ that “multi-pronged” housing strategy I spoke of when I was on the Council – you can’t just build your way out, you need to protect those currently in place as well. Here’s something Jay Ciccone and I advocated for way back when and should be included in our housing strategy:
https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2019/02/22/city-life-nonprofits-affordable-housing.
Yes, we need a multi-pronged approach and as many creative ideas as possible to address the affordability issue. But dragging our feet on building more housing while we wait for other ‘prongs’/programs to be designed, approved and implemented feels an awful lot like housing crisis denialism to me.
@allison, I admire your passion on affordable housing and thanks for sharing the article.
A few points…
1. Rents are undoubtedly high in Boston. But it’s not like there are droves of functioning people and families living on the streets or in their cars (like stories in CA), although we must make sure MA never gets to that point.
2. The article cites the FMR for a 2bd unit at $1,758 while Northland’s FMR for The Merc in Waltham is upwards of $3,500 to $4,500
https://www.apartments.com/the-merc-at-moody-and-main-waltham-ma/4e9cqqh/
3. While it’s hard to ignore the 140 affordable units that Northland would add on Needham Street, it comes at a cost – the density of 800 total units. And before we nominate them for sainthood, remember that…assuming an average of $3,500/mo for all units and a 90% occupancy rate, Northland would still rake in over $30m/year in rental income alone. And that’s does not include the office space (significantly higher $/sqft) and retail. Include a 5-10% annual rent hike, and over 30 years you’re looking at a billion dollars.
In summary, we DO need affordable housing, but NOT by the private sector in the form of Big Development. Their motives are for profit first, not social impact and frankly that is their right.
But it is also our right as a community to do stand against their current proposal, which is more downtown that Georgetown. The latter with its height limited, charming rowhouses and walkable shops and amenities, align much better with the character of Newton than the 8 story behemoths that Northland has proposed.
On the other hand, the motives are clear at proposed Armory project in West Newton. 100 % affordable housing.
“We take advantage of community preservation act, community development block grants and home housing partnership funding to support affordable housing. We’re continuing to do that quite aggressively,” (Mayor Fuller) said. “It’s a wonderful confluence of things coming together.”
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-eyes-national-guard-armory-use-affordable-housing
Love @pat irwin’s Trojan Horse analogy. Hits the nail on the head.
What Matt said. Notch.
I am mostly in favor of development in Newton, but I agree with what Matt said. Let’s stop pretending that the developers are being altruistic here. These apartments will rent for significantly more than the monthly mortgage on my little single family home.
Rent control coming back?
Yesterday’s On Point had a whole show about it
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2019/06/19/new-york-rent-control-laws-oregon-california
Everyone should take a listen
The other thing they talk about is passing a STATEWIDE ban on single family housing zoning.
The only way I’m for “upzoning” in Newton is CITYWIDE. no R1, R2.
If it’s good it’s good for everyone. Otherwise it’s going to Bifurcate the city by economic class.
Those of you in R1 and R2 upzone your own property and I’ll be ok with the rest, until then, it’s truly NIMBY, don’t blame those of us us in R3 who are pushing back on the height and size of these developments in our neighborhoods.
What Rick said.
“But it’s not like there are droves of functioning people and families living on the streets or in their cars (like stories in CA), although we must make sure MA never gets to that point.”
The number of homeless people in Boston and statewide remains very high and continues to increase. Just because some of these homeless individuals and families are not living on the streets or in cars does not mean that their lives, their ability to get and keep a job, and for their children to receive a public education are not severely disrupted by homelessness.
The most recent homelessness census in Boston reveals that as of January 30, 2019, there were at least 6,203 homeless people in Boston, and 1,221 homeless families.
HUD’s 2018 homelessness assessment indicated that there were at least 20,068 homeless people in Massachusetts, and 3,647 homeless families with children.
Here is how the statewide numbers break down:
13,257 people in families with children
6,267 adults over age 24 in households without children
493 young adults ages 18-24 in households without children
46 children and youth, under age 18, in households with only childen
985 people were identified as veterans
465 young people were identified as unaccompanied youth, age 24 and younger
2,122 people were identified as experiencing chronic homelessness
The main driving force behind the increase in homelessness is a severe shortage of affordable housing. These homeless individuals and families are living in emergency shelters, cars, motels and on the street. Many have jobs, but cannot afford rent, food, and clothing for themselves or their families, which is why they end up homeless. Many others cannot get or keep their jobs without a permanent address. And homeless children sometimes must go from one school to another during the school year because of the shortage of shelters for homeless families, which makes it all the more difficult for them and their families to rise out of poverty and homelessness.
With a homelessness crisis of this proportion, and particularly for families with children, “too much density” just isn’t a legitimate justification for not providing housing opportunities for every child and adult in Massachusetts. This burden falls on all of us. Every city and town in the state must step up and address the critical shortage of affordable housing, particularly communities in the greater Boston metropolitan area–like Newton.
@ Ted: as if high-density is going to solve the homeless’ housing crisis. It will INCREASE it by stealing the properties which ARE affordable via teardowns, surplussing and upzoning, to repeat. Nothing new to report. Can you say G-E-N-T-R-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N? Notch.
I’d be interested in learning how they picked the communities and their respective senior centers to compare us with – just a quick overview looks like none of the comparables are comparable in size in terms of general population.
Also, very happy to report that the Commissioner of Public Buildings, Josh Morse, will post the complete list of considered sites online by tomorrow!
@Amy, I think you’re on the wrong thread. 😉
@Pat – Actually, yes, building more homes is a very important and probably the most important solution to prevent people from being homeless. Building homes where a percentage are affordable and close to public transportation and access to services is critical.
The only critical part is providing 100 per cent authentically affordable housing. That’s the only
housing ‘crisis’ going on. Building umpteen units just to get a tiny fraction of them is unnecessary when the political will has its priorities straight. Look at the armory. It can be done. It’s only the developers and their sycophants who insist otherwise.
@Bryan,
You advocated for Austin St, and the affordable units. I don’t get how the affordable units at Austin St are 1,607 for a 1 bed room apartment, and $1,737 for a a 2 bed room is any way affordable to the needy? How would these prices help the homeless?