Addressing the housing crisis

I mean, it's kind of implied, don't you think? More SPED students means more cost. The population of SPED students in Boston is growing, therefore the costs are growing.
For the 18-19 school year to the 22-23 school year (latest I could see information for) the overall population decreased 8.7% and the SPED population increased 7.6%. Overall in Mass, student population is down 4.2% and SPEd population is up by 4.8%. So I still don’t see why Boston’s costs are increasing RELATIVE to other districts.
 
So I still don’t see why Boston’s costs are increasing RELATIVE to other districts.
Just using the growth rate differential, you don't see why that would happen? If Boston has a faster growing population of more expensive to educate students, Boston is going to have a larger growth in per student costs. It's just math.
 
Just using the growth rate differential, you don't see why that would happen? If Boston has a faster growing population of more expensive to educate students, Boston is going to have a larger growth in per student costs. It's just math.
But also a faster decreasing percentage of students overall, so no, I don’t. You take one statistic and make that the sole reason for cost increases. You’re ignoring excessive bus routes, excess half used buildings they won’t shut, excessive administrators and overhead etc.
 
Finally California stepping up and allowing the illegal immigrants to purchase housing with taxpayers money. Our great leaders at work.

I think this solves the cost of living crisis and American homelessness going on in the country.

Good policy. This assistance would only go to people who are working, paying taxes and are sufficiently established to check all the boxes to qualify for financing.
 
-Came across some actual good news that seems to contradict some of the other things that have been reported, either that or its a case of depending on how you read data you can get many different answers, idk.

Apartment construction surges nationwide​

1724977335907.jpeg


“U.S. apartment construction is expected to hit a historic high of more than 500,000 new units this year, a new study from RentCafe found.

The influx represents a 9% increase compared to last year and a 30% jump from 2022.

Boston ranked No. 19 among major metro areas, with more than 8,000 apartments expected to be completed in 2024.

The study projects that nationwide, more than 2 million new apartments will hit the market by 2028. The rate of apartment building, though, is expected to dip from 2025 through 2027…..”

https://bostonagentmagazine.com/2024/08/15/apartment-construction-surges-nationwide/
 
More detail from that article from a different source. Interestingly at least in the current year some suburbs are adding multifamily housing at much higher levels than Boston on a per capita basis:

 
It tracks with the “feeling” and the eye test that going around boston for the last 1-2 years there has been more construction going on than anytime Ive ever seen before. It has definitely winded down as of late as many of the projects have been completed, but 1 year ago no matter where you went in the city there were multiple buildings under construction in every square in every neighborhood. Those would have come on line this year so it makes sense. Next year there will probably be a noticeable drop as less buildings come on line that are currently u/c right now, but hopefully after that theres another boost due to the interest rate dropping in september which hopefully has more buildings start moving through approvals next year and start construction in 26-27.
 
But also a faster decreasing percentage of students overall, so no, I don’t. You take one statistic and make that the sole reason for cost increases. You’re ignoring excessive bus routes, excess half used buildings they won’t shut, excessive administrators and overhead etc.
I thought you were talking about per student costs, were you not?
 
-Came across some actual good news that seems to contradict some of the other things that have been reported, either that or its a case of depending on how you read data you can get many different answers, idk.

Apartment construction surges nationwide​

View attachment 54730

“U.S. apartment construction is expected to hit a historic high of more than 500,000 new units this year, a new study from RentCafe found.

The influx represents a 9% increase compared to last year and a 30% jump from 2022.

Boston ranked No. 19 among major metro areas, with more than 8,000 apartments expected to be completed in 2024.

The study projects that nationwide, more than 2 million new apartments will hit the market by 2028. The rate of apartment building, though, is expected to dip from 2025 through 2027…..”

https://bostonagentmagazine.com/2024/08/15/apartment-construction-surges-nationwide/
This is good news for Boston. At current residents per unit rates, that will be enough to house 18,000 people which is probably enough to keep up with demand, maybe even lighten the pressure a bit. For the US as a whole, though, it's bad news. That's enough new housing for about 0.4% of the population. Last year, growth was over 0.5%, so I don't think 500,000 units per year is adequate.
 
Man, I don't know if I'm more impressed by metro Boston's 8000 units under construction or appaulled by GREATER LOS ANGELES only putting up 9000 lol. Some things surprise me less like Dallas out building NYC 3:1 per capita
 
Man, I don't know if I'm more impressed by metro Boston's 8000 units under construction or appaulled by GREATER LOS ANGELES only putting up 9000 lol. Some things surprise me less like Dallas out building NYC 3:1 per capita
I don't know where they got Los Angeles numbers but they are likely wrong. California Gov website reported that 20k new housing units are expected to be built in Los Angeles proper alone in 2024. Of which, 13k are MDUs (5+ units)
LA County as a whole is adding 32k housing units, of which 17k are MDUs


Given LA's sprawls, they probably have a higher proportion of new housing units built that are NOT apartments or MDUs so this paints a somewhat limited perspective.
 
I don't know where they got Los Angeles numbers but they are likely wrong. California Gov website reported that 20k new housing units are expected to be built in Los Angeles proper alone in 2024. Of which, 13k are MDUs (5+ units)
LA County as a whole is adding 32k housing units, of which 17k are MDUs


Given LA's sprawls, they probably have a higher proportion of new housing units built that are NOT apartments or MDUs so this paints a somewhat limited perspective.
That's good to hear, but now makes me question the rest of the list 🤷
 
We've got an op-ed today from housing scholar Salim Furth suggesting what Massachusetts should chose as its next steps, based on things that are working elsewhere: https://bankerandtradesman.com/end-...s-ideas-for-the-next-wave-of-housing-reforms/ (This one's a freebie)

It’s sad that middle-class New Englanders weren’t paying attention to unaffordability as it swamped the working poor, then the working class. But now it’s coming for their own children. Boston’s kids can grow up and move to Atlanta or Houston or Maine or Dallas or Virginia. Or the state can allow them to build homes here.

The main points he highlights, based on a longer, 17-point policy brief he and some colleagues put together looking at options for every state in the U.S.:
  • "Massachusetts should imitate Rhode Island’s recent laws that require towns to publish “specific and objective” criteria for conditional or special-use permits and for aesthetic design review."
  • "Massachusetts legislators can reduce housing costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, expand property rights, advance socioeconomic equity and slash busywork in planning departments with one neat trick: Eliminate all parking minimums. "
  • "In Connecticut and four other states, lawmakers took the first steps in 2024 to re-legalize 6-story buildings with a single staircase without compromising safety standards."
  • "The city of Boston, which is not covered by the state’s standard land use rules, needs a wholesale revolution in land use procedure."
 
I thought you were talking about per student costs, were you not?
my original point was school costs kept increasing even though student population was decreasing. Someone said it’s all special ed costs but that’s not the whole story which is my point.
 

The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we need​

Sure, there's too much red tape, but there is another reason building anything is so expensive: the construction industry's "awful" productivity.

construction.jpg


“Permitting delays and strict zoning rules create huge obstacles to building more and faster—as do other widely recognized issues, like the political power of NIMBY activists across the country and an ongoing shortage of skilled workers. But there is also another, less talked-about problem that’s plaguing the industry: We’re not very efficient at building, and we seem somehow to be getting worse.

Together these forces have made it more expensive to build houses, leading to increases in prices. Albert Saiz, a professor of urban economics and real estate at MIT, calculates that construction costs account for more than two-thirds of the price of a new house in much of the country, including the Southwest and West, where much of the building is happening. Even in places like California and New England, where land is extremely expensive, construction accounts for 40% to 60% of value of a new home, according to Saiz.

Part of the problem, Saiz says, is that “if you go to any construction site, you’ll see the same methods used 30 years ago.”
The productivity woes are evident across the construction industry, not just in the housing sector. From clean-energy advocates dreaming of renewables and an expanded power grid to tech companies racing to add data centers, everyone seems to agree: We need to build more and do it quickly. The practical reality, though, is that it costs more, and takes more time, to construct anything.

For decades, companies across the industry have largely ignored ways they could improve the efficiency of their operations. They have shunned data science and the kinds of automation that have transformed the other sectors of the economy. According to an estimation by the McKinsey Global Institute, construction, one of the largest parts of the global economy, is the least digitized major sector worldwide—and it isn’t even close.
The reality is that even if we ease the endless permitting delays and begin cutting red tape, we will still be faced with a distressing fact: The construction industry is not very efficient when it comes to building stuff………..”

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...l&utm_campaign=site_visitor.unpaid.engagement
 
The surprising barrier that keeps us from building the housing we need
This is so frustrating. I took a project planning class about 30 years ago in which the professor spent a lot of time talking about how much the construction industry needed to reform it's processes. And yet, everything he critiqued back then is still an issue today.
 

Back
Top