Housing (Supply Crisis & Public Policy)

[Johnnyrocket891]

No, let's include government policy into housing near TOD with improving transit. It's shortsighted to think improving just transit without introducing government policy would solve the housing crisis and prevent lower income families from being pushed further away. You can't be naive enough to think rent won't skyrocket the moment accessibility improves.

If you build a expansion transit throughout the state from South, West, North, East and can reach the city in 5-10mins from most locations there is no reason why everybody needs to live in Somerville, Cambridge and Boston. This will create options for lower rents throughout the state. Housing supply will be expendable from Boston to other states.

Transit is the key to solving the housing affordability problem. Transit does not discriminate?

I would have no problem living in Worcester for $1,000 vs Boston rent $3,000 if the accessibility is there.

I don't think rents would skyrocket throughout Springfield, RI, Worcester area's if the Transit could reach these areas in an efficient way.

 

[George_Apley]

Where is this "5-10" minutes talk coming from? In no world is Boston going to be a 5-10 minute trip from Worcester/Lowell/Providence/etc. even if it's expressed the entire way.

 

[goody]

If you build a expansion transit throughout the state from South, West, North, East and can reach the city in 5-10mins from most locations there is no reason why everybody needs to live in Somerville, Cambridge and Boston. This will create options for lower rents throughout the state. Housing supply will be expendable from Boston to other states.

Transit is the key to solving the housing affordability problem. Transit does not discriminate?

I would have no problem living in Worcester for $1,000 vs Boston rent $3,000 if the accessibility is there.

I don't think rents would skyrocket throughout Springfield, RI, Worcester area's if the Transit could reach these areas in an efficient way.

If I am recalling land economies correctly, theoretically a better (more reliable and faster) transportation system, all things equal ie in a city with no growth, would "flatten" the rent curve. This would result in higher rents in areas with increased transit connectivity and potentially lower rents in the city center as people would choose to exchange centrality with lower prices or a larger quantity of housing in less central but now more connected areas. The faster and easier the transit, the flatter the gradient from center to edge of city should be.

In reality I think this gets lot more complicated as the transit wouldn't go everywhere with equal efficiently all at once, it would be built out incrementally. Those increments rather than redistributing existing population and jobs would accommodate pent-up demand for new product . That additional population and job growth results in a growing city with yet even higher rents at the center as well as increased rents at the new edge. Back to the supply side of this, if that new connectivity is done well with TOD, hopefully that price increase at the edge is largely captured in new product rather than existing product and thus limits displacement while also increasing connectivity.

I think there is a value judgement underling this, transit should be improved and the city and its population would be better off with a more timely, reliable, and comprehensive transit system. Then the issue becomes, how do you manage the negative externalities that might result with such a system.

 

[KentXie]

If you build a expansion transit throughout the state from South, West, North, East and can reach the city in 5-10mins from most locations there is no reason why everybody needs to live in Somerville, Cambridge and Boston. This will create options for lower rents throughout the state. Housing supply will be expendable from Boston to other states.

Transit is the key to solving the housing affordability problem. Transit does not discriminate?

I would have no problem living in Worcester for $1,000 vs Boston rent $3,000 if the accessibility is there.

I don't think rents would skyrocket throughout Springfield, RI, Worcester area's if the Transit could reach these areas in an efficient way.

It does discriminate because it essentially gentrifies the area surrounding transit nodes, raising the rent there, and pushing existing lower income families away from these nodes. Gentrification discriminates.

If you stick multiple heavy rail stations into Lynn, guess what? Rents will rise there due to better accessibility and wealthier people willing to pay more than the current rents there as the city is now a more attractive option. As rent increases, it becomes unaffordable to low income family, forcing them to move to cheaper apartments further away from Boston. This is especially true for cities like Boston where people are looking to give up their cars and use public transit and so you have a huge demand for housing near transit and unfortunately, the families who really rely on public transportation, those in the lower income brackets, are the last to get a slice of that limited pie and the first one to get pushed out.

This is basic economics 101. You need effective government policy in place to ensure lower income families dont get displace for the benefit of those wealthier.

If you're still having trouble understanding this concept, here's an article with real life examples.

When Public Transportation Leads to Gentrification

Why transit-oriented development projects need to include affordable housing amid all those luxury condos and cafés.

www.nrdc.org

 

[jklo]

It does discriminate because it essentially gentrifies the area surrounding transit nodes, raising the rent there, and pushing existing lower income families away from these nodes. Gentrification discriminates.

If you stick multiple heavy rail stations into Lynn, guess what? Rents will rise there due to better accessibility and wealthier people willing to pay more than the current rents there as the city is now a more attractive option.

I doubt there are any low income people living in market rate apartments, they have to be living in income restricted housing. Even in places like Lynn which hasn't totally gentrified yet. What's happened is that what's left of the middle class (and is unwilling to shack up) has already left because they can't afford anything and make too much for income restricted housing.

 

[KentXie]

I doubt there are any low income people living in market rate apartments, they have to be living in income restricted housing. Even in places like Lynn which hasn't totally gentrified yet. What's happened is that what's left of the middle class (and is unwilling to shack up) has already left because they can't afford anything and make too much for income restricted housing.

You have to understand that "market rate" is different based on location and the type of house itself. Older houses in Lynn are most likely not at the same "market rate" as new construction. What I'm saying is that when you plop a new train station, all these older houses get replaced by new construction with "market rate" well above what it was previously there, driving out current low income residents in the process.

I like the proposal for Charlestown because they plan to replace all income restricted houses with new ones without decreasing the supply of them. However, they should do more and increase the supply, not just merely replacing them. If they do this mix TODs at every new stations that also adds to the supply of actual affordable housing, then I'm all for it.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

It does discriminate because it essentially gentrifies the area surrounding transit nodes, raising the rent there, and pushing existing lower income families away from these nodes. Gentrification discriminates.

If you stick multiple heavy rail stations into Lynn, guess what? Rents will rise there due to better accessibility and wealthier people willing to pay more than the current rents there as the city is now a more attractive option. As rent increases, it becomes unaffordable to low income family, forcing them to move to cheaper apartments further away from Boston. This is especially true for cities like Boston where people are looking to give up their cars and use public transit and so you have a huge demand for housing near transit and unfortunately, the families who really rely on public transportation, those in the lower income brackets, are the last to get a slice of that limited pie and the first one to get pushed out.

This is basic economics 101. You need effective government policy in place to ensure lower income families dont get displace for the benefit of those wealthier.

If you're still having trouble understanding this concept, here's an article with real life examples.

When Public Transportation Leads to Gentrification

Why transit-oriented development projects need to include affordable housing amid all those luxury condos and cafés.

www.nrdc.org

If public transportation displaces the poor and drives up rents then why wasn’t the inner cities of Boston and Cambridge gentrified in the 70’s thru 90’s. Roxbury crossing, Chinatown, Kendal square, porter square, Davis square, maverick station. There was no real interest living in these areas with public transit back then rents were reasonable.

An expansion of Public transportation would seem to have the opposite effect it actually helps with progression for the classes creates a balance for effective transportation for those who choose not to invest in automobiles

 

[goody]

If public transportation displaces the poor and drives up rents then why wasn’t the inner cities of Boston and Cambridge gentrified in the 70’s thru 90’s. Roxbury crossing, Chinatown, Kendal square, porter square, Davis square, maverick station. There was no real interest living in these areas with public transit back then rents were reasonable.

An expansion of Public transportation would seem to have the opposite effect it actually helps with progression for the classes creates a balance for effective transportation for those who choose not to invest in automobiles

There are a lot of reasons transit accessible inner city locations remained low income and affordable. Not least of which is the legacy of racist policies that resulted in these areas being systematically divested and the rise of inner city property and crime during the proceeding years. The result of this was that city's population declined during those periods. City centers had lost favor, companies and their predominantly white middle and upper middle class workers fled to the suburbs leading to the rise of route 128 and 495. Outside of those macro treads, Roxbury Crossing for instance still has a lot of "affordability" compared to other areas because there are is a large amount of public housing, the result of urban renewal, in this community. Housing which is not income restricted in this area has increased in value tremendously in the last few years, as it has in all of the locations noted. I would also note that the red line didnt come to Davis Square until the 1980s and did cause mass gentrification. Also worth noting that rent control was in effect until 1995 in Cambridge and other communities and Kendall Square was still largely an industrial wasteland.

All things equal, better public transportation aka faster access to the center of the city (majority of jobs and services) will result in higher rents than those areas without that transit access. Economic and social factors do matter and it is possible that affordable pockets could remain near transit but they are vulnerable to changing tastes, growth, and associated gentrification unless there are polices in place to protect them.

To restate my point from above, you need both robust transit for its positive externalities and robust housing and development policy to protect from transit's negative externalities.

 

[stick n move]

It does discriminate because it essentially gentrifies the area surrounding transit nodes, raising the rent there, and pushing existing lower income families away from these nodes. Gentrification discriminates.

If you stick multiple heavy rail stations into Lynn, guess what? Rents will rise there due to better accessibility and wealthier people willing to pay more than the current rents there as the city is now a more attractive option. As rent increases, it becomes unaffordable to low income family, forcing them to move to cheaper apartments further away from Boston. This is especially true for cities like Boston where people are looking to give up their cars and use public transit and so you have a huge demand for housing near transit and unfortunately, the families who really rely on public transportation, those in the lower income brackets, are the last to get a slice of that limited pie and the first one to get pushed out.

This is basic economics 101. You need effective government policy in place to ensure lower income families dont get displace for the benefit of those wealthier.

If you're still having trouble understanding this concept, here's an article with real life examples.

When Public Transportation Leads to Gentrification

Why transit-oriented development projects need to include affordable housing amid all those luxury condos and cafés.

www.nrdc.org

The reason I think woonsocket would work is because its NOT Lynn.. or Somerville.. or anywhere even within 495 let alone the 128 belt. Its not close to Boston, or even in massachusetts. You WOULDNT have a quick commute into Boston, thats the point, but it would be reasonable enough for working people who make sacrifices to be able to get to work in a reasonable amount of time thats not quick, but it works fine.

This isnt glx to Somerville. Yes Im sure prices would go up, but really would it be thaaaat much? Would yuppies be flocking to a Woonsocket with a 45 min commute to Boston? I doubt it. It would be at that sweet spot where its too far for most people looking to be close-ish to Boston with an easy commute, but still very reasonable for a person looking to save money by being at the outer limits of commuting range.

I think it would be perfect BECAUSE it wouldnt be a quick commute, a hip area, hell even a nice place...etc, but it would work for people that need something cheaper to get by for a bit who wouldnt mind a bit longer commute to be able to pay rent.

A crappy city with a longish commute isnt a gentrification magnet, but it would serve plenty of people just fine with a place to live thats cheap and still gets the job done. Sometimes just getting the job done is enough.

 

[KentXie]

If public transportation displaces the poor and drives up rents then why wasn’t the inner cities of Boston and Cambridge gentrified in the 70’s thru 90’s. Roxbury crossing, Chinatown, Kendal square, porter square, Davis square, maverick station. There was no real interest living in these areas with public transit back then rents were reasonable.

An expansion of Public transportation would seem to have the opposite effect it actually helps with progression for the classes creates a balance for effective transportation for those who choose not to invest in automobiles

I see you did not even read that article that I posted.

See first paragraph:
"There once was a time in America when people of means weren’t keen on the idea of living right next to a rail station. Real estate developers, as a general matter, didn’t throw lots of capital into these communities, many of which quite literally defined the proverbial “other side of the tracks.”

Also Goody's post did a great job explaining the reason why so please read his post if you're not going to read my post.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

I see you did not even read that article that I posted.

See first paragraph:
"There once was a time in America when people of means weren’t keen on the idea of living right next to a rail station. Real estate developers, as a general matter, didn’t throw lots of capital into these communities, many of which quite literally defined the proverbial “other side of the tracks.”

Also Goody's post did a great job explaining the reason why so please read his post if you're not going to read my post.

I did read the article. We have many factors that have lead to the rise of gentrification in the cities but specifically in Boston there are 2 specifically that come to mind.
*The local and state Govt's not protecting the land grab from the Universities in around the transit lines which drove rents out of control based on the expansion of the Universities.
* Inflation related to real estate along with the cost of a 4 year degree from a University versus in 70's thru 2019 is substantial rise.
*The credit boom which allowed lower income families to have access to automobile industry which in the past was so dependent on access from the bus or train.

I am not convinced that if you expand the MBTA platforms throughout the state from North, West, South and East that it will gentrify those areas by driving up rents.

My theory is it will provide more positive options for both lowering rents and more commuting options with the overall expansion to meet our societies needs.

If you build more MBTA platforms throughout the state you could also build apartment complex's much cheaper with land being cheaper.

 

[George_Apley]

I did read the article. We have many factors that have lead to the rise of gentrification in the cities but specifically in Boston there are 2 specifically that come to mind.
*The local and state Govt's not protecting the land grab from the Universities in around the transit lines which drove rents out of control based on the expansion of the Universities.
* Inflation related to real estate along with the cost of a 4 year degree from a University versus in 70's thru 2019 is substantial rise.
*The credit boom which allowed lower income families to have access to automobile industry which in the past was so dependent on access from the bus or train.

• I think it's specious to connect the university's land holdings as a cause for gentrification. It severely underestimates how much demand there is for housing in Boston. If the universities didn't own a ton of land, it's not as though they would be developed over the years at the level we'd need, and the students would just be even more in the general market than they are already. The universities are indeed a major reason for gentrification, but it's much more about the density and acclaim of the universities in metro-Boston, and the presence of their graduates attracting employers.
• Real Estate inflation and the cost of a bachelor's degree spiked across the whole country, partially due to government lending policies. It's not at all unique to Boston. We did avoid the crash, but we avoided it because of the presence of Big University-Big Tech feedback loop.
• The credit boom also happened nationwide. You seem to be talking about the fact that the suburban lifestyle has been heavily subsidized by the government for decades. That subsidy isn't driving gentrification in the cities. Cities are booming because they're attractive to live in again and there's high demand from wealthier people to live here (again, largely driven by institutions of higher education and employment). This is driving up real estate costs and driving out lower income people.

I am not convinced that if you expand the MBTA platforms throughout the state from North, West, South and East that it will gentrify those areas by driving up rents.

My theory is it will provide more positive options for both lowering rents and more commuting options with the overall expansion to meet our societies needs.

If you build more MBTA platforms throughout the state you could also build apartment complex's much cheaper with land being cheaper.

It may level out rents, but the land will not stay cheap if demand for it increases. The demand for the land will increase if the transportation infrastructure to the education, employment, and urban center of the region (read: Boston) becomes faster, more reliable. So, you're right that it will be cheaper to build around transit nodes in other regional outposts. But those places are currently cheap because they lack fast, reliable connections, which is why they are home to more low-income residents. That new development you're saying will be built on the cheap around the newer, faster, and more reliable transportation nodes will start to drive up the prices in these places as well. That's Kent's whole point. We can't just rely on new development to solve the price problem. Demand is high enough that we will just keep chasing people further and further away as the definition of "desirable neighborhood" expands.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

It may level out rents, but the land will not stay cheap if demand for it increases.

There will be added value in those areas with transit but I don't believe affordability levels would ever come close to the upward movement prices like Boston.
Do you think Springfield, Groveland, or Woonsocket would really triple in rents?

 

[beck4537]

Housing proposed at the old Freeport Tavern site in Dorchester

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2019/11/18/housing-proposed-at-closed-eatery-event-space-in.html

 

[George_Apley]

There will be added value in those areas with transit but I don't believe affordability levels would ever come close to the upward movement prices like Boston.
Do you think Springfield, Groveland, or Woonsocket would really triple in rents?

No. Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, Framingham? Maybe.

 

[HenryAlan]

There will be added value in those areas with transit but I don't believe affordability levels would ever come close to the upward movement prices like Boston.
Do you think Springfield, Groveland, or Woonsocket would really triple in rents?

While I agree with @KentXie and others that expanding transit without a low income housing component baked in will lead to rent increases wherever the transit upgrades are, I think you make a valid point. People who can bid up rents are not going to want a 60-90 minute train ride and will continue to focus on core urban areas.

 

[KentXie]

While I agree with @KentXie and others that expanding transit without a low income housing component baked in will lead to rent increases wherever the transit upgrades are, I think you make a valid point. People who can bid up rents are not going to want a 60-90 minute train ride and will continue to focus on core urban areas.

But that's in itself is the problem I described. You're essentially pushing low income family who currently can afford living in a city like Framingham or Lynn as far out as Springfield, which with a decent community rail system connection, would result in at least a 90+ minute travel time each way. That's what I'm against. I'm against pushing low income family further and further out from Boston just so only the middle and upper class benefits from it.

While Springfield rent might not triple and could very well remain relatively affordable, rent will still increase as low income residents in cities Framingham and Lynn have to move to Springfield as they will be priced out in the inner core, increasing the demand for housing in cities further out.

I want to end this post to reiterate once again that I am not against improvements in transit. I'm for it but it needs to cover more than just transit improvements.

 

[HenryAlan]

I think I'm suggesting there is a middle place. Build a Green Line branch to Chelsea and Chelsea rents will indeed skyrocket. Build a commuter rail station in Fall River, perhaps rents go up, but nowhere near as significant an increase. In other words, the former example causes gentrification, but the second might not. Either way, I agree that low income housing needs to be directly addressed. Everywhere.

 

[stick n move]

I think I'm suggesting there is a middle place. Build a Green Line branch to Chelsea and Chelsea rents will indeed skyrocket. Build a commuter rail station in Fall River, perhaps rents go up, but nowhere near as significant an increase. In other words, the former example causes gentrification, but the second might not. Either way, I agree that low income housing needs to be directly addressed. Everywhere.

Same with the woonsocket example. Im sure rent will go up a little there too but it wouldnt be anywhere near if it were inside the 128 belt.

 

[odurandina]

Bostonâs property value is at a historic $164 billion - The Boston Globe

The value of Boston’s taxable property hit a historic high last fiscal year, a 78 percent increase from 2013, according to a new report. Taxable property value grew the most in the booming Seaport District, the report found.

www.bostonglobe.com