Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant that no locals want it. Between all these shoe box apartments/condos being thrown up everywhere you look, I honestly can't say I know a single person who has moved into one or even heard of anybody and that pretty much aligns with everybody you talk to. It's a real mystery as to who is buying or renting these places. A lot of them do seem empty. The thing is that if you are looking to ease the housing shortage among people already living here, it's not going to do much good building a place that only foreign investors or wealthy transplants looking for an occasional crash pad are interested in. Native born Americans in general (but especially people who grew up the Boston area) want single family or nothing. They won't even consider a condo. Maybe rent a cheap 3 decker in the city or split with roommates, but not gonna buy a condo in a complex somewhere or splurge to rent one of these newer "luxury" units. They just assume live in their parent's basement till they're in theiir 30s instead. We need more smaller single families if we are going to make an impact, or I'd like to think quality townhome type developments will gain acceptance over time. Problem is we don't have many good newer examples of the latter, which will be needed to overcome the local stigma that any non-detached housing = projects.
I agree that shoebox apartments alone are not the solution to the problem. But there are a lot of assumptions and generalizations going on here.
For starters, people are buying and renting these units. I personally know some who have rented apartments or bought a condo in these newer suburban "shoebox" developments. If they weren't, private developers wouldn't continue building them no matter what the state zoning laws required. There's a very real argument that foreign investment in local real estate is having an impact on the price of homes in the area. However, these buildings are very clearly home to actual people.
The "nobody wants it" argument is not new. It's been argued each time a multi-unit condo or rental has been proposed in the suburbs and each time it's been proven to be false. I can't think of an example of a condo or rental building in the 'burbs that has failed to find occupants. Locals should have some say over what is developed in their communities. But not to the extent that they are effectively blocking anything other than ultra-low density development in a growing metropolitan area.
Most Americans may want SFH, but it's not realistic for everyone to have one. Especially not in a major metropolitan area, and especially not as a first home purchase. There should be all sorts of movement in a healthy market. That means young people "getting on the ladder" buy buying a condo or townhouse as a first home before eventually "upgrading" to a SFH to start a family- (my friends who recently bought a "shoebox" condo have this trajectory in mind). It means building "shoebox" apartments near transit or major roads so that new transplants can rent somewhere new/convenient while they get a feel for the area and their next steps (buying, renting, moving elsewhere, etc.). Building a variety of new housing doesn't just help with supply, it helps create additional opportunities for people who can't just go out and buy a SFH right now. It also helps free up existing SFHs which are occupied by people who may want to downgrade (i.e. empty nesters, retirees, etc.) or keep kids from living with parents (there are plenty of 20 and 30-somethings in MA paying $1500+ to live with roommates rather than live with their parents) until their 30s by preventing every cheap old unit in a triple decker from being converted to a $3k+ apartment.
Finally, the market is the primary dictating factor in what's being built for housing. I agree with you, I'd like to see more SFH and low density multi-unit buildings (like townhouses). I don't believe that it's the public's distaste for townhomes or smaller single families that's keeping them from being more popular. I think it's the lack of return on that investment. Developers can make more with the shoeboxes than they can with the townhouses (you can cram more units onto a smaller footprint.
I am reading it. He just hates townies and people from MA. I've been on this forum longer than you
The post you quoted was pretty logical and far from angry, though. Snarky, perhaps, but I think that was warranted given the level to which these kinds of conversations tend to sink.
The post you quoted was pretty logical and far from angry, though. Snarky, perhaps, but I think that was warranted given the level to which these kinds of conversations tend to sink.
100% snarky but I’m not hiding from that. It’s warranted given the rhetoric form said poster. It is what it is.
No I don’t hate people from MA. Not at all. It’s just facts what I’m saying. I audibly laugh watching townie led micro-governments get put into park over the value of neighborhood character for things like abandoned car dealerships, mall parking lots l, abandoned bank branches and so on. When you move away and see how easy it can be it’s definitely less maddening and a lot more just hilarious/ridiculous and amusing…like the conversations people have in MA are just silly, frankly. It’s surreal.
I do have the money now to move back to MA now, for a rental at least…. but I won’t move back until the dust settles. I’m not worried about it. Both my parents just bought new modest properties in Dorchester and Pawtucket so my family is rooted there regardless. In the meantime? I’m just watching from Baltimore.
I agree that shoebox apartments alone are not the solution to the problem. But there are a lot of assumptions and generalizations going on here.
For starters, people are buying and renting these units. I personally know some who have rented apartments or bought a condo in these newer suburban "shoebox" developments. If they weren't, private developers wouldn't continue building them no matter what the state zoning laws required. There's a very real argument that foreign investment in local real estate is having an impact on the price of homes in the area. However, these buildings are very clearly home to actual people.
The "nobody wants it" argument is not new. It's been argued each time a multi-unit condo or rental has been proposed in the suburbs and each time it's been proven to be false. I can't think of an example of a condo or rental building in the 'burbs that has failed to find occupants. Locals should have some say over what is developed in their communities. But not to the extent that they are effectively blocking anything other than ultra-low density development in a growing metropolitan area.
Most Americans may want SFH, but it's not realistic for everyone to have one. Especially not in a major metropolitan area, and especially not as a first home purchase. There should be all sorts of movement in a healthy market. That means young people "getting on the ladder" buy buying a condo or townhouse as a first home before eventually "upgrading" to a SFH to start a family- (my friends who recently bought a "shoebox" condo have this trajectory in mind). It means building "shoebox" apartments near transit or major roads so that new transplants can rent somewhere new/convenient while they get a feel for the area and their next steps (buying, renting, moving elsewhere, etc.). Building a variety of new housing doesn't just help with supply, it helps create additional opportunities for people who can't just go out and buy a SFH right now. It also helps free up existing SFHs which are occupied by people who may want to downgrade (i.e. empty nesters, retirees, etc.) or keep kids from living with parents (there are plenty of 20 and 30-somethings in MA paying $1500+ to live with roommates rather than live with their parents) until their 30s by preventing every cheap old unit in a triple decker from being converted to a $3k+ apartment.
Finally, the market is the primary dictating factor in what's being built for housing. I agree with you, I'd like to see more SFH and low density multi-unit buildings (like townhouses). I don't believe that it's the public's distaste for townhomes or smaller single families that's keeping them from being more popular. I think it's the lack of return on that investment. Developers can make more with the shoeboxes than they can with the townhouses (you can cram more units onto a smaller footprint.
One of my best friends from Mattapan went to school in Cohasset. One of his football teammates from Cohasset moved into a brand new shoebox apartment at Mattapan Station a few months ago because it’s all he could afford as a 29 year old who wants access to rapid transit and doesn’t want into/tech. People do want these apartment, of course.the demand is huge
The population growth rate in the US is 0.1%. The fertility rate in the US is 1.6 births per woman, which is well below the 2.1 rate needed to maintain the current population. This "housing crisis" isn't being driven by too many people being born here.
This "housing crisis" is being driven by (1) people wanting to live in trendy towns in Massachusetts and (2) unrestricted immigration. Neither of these are good reasons to start building dense apartment dumps in our nice small communities. These apartment projects bring crime, blight, drugs, declining property values, traffic, under-performing students, overloaded town services, poor life choices, and unsavory characters into our communities.
Instead of addressing this "housing crisis" by reactionary construction, how about we just leave our housing at its present level thereby preserving the character of our nice communities? Anybody who wants to immigrate into our trendy towns may do so if they can afford to. Otherwise, there is plenty of space in places that are not that far away.
We should not be upsetting the character of our towns just to appease outsiders that want cheap rent and a short commute.
Building thousands more million dollar houses (they all sell for at least seven to eight hundred thousand) and apartments that rent for four or five thousand a month will not "tame high housing costs." They magnify it. Nonstop construction will fill in all that empty space that had been unbuildable, so it will continue to be a bonanza for developers, but it is a childish fantasy that once the rich people are all comfortably settled into condos by the train stations, the effect will trickle down and the rent in triple deckers will fall.
Stop desecrating our towns with these ugly abominations. (Even the million dollar jobs are ugly.) If you want to tame high costs, look instead at the effect of corporations scooping up all that residential real estate for cash.
Some Rockport residents make a federal case out of MBTA zoning requirement
By adamg on Mon, 04/29/2024 - 11:36am
A group of Rockport residents yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against the way their town is planning on moving forward with rezoning to comply with a state mandate to increase allowable housing density near MBTA stations (federal courts let people file suits even on Sundays).
In their complaint, filed in US District Court in Boston, a group of Rockport residents are asking a judge to rule that the way the town is seeking to create a denser residential zone near the town train station violates their rights because officials are seeking to get it through Town Meeting with just a majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote the residents claim is really required - and that the proposed zoning unfairly concentrates the supposed harmful effects of greater density on relatively small areas of the town.
^thats why housing is expensive. The Entitled townies. Not the people moving to MA
On January 14, 2021, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law An Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth (the “Act”). The Act is a comprehensive economic relief and stimulus bill that will affect a multitude of industries across the Commonwealth. Included within the Act are Governor Baker’s long-awaited Housing Choice legislation and other provisions intended to spur housing development and economic growth. This advisory summarizes key changes to Massachusetts zoning law.
Simple Majority Vote for Certain Zoning Amendments and Special Permits
Prior to the Act, all special permits and changes to zoning by-laws or ordinances required a 2/3 vote to be approved. This voting threshold has proved to be problematic for project proponents and advocates of particular zoning changes, as a special permit or zoning amendment could have the support of a majority of the members of the applicable local governing body but ultimately fail to obtain the 2/3 vote required for approval. The Act changes that required vote from 2/3 to a simple majority for certain zoning amendments and certain special permits.
Zoning amendments that are now subject to a simple majority vote include zoning amendments that:
allow as of right or by special permit accessory dwelling units;
allow as of right open space residential developments;
allow as of right or by special permit multi-family or mixed-use developments at an “eligible location,” which is defined as an area that by virtue of its infrastructure, transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, or location is a highly suitable location for residential or mixed-use smart growth zoning districts or starter home districts, including areas near transit stations such as rapid transit, commuter rail, bus or ferry terminals, or areas of concentrated development such as town and city centers and other existing commercial districts in cities and towns and existing rural village districts
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Re
