Ed. note: Corrected to reflect fact that a family of three would need two bedrooms, not three, and that the BPDA requires rental units be available to people making up to 70% of the area median income, which drops the monthly rent from nearly $1,900 to $1,400.
In Boston, developers putting up buildings with at least 10 units are required to set aside 13% of the units in new buildings as "affordable" (or contribute even more to a fund that acquires such units elsewhere). Typically, this means they have to be affordable to people making up to 70% of the "area median income" for apartments and 80% for condos.
The BPDA last week released its 2018 calculations for just what that means:
For an apartment, 70% of the area median income would mean an annual income of no more than $52,850 for a single person and $67,950 for a family of three - with rents ranging from $984 a month for a single person to $1,459 for that family of three.
For a condo, with a limit of 80% of the area median income, that translates to a maximum sales price of $147,100 for a studio and $217,000 for a two-bedroom unit.
Over the past year or so, the city has been making noises about increasing the amount of "workforce" housing, for people making up to 120% of the area median income. That would let single people making up to $90,550 and a family of three bringing in $116,450 enter the lottery (and most of the units have lotteries) for an apartment. For the corresponding condos, the maximum prices would range from $226,800 for a single person to $343,000 for that family.
In some neighborhoods, such as Roxbury, Dorchester and Jamaica Plain, non-profit community development corporations have won approval for projects that include some units available to people making as little as 30% of the area median income.
The area that the city uses to define median income consists of Boston, Quincy and Cambridge.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 7.3 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Snob zoning and red tape is
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:27am
Snob zoning and red tape is strangling supply when it it is desperately needed to meet demand.
5-6 story elevator buildings shouldn't be taking years of approvals and zoning variances to build.
Towns have to manage the
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:46pm
Towns have to manage the expenses of their own local services, which is why not everything can manage higher density. Some places are just going to be more expensive.
Okay
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:59pm
Transit increases property values. Increased property values mean more tax money.
You cannot simultaneously play the autonomy card and then stick your hand out for state subsidies.
Property values
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:50pm
Which remain $0 if you live there and it's not for sale.
That's just one
By anon
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 1:43pm
That's just one characteristic, and residents use a lot more than that.
Yep
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:10pm
I saw countless Hillary signs in suburbs which start with W when I drove rideshare. How many of them would, deep down, be comfortable having Hillary's voters in Southern states as neighbors?
Remember the story about Henry Louis Gates going out of his way to introduce himself at the Lexington police station to tell them that he lived there and was going to drive a Mercedes through the town late at night?
They can barely have capacity
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:43pm
They can barely have capacity for the riders there now, and increased construction out there will create even more road congestion since not all commuting will be done by train. Something isn't the wrong density just because you say it is or housing is higher than you want it to be. Towns also have to pay for the own local services they residents use.
Cultural imperialism. Authoritarian, to boot
By Roman
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:39pm
"I like living in Manhattan, therefore I want the State of Massachusetts to turn every part of Greater Boston into Manhattan by force!"
People like their privacy and their peace and quiet. A solution to the housing price problem that seem to acknowledge exists that actually has a chance of happening is to scrap all affordable housing requirements, scrap 40B, and encourage the conversion of the vast swathes of conservation land outside of 128 and inside of 495 into vast swathes of suburbs with detached single-family homes on <0.5 arce lots, and to build out the roads and trains to support that commuting population without mandating high density that people will fight tooth and nail.
The reason that conservation land is there is because people out outside 128 don't want to import the city and its structural problems into their communities. Current laws encourage developers to import the city into those communities, so all development gets fought and conservation land gets banked up to prevent opportunities for development at all. Get rid of the legal incentives to manhattanize and you might find more willing partners out in the suburbs.
Unlike your "Manhattanize of else!" proposal, this will alleviate the price of housing on the "workforce" end, which is an obfuscation to refer to "married couples with children (plural) who don't want to cram into a 2 bedroom" by providing them an opportunity to purchase a house big enough for their needs and withing a reasonable distance of their jobs, which will in turn lower the pressure on the housing closer in to the city for the younger, single, or older set who don't need and don't want to pay for a detached house.
This model worked very well about 60 years ago in not-Massachusetts and continues to work quite well in not-Massachusetts, where 1600 sq foot houses on .3 acre lots in good school districts within minutes of commuter rail with ample parking go for under 500k routinely. Here, it's 700k on the low end and your commute sucks worse.
The only reason actual American suburbs is a taboo in Massachusetts is because the politicians in Massachusetts like high housing prices and traffic congestion. It allows them to develop dependent constituencies by continually promising pleasant-sounding but ineffectual solutions thereby gaining a (national) reputation as activists and a loyal core of true believers to keep electing them. And having repeated the lie for nearly fifty years, they've gotten a whole bunch of well-meaning people to actually believe it too.
You want change, quit voting for the democrat who runs unopposed every time. Maybe some rare individual might even grow a pair and run for office himself instead of just complaining. As a friendly reminder...both the state reps and state senators serve two-year terms.
You are very strange
By anon
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 9:18am
Do you know what causes most traffic congestion? Anywhere in the world?
Low density, car dependent development.
Please move to California if you want to see the logical result of your "thinking".
Or just go away. Try your ideas out in Pakistan or India - they are receptive despite also living with the consequences of low density development.
Boston is just as congested as LA
By Roman
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 11:45am
despite being nice and walkable. So is New York City despite having the most subway stops anywhere in the world and commuter rail in every direction. Because it's too damn dense.
Nashville is all sprawl, and it's fine because it's got the roads to handle its population.
Philadelphia suburbs are all sprawl and the metro area is bigger geographically and population-wise than Boston, but it's fine because it's got robust commuter rail and the roads to get to the train stations.
And of course: India and Pakistan low density? God you're dense!
More people generally leads
By anon
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 1:44pm
More people generally leads to more cares, regardless of the type of housing.
This is not a serious attempt at anything
By whyaduck
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:33pm
Anytime you have someone hoping and praying to get an "affordable" apartment by a lottery, which really means that most who apply will not get an "affordable" anything, it tells me that the city is really not serious about doing something serious about creating more "workforce" housing. We need more housing at a monthly rent that most of the workforce can easily afford factoring in other costs of living in the city. And we need more housing in towns which consistently fight and vote against the same.
Excellent and relevant article regarding the same topic:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/democra...
Right?
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:12pm
The very definition of "government picking winners and losers."
thoughts and prayers!
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:53pm
We all know how much that is worth.
There is a proposal to
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:48pm
There is a proposal to restrict or tax non-resident buyers, similar to what other cities have done.
In the few other cities that
By eherot
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 9:21am
In the few other cities that have tried this the effect has been negligible. These so-called “foreign buyers” just aren’t having the huge impact that many would like to believe. The problem is that too much of our land is reserved for single family homes so building enougg housing for all of our jobs is impossible.
Foreign buyers
By downtown-anon
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 12:55pm
In downtown Boston it is probably AirBnB buyers who have a larger impact, but I still get postcards from Realtors claiming to have foreign cash buyers who are very interested in my place. And with the very small number of properties available in downtown Boston, all of Cambridge, and much of Somerville I got to think any level of foreign interest has to have some impact.
Ayup
By capecoddah
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 1:35pm
[quote]I got to think any level of foreign interest has to have some impact.[/quote]
I don't think any of the Boston area Transcript newspapers publish real estate transactions anymore, but wherever you come across a report, it reads like a list that is a cross between chessmasters and a bunch of dropped silverware.
Didn't think that joke existed here
By Roman
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 1:43pm
Hard to say if they're really foreign though. Plenty of people like that who are "local" by some definition of that word.
Banker and Tradesman
By redheadedjen
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 2:16pm
Banker and Tradesman publishes ever real estate transaction in Massachusetts. Foreclosures are inching up again. I work in the real estate industry and read the paper every week.
It's not been negligible,
By anon
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 1:46pm
It's not been negligible, because the home prices would be higher without it. You are extremely uniformed if you think that they aren't a growing factor.
You mean speculation, right?
By mplo
Wed, 04/25/2018 - 4:18pm
Speculation, which is when people purchase property as an investment, with no intention of living in it, is something that happened a lot in the 1980's and the 1990's, and is still happening. It's disgusting, disgraceful, and selfish, and shouldn't be allowed to take place..
The HUB History podcast this
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:52pm
The HUB History podcast this week talks about the 1968 Tent City protest in the South End, and the struggle for affordable housing in Boston: episode
Will listen. But...
By Sally
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:08pm
The Boston of 1968, especially when it comes to housing, is almost unrecognizable today. You could buy a whole South End townhouse then for about the cost of a nice car. That neighborhood was mostly poor, plagued by arson, blight, crime, and people who wanted to demolish it and replace it with a highway and God knows what else. Now it’s the poster child for Shiny Pretty Neighborhoods That No One Can Afford (unless you luck into one of the mixed-income buildings). So the Tent City stuff is fascinating but it doesn’t really help understand the challenges we’re facing at the moment.
I thought I had a pretty
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:20pm
I thought I had a pretty decent job. Guess not. But I must be categorized as low income. No wonder I'm borderline homeless and still living with my mother.
Huh?
By bosguy22
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:18pm
You are borderline homeless and living with your mother, but you thought you had a pretty decent job?
Providing Goods and Services That People Still Use
By Oscar Worthy
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:50pm
Used to be a good job. People still get their hair cut like they used to. People still need their cars repaired like they used to, and people still need eggs and milk. But today, if you're a barber or own a neighborhood repair shop or are the night manager at a small grocery store, you can't afford to live in Boston anymore. So do their jobs suck now? Should I just tell them to either walk away from their jobs and go learn to code or go to B-school - or move to Brockton and commute in everyday to cut my hair, fix my car, and sell me the dozen eggs that I need to impress my friends with my omelette making skills, and call it day . .?
Nope
By anon²
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 8:00pm
Ultimately those jobs, and their wages, have becomes completely divorsed from reality. What you're paid mostly comes down to policy in beacon Hill and DC. They've decided that if your wealth isn't in investment income, you're not worth anything.
It's the second gilded age. You get paid much less, so the Robber Barron's can stash money in offshore accounts. Taking it out of the economy, and ultimately siezing up the engine of prosperity.
All because wealth equals power to them, so they need to grab it all beyond reason.
Yeah. I have a good job but
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:59pm
Yeah. I have a good job but am still living with my mother. Paying her room and board is cheaper than paying rent in Boston.
Least you have that choice
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 5:52pm
My folks are in BVT and in Tampa Bay. I'm here by myself. Either I hack it as a Bostonian, or I'm gone.
I have a 75 year old aunt and uncle in Newton, but they'll be around for at least another 25 years, at which point, I'm not sure I'd inherit their house anyway.
Daaammmnnn...
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 7:04pm
... my mortgage and all utility bills average far below $1,900 per month, and I get a driveway, fenced-in yard, and twice the living space compared to any apartment downtown. Hate to humble brag, but damnit, I love you, Fairmount Hill.
Just wait
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 8:04pm
Until the bubble bursts and all these fools are stuck with property they overpaid for.
When exactly
By bosguy22
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 9:04am
Was the last real estate bubble bursting in MA? 1987?
lulz
By capecoddah
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 9:51am
I was fiercely arguing counterpoint on this back in 2001 on the internets. They called me a troll. Me. Capecoddah. Being called a troll.
So 17 years later I'll say it again... This ain't any sort of real estate bubble. This is the norm.
It was 2001 that I jumped from selling Boston real estate to the mortgage industry and luckily I ended up in a very ethical firm where most agents would try to talk clients out of any potential balloon fiascos. Many other firms pushed them and that is about as close as any sort of bubble came into play, which barely affected real estate prices during the mortgage crash of the later 00s. You can see a small correction around 2007 but no bubble from at least the late 80s to now unless you wish to torture sales records with inflation adjustments.
My stance is that there is no mass overprice and there has not been since the late 80s. Just one period of a massive influx of new-to-the-market people overextending themselves and buying where they should not have. There is a hefty amount of perspective in the argument but there is no denying that in 2001, people were complaining about a real estate bubble that could not last forever and now in this very thread people are looking back at 2001 as the good old days of house pricing. In 2035, I will be on yet another board, arguing the same thing when people call 2018 the good old days of affordable house prices.
Bubbles were all regional
By anon
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 1:08pm
Definitely a bubble in sprawling, overdeveloped, fundamentals-poor places where people were overextending to buy gilded palaces on pauper salaries.
Prices in MA, meanwhile, didn't even take a hit. They stalled out for a couple years, at worse.
Awesome
By capecoddah
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 5:41pm
Awesome word and great observation.
Suggested corrections
By SL4-5cat
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 11:18am
There are a few errors with your post.
Thanks
By adamg
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 11:53am
Pretty stupid mistakes, alas. Corrected in the post, will also post something on the home page.
Pages
Add comment