Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dave Stuhlsatz's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Since I'm in the Boston metro area I'll focus my comments on that region.

-The 1990's were a period of urban rebound for the city after several decades of stagnation. That rebound happened to coincide with the tenure of Tom Menino, who by and large was pro-development. However.....

-Development, particularly of housing, tended to be concentrated in regions where locals wouldn't push back against higher density. The major investment zone was the Fan Pier district, which was effectively empty except for hundreds of acres of parking lots. Major density increases in traditional single family neighborhoods was conspicuously avoided, even if these neighborhoods were in derelict condition.

-The new development was biased towards high tech office space, which generated more jobs, but started to raise pressure on housing costs that wasn't met with increased production. Any new housing was branded as "luxury" which fed various myths about gentrification and displacement.

-Surrounding suburbs experienced amazing increases in housing valuations, but very little new production. Many single family homes built in the 1930-1970 range were town down to build larger single-family homes. Local backlash against new housing in any form is a consistent element of local politics. Many anti-housing positions rely on the usual arguments about increased congestion, lowered property values, and the lack of affordable options in the new development.

I see no credible path for the Boston metro region to make up the 400,000 unit shortfall of housing in this century. Even if permit and production rates doubled or tripled the supply capacity would not temper housing costs. My best advice for the younger generation who wants to own a home is "go west and go south."

Expand full comment
Addison Amsdell's avatar

Do you happen to have any data for Cleveland, OH?

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts