The Revitalist

The Boston Globe reports that Salem is a hot market for condos these days. The City has apparently been encouraging development of condos, both in rehabbed buildings and new construction, and the prices are putting the Brooklines and Cambridges of the world to shame.

Not surprisingly, it's young professional couples and empty nesters who are leading the charge. Both groups are at a lifestage where they are more likely to move, and they are identified as increasingly seeking alternatives to the traditional suburban single-family.

The MIT Center for Real Estate has put together a comprehensive Housing Affordability Index. The Index "is a form of price index that measures the ability of some income group to rent/purchase housing in a town." It looks at the availability of housing for 2- and 4-person households earning 80% of the Boston-metro median income and then factors in other data including the accessibility of jobs, quality of schools, open/green space, transit access, and others to give a more accurate picture of the likelihood of that household actually being able to live in a particular town.

Drum roll please: the top three are Dracut, Waltham and Norwood. The bottom three are Duxbury, Plympton and Bolton. Not surprisingly, my town of Brookline does not fare well. Interestingly, neither does Lawrence. The difference seems to come in the amenities adjustments. I suspect, however, that should the Index be recalculated in a year or two, Lawrence will move up the standings because the City is really awakening to this need.

Hope you are out enjoying the sunshine and the first glimmer of summer.

The Revitalist will be taking a mini-vacation (and most certainly enjoying the sunshine). I will be back on Thursday the 1st. 

WBUR has been running a week-long series called Boston @ The Crossroads during Morning Edition that "examines the forces shaping Boston's future." I'm a little unclear about what "the crossroads" are, but the series discusses the same topics (jobs, housing, education, population shifts, etc.) that have been fermenting lately. Local business leaders, academics and politicians are all interviewed about the current state of affairs and where the city might be headed. Despite the tone of the series, which seems to indicate that we are standing on a precipice of some sort, the interviewees don't express any panic and imagine a generally rosy future for Bean Town. The series is a nice survey of current issues with a lot of the local color and personal accounts that is public radio's specialty, but I don't think that it really contributes anything new to the discussion.

Housing continues to be the topic of conversation. Watchers of the housing market are noting a glut of single-family homes on the market that are taking longer to sell, thus "it's a buyers market, baby." A Century 21 agent is quoted as saying that when a house is listed "a half-dozen people swoop in to it to see if it's what they like, and if it isn't the right one for them they wait for another one. A year ago, those same people would all put an offer on the same house."

I have seen this anecdotally with my friends. One couple had to move to DC several months before they were able to sell their Wellesley condo, living in a residential hotel until they could buy a house down there. Of course, they are also an example of the population loss that is much lamented of late and is also cited in the article as part of the cause of the housing glut. Perhaps the competitive market will entice some to stay, but the article doesn't hope for that silver lining.

Two recent studies point out that the high cost of housing is linked to recent job losses that have current and would-be politicos up in arms. Edward Glaeser at Harvard, author of one of the studies, is quoted as saying, "If you don't permit, you don't grow population and you don't grow jobs. ... If you don't want to build, you've got to accept the fact that Boston is going to lose population, and you have got to quit wringing our hands on this." Which sounds like a nice way of saying "put up or shut up."

The article points out that the high barrier to entry and the volatility in the market is driving away the young, middle class who would like to buy their first homes but can't afford to. This seems like a nice demonstration of Richard Florida's observation that the jobs follow the people and not the other way around. He recommends that instead of spending state dollars on attracting industry, the money should be spent on creating attractive communities to which the workers will flock - the jobs will go to where the workers are. We would like to think that the type of housing that we're creating at WM Lofts would be both affordable and attractive to this segment of the population. If the State Historic Rehab Tax Credit would be uncapped, then there would likely be a surge in redevelopments of this type, perhaps easing the supply problem...

If you've been to IKEA lately (and we have - its an Effectiv office here), then you've probably wondered who's getting rich on all those fantastically named, unbelievably inexpensive, modern housewares.

Not our office.

The Economist reveals that it's all going to a clever construction of non-profits registered in the Netherlands presided over by  founder Ingvar Kamprad and his family. It also appears that only a small fraction of the cash flowing is to the charitable cultivation of new interior design ideas:

"Clearly, the world of interior design is being tragically deprived, as the foundation devotes itself to building its own reserves in case IKEA needs capital." 

via City Comforts 

The Globe has thorough coverage of the debate between most of the Gubernatorial candidates last night. The focus was on jobs, economic growth and housing.

Duval Patrick was asked about the fact that no towns have adopted new state incentives for new transit-oriented, center-city housing. He responded by pointing out the loss of young, highly educated workers due to the high cost of living. He had two solutions: streamlining the approvals process for developers and investing in public transportation to connect jobs in Boston to cheaper housing markets in other cities. While streamlining of the approvals process will certainly ease some of the uncertainty around developing in Massachusetts, the reality is that new developments at moderate market rates aren't going to happen in these second- and third-tier cities without some help from the state (e.g.  State Tax Credit for Historic Rehabilitation). And they certainly aren't going to happen in Boston and the inner-ring suburbs without significant subsidy.

When asked about economic growth in Massachusetts beyond Boston, Chris Gabrieli pointed out that his biotech initiative can reach out to other cities and that with improved transportation connections, these cities have a better chance of attracting tech businesses. He specifically mentioned the mill rehabs in Lawrence and the software company Blacksmith Applications (based out of Chet Sidell's 60 Island Street - just a few buildings down from WM Lofts) as a successful strategy for growth that needs to be built upon. Great plug for Lawrence on its way up!

The candidates all identified the fact that the high cost of housing/living is in part responsible for the recent population loss and the need for more affordable housing. However, no one really made a strong connection between the loss of highly educated workers and the need for moderately priced housing (not "affordable housing" but housing that is affordable for young families and the middle class). It seems to me that some of the Romney administration's smart growth initiatives are addressing the problem by offering incentives for more than just subsidized housing, but the fact that this is a serious issue for the state hasn't really trickled down out of the policy/development crowd to the individual cities and towns and to the population at large.

The NYTimes had a special section entitled The Business of Green. Lots of interesting articles, including one on socially responsible investment funds (Wouldn't we all like to figure out how to attract those mission-driven investors?) and a nice article on sustainable livestock farming (cute piglets!). But I thought the stand out article was about Chicago's green revitalization. Mayor Daley is really setting an example for how city investment (both ideological and financial) can spur private investment and everyone can reap the benefits. I left Chicago while Millennium Park was under construction - I would love to get back to see the finished product!

The Globe reports on the negative public reaction to the planned rate hikes at the T. Apparently subway/trolley rides will increase from $1.25 to $1.70 and the cost of commuter rail passes will rise by 22%. Michael Dukakis rightly points out that instead of attracting new riders in this time of high gas prices, the T is cutting off its nose to spite its face (my turn of phrase, not his). And thus it is clear that the T just doesn't get it. They may offer land next to stations for redevelopment projects, and they may have some green buses, but they just haven't taken to heart the concept of smart growth.