In a series of posts, John Keith does the math to show that housing is in fact affordable in Boston, at least by commonly accepted notions of affordability (a couple of slightly under average income, buying a two-bedroom condo for within 40% of their income).
As he writes,
My point in all of this isn’t about whether or not homes cost more (they do, in DOLLARS) but that the data people are using is inaccurate, or used improperly. Also, as of now, homes don’t cost more IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS then they would have, five years ago, because rates are so low.
It seems we have a version of the money illusion at play. And John’s critics who look to the end of the housing bubble miss the point that the same thing that would deflate any bubble (rising interest rates) is also going to raise the cost of borrowed money substantially.
Nonetheless, I would say something has changed, “Boston” may still be affordable, but the central neighborhoods (and inner suburbs like Cambridge and Brookline) are not nearly as affordable as they used to be. I can’t imagine that six years ago, Dorchester would be used as an example to suggest affordability for the median-income couple looking to buy. As John notes, there are advantages to this change, but it’s understandable that a number are going to feel displaced by the fairly sudden rising popularity of and demand for city living.
No comments have been added to this post yet.