studio and 1 BR prices in market rate buildings
rona twofisch.com
A very quick survey of market rate rental prices in the new buildings in Assembly and Maxwell’s Green shows:
Ava – no studios, 1 BR $3042+
Avalon – studio $3077, 1 BR $3312
Miscela – studio $2938, 1 BR $3440+
Montaje - studio $2829, 1 BR $3625
Maxwell’s green – studio $2480, 1 BR $3028
My point is, smaller is not affordable at market rate. I do not expect that renters will move, en masse, from 3-bedroom apartments (at $1000-1300 a room) into newly built studios and 1 BR units at the market rate.
Rona
Brendan Ritter
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/MW4PR15MB4331F0CFF54E98FFFE98CCFDBCC5A%40MW4PR15MB4331.namprd15.prod.outlook.com.
PJ Santos
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriHNFVCst4zoVfj0L%3DhBHG9h22cg%3DHaxvp42ZWn2aWmDqA%40mail.gmail.com.
PJ Santos
PJ,New properties are expensive in part because it costs a lot to build and the land costs are high and developers need to recover their investment within an economic timeframe. However, I'm not sure that these apartments automatically get cheaper as they get older. That might happen if they are not maintained and get run-down; but I'm also not sure we should plan on run-down housing to create affordability.I think that location is a bigger driver of cost. This is why run-down apartments in Somerville cost more than brand new units in Reading. Many people live here because it is a desirable place to live, and if there are more people than units, rent increases. Somerville is a perfect example of this; 30 years ago it wasn't desirable and houses/rent were cheap. Today, the exact same houses (perhaps better maintained) are super expensive (8-10X!). What changed? mostly 'location' (i.e. desirability). I know that this is stating the obvious, but it may also be true; not saying this is good, bad or otherwise, it is just the economic reality of our current society.I think this is the core paradox facing the city; we want to make it a great place to live, and in many ways it is. However, the better it gets, the more desirable it becomes, and more desirable means higher rents and less affordability. This feedback loop continues until a new balance is reached. Perhaps we hit a price ceiling, we build to a density where it becomes less desirable, we lose all our greenspace, or we put restrictions on growth, rent, development, etc... that constrain this in some manner.Not sure what my point is, as I don't have a clear suggestion as to what we should do about it. Perhaps I'm just trying to point out that this is super complex and there aren't simple solutions to complex problems. I will say that DSNC is a great start as it is helping to further the conversation and bring in data and new ideas.Michael
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSx9x45atJYDVZq7Exja67YwPcKrU3OW0btrNRnmt2CGOg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brendan Ritter
Jeff Byrnes
I’ll note that those new buildings are mostly leased up, even at these prices, so they are clearly affordable (in the colloquial sense) to someone.
The smaller new apartments are more affordable than larger new apartments, here’s the prices for 2 & 3 BR homes in the same buildings:
- Ava:
- 2BR $3,577–$4,037
- Avalon:
- 2BR: $4,282–$5,007
- 3BR: $6,947+
- Miscela:
- 2BR: $3,825–$4,625
- 3BR: $5,355–$5,665
- Montaje:
- 2BR: $4,135–$4,925
- Maxwell’s Green:
- 2BR: $4,220–$4,625
- 3BR: $5,230+
That’s based on 30% or less of gross income being Officially Affordable™ per HUD’s guidelines.
By that same metric, a single person making ~$120–150k can reasonably afford a 1BR in one of these buildings, though of course each household’s situation varies depending on their expenses.
The median household in Somerville makes ~$113k / year, and here’s a graph of income distributions, showing that ~50% of households in Somerville make >$125k / year:
Source
What all this means is that if there’s enough newer homes for high-income households, they will “move on up” and free up less expensive homes. You might have heard of filtering, that’s the name for this “move on up” thing.
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CADvEriE_W1BN8qW46iPsv6r4JMD8XoQmNBm7A_-Tv%2Bm052fYdw%40mail.gmail.com.
Christopher Beland
> My point is, smaller is not affordable at market rate. I do not
> expect that renters will move, en masse, from 3-bedroom apartments
> (at $1000-1300 a room) into newly built studios and 1 BR units at the
> market rate.
studios that cost $2480-$3077 per month. Wealthier people move into
those apartments, making space for people in class B studios to move
up, making more room in the class C market so someone desperate to get
rid of their roommates can get the $1850/month Sargent Ave studio I see
currently advertised on Craigslist.
Based on the prices Jeff reported, renting a room in a 3-bedroom in
those class A buildings doesn't cost $1000-$1300 a month, it costs
$1700-$2300/month. Moving to that Winter Hill studio from one of those
would be a major change in age of building and distance from rapid
transit, but would be either a small $150/month increase in rent, or
potentially a substantial decrease.
According to Zillow, there are also 10x more 3-bedrooms available than
studios, which might mean we're simply disproportionately behind on
building studios and their prices are proportionately inflated. That
might be because we've killed large projects that would have
constructed lots of studios. For example, in 2019, Scape was planning
to put 250 units in a 6-story, no-parking building on Elm Street, a mix
of studios, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedrooms, with 300-square-foot studios
(the size of our first apartment after getting married) renting pre-
COVID-inflation for only $1300/month and others at $2500-$3000/month.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/10/24/scape-davis-square-project/
-B.
Aaron Weber
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/caa7a503a3bdf2c25efceabd68417d0627915f30.camel%40alum.mit.edu.
Jeff Byrnes
I agree that homes shouldn’t be this expensive!
My point is that if these new homes don’t get built, those 6-figure earners will look for not-new homes and push their prices up. Which will push you and others who don’t earn a $100k+ income out.
Basically, we need a whole lot of homes of all different shapes, sizes, ages, and prices, or we leave landlords with the power to only rent to high-earners & displace everyone else.
Said another way: we won’t arrest the current trend by not building new, expensive homes.
That said, that’s the starting point for solving housing affordability, not the end-all be-all. Necessary but insufficient!
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
they are clearly affordable (in the colloquial sense) to someone
if you’ve a two-person couple household, and together bring home $200k–300k ($100–150k each, not unusual for mid-career office workers in Boston), you can comfortably afford up to $5000–$7500 / mo. in housing costs.
It is still reasonable to ask whether we want Davis Square to continue trending in a direction where only people with the means to afford that rent will be able to live here (I have never had a 6-figure annual salary in my life, and neither has my partner).Doubly so when we have conversations about long-term vs. “transient” residents. I have had friends leave Somerville because landlords were raising rent faster than their employers were raising their wages, and there was no path to ownership being a realistic option for them here. I have personally been in really bad financial shape at points to be able to keep living here, and kind of just expect I will have to leave at some point, not because I want to, but because I won't be able to afford it.Zachary Yaro
On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 14:58, Jeff Byrnes <je...@somervilleyimby.org> wrote:
Thankfully, it shouldn’t take quite that long! There’s good research that the price-calming effects of a new building are felt pretty immediately nearby.
I’ll note that those new buildings are mostly leased up, even at these prices, so they are clearly affordable (in the colloquial sense) to someone.
The smaller new apartments are more affordable than larger new apartments, here’s the prices for 2 & 3 BR homes in the same buildings:
- Ava:
- 2BR $3,577–$4,037
- Avalon:
- 2BR: $4,282–$5,007
- 3BR: $6,947+
- Miscela:
- 2BR: $3,825–$4,625
- 3BR: $5,355–$5,665
- Montaje:
- 2BR: $4,135–$4,925
- Maxwell’s Green:
- 2BR: $4,220–$4,625
- 3BR: $5,230+
While these, and the previous numbers, may seem eye-popping, if you’ve a two-person couple household, and together bring home $200k–300k ($100–150k each, not unusual for mid-career office workers in Boston), you can comfortably afford up to $5000–$7500 / mo. in housing costs.
That’s based on 30% or less of gross income being Officially Affordable™ per HUD’s guidelines.
By that same metric, a single person making ~$120–150k can reasonably afford a 1BR in one of these buildings, though of course each household’s situation varies depending on their expenses.
The median household in Somerville makes ~$113k / year, and here’s a graph of income distributions, showing that ~50% of households in Somerville make >$125k / year:
<Attachment.tiff>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/099686c8-a6e2-4214-b749-eaaf4dbc44c1%40Spark.
Michael Chiu
Michael Chiu
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSx9x45atJYDVZq7Exja67YwPcKrU3OW0btrNRnmt2CGOg%40mail.gmail.com.
Mieke Citroen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPc46x2%2BErJnXrotuqoANcj%2BA2s%2BYuTugogfDjZG6O1K_w%40mail.gmail.com.
Colin McMillen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPe9aYLm8GESB2g1d4p0PXxTb_cb5UQ3Si7cjWTS4eaECQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rona twofisch.com
This thread is going well, and I appreciate it, also.
Re: Prices going down by building many units in Davis Square.
The Pew Study that Jeff mentioned is comprehensive, but may not apply to our conditions. It is based on low-income areas. We are not that! Case in point is that the thousand+ units in Assembly Row have not gone down in price, even though they have been occupied for 9+ years.
Rona
From: johnh...@gmail.com <johnh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 11:55 AM
To: 'Michael Chiu' <michael...@gmail.com>; 'PJ Santos' <peej...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Brendan Ritter' <brendan...@gmail.com>; rona twofisch.com <ro...@twofisch.com>; 'Davis Square Neighborhood Council' <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [DSNC] studio and 1 BR prices in market rate buildings
Appreciate you commenting Michael,
Increasing density does not automatically lead to lower housing costs. According to a quick check of data, the top 12 most dense incorporated areas in the U.S.
are in the NY metro (not known for inexpensive housing). Somerville is already the densest community in MA, and 19th densest in the U.S, which doesn’t
currently correlate with low housing costs. Desirability and proximity to employment (including college off-campus housing demand) drive overall demand.
Areas that have more recently developed high rise housing, such as the Seaport or Cambridge Crossing/Lechmere area, are not cheap and have not resulted in lower housing costs in the older nearby housing stock.
Rents and home prices continue to rise in these areas.
In high demand areas, some sort of governmental led initiative is typically needed to control housing cost below market-rate. Programs like 40B “affordable” developments, prescribed “affordable” set asides, and rent control have had some success in controlling housing cost. Other tax incentive programs for developers such as through HUD and housing vouchers have also been used. Perhaps the city could look at tax incentives for public-private partnership developments.
I am concerned the push for very tall buildings (which seems often expressed), will drastically and negatively change the character of Davis for those who were attracted to this area in the first place, and will not in any way solve housing affordability. This is not to say that there are not many opportunities for reasonably taller buildings to replace existing on underutilized sites, and if developed in scale with our streets and existing fabric would have positive benefits.
I think more research is needed into what has been successfully done in other communities, (European examples are often helpful in looking at transit and pedestrian oriented communities that also are sensitive to preserving character, quality of life, and cost of living). Some precedent examples can be instructive.
John
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPe9aYLm8GESB2g1d4p0PXxTb_cb5UQ3Si7cjWTS4eaECQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rona twofisch.com
I will stand with Colin that old construction does not mean “c” grade housing.
Many condos in those 1900ish buildings have been insulated and improved and have market rate values (for sale) over $900K. That is why a lot of the “naturally occurring affordable housing” has been drying up. Developers buy the run-down two-family houses and renovate them into luxury housing.
That door to affordable housing has been closing for decades. Last year, two-thirds of home sales in Somerville went to non-owner occupiers (REIT or developers).
Rona
From: Colin McMillen <colin.m...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 12:23 PM
To: Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>; PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>
Cc: Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>; rona twofisch.com <ro...@twofisch.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] studio and 1 BR prices in market rate buildings
"New construction is more expensive" is broadly true pretty much everywhere in the world, including places where they *do* build plenty of housing, such as Tokyo. A place can be perfectly solidly built and habitable and still less fashionable / stylish according to current trends, have older and less efficient appliances / build quality, etc. It doesn't mean it's a bad or run-down place to live.
Frank Mals
Aaron Weber
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/029aee6e-3a00-459b-be83-90a7faeef32fn%40googlegroups.com.
Asheem Linaval
Frank Mals
Carol
Jeff Byrnes
In 1930, it was 103k people.
Helpful chart:
> “You can blame both the city and developers for the increasing prices and rents.”
No, actually, you can’t. The City is only responsible in the sense that we, the citizenry, reduced how many homes that can be built here via City laws. But that’s a democratic process that we, the citizens, did, not “the City”.
Developers also are not responsible for increased prices and rents; prices & rents are set by the market, not by builders. One cannot arbitrarily set a sale or rental price. If you set it too high, nobody buys/rents. They are chasing the dollars available to them because of scarcity.
We, the residents, are responsible. We (royal we, historic) in the 70s/80s/90s decided to not allow even the homes already in existence to be built again, resulting in things as small as 3 deckers and 2-fam houses being illegal to build by-right.
So, with current conditions of smaller households requiring more space per person, what would it take to grow Somerville back to our former peak population of 103,908 people?
What would it take to grow Somerville to 200k people? 500k people? 1M? Food for thought: under the first zoning ordinance, Somerville allowed for growth up to 300k people (about 3× its population at the time, and also today).
With that in mind, what amount of homes do we need to legalize if we want Somerville to have enough homes for that many neighbors?
As for losing representation, Aaron is referring to how Electoral College and House of Representatives allotments work. As our population declines and other areas in the country grow (read: Red States), we lose Electoral College votes and House Reps to those places. Meaning our national political power wanes. CA, NY, and MA are in the forefront of this loss of national political power because we do not allow enough new homes to be built to satisfy demand, which means prices rise astronomically, both pushing people out and blocking newcomers from moving in.
Said another way, allowing more homes, and thus more neighbors, means preserving our federal political power in addition to ensuring we welcome newcomers.
Jeff Byrnes
he/him
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/2092626582.5379602.1762464984885%40mail.yahoo.com.
johnh...@gmail.com
Appreciate you commenting Michael,
Increasing density does not automatically lead to lower housing costs. According to a quick check of data, the top 12 most dense incorporated areas in the U.S.
are in the NY metro (not known for inexpensive housing). Somerville is already the densest community in MA, and 19th densest in the U.S, which doesn’t
currently correlate with low housing costs. Desirability and proximity to employment (including college off-campus housing demand) drive overall demand.
Areas that have more recently developed high rise housing, such as the Seaport or Cambridge Crossing/Lechmere area, are not cheap and have not resulted in lower housing costs in the older nearby housing stock.
Rents and home prices continue to rise in these areas.
In high demand areas, some sort of governmental led initiative is typically needed to control housing cost below market-rate. Programs like 40B “affordable” developments, prescribed “affordable” set asides, and rent control have had some success in controlling housing cost. Other tax incentive programs for developers such as through HUD and housing vouchers have also been used. Perhaps the city could look at tax incentives for public-private partnership developments.
I am concerned the push for very tall buildings (which seems often expressed), will drastically and negatively change the character of Davis for those who were attracted to this area in the first place, and will not in any way solve housing affordability. This is not to say that there are not many opportunities for reasonably taller buildings to replace existing on underutilized sites, and if developed in scale with our streets and existing fabric would have positive benefits.
I think more research is needed into what has been successfully done in other communities, (European examples are often helpful in looking at transit and pedestrian oriented communities that also are sensitive to preserving character, quality of life, and cost of living). Some precedent examples can be instructive.
John
From: daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Chiu
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 2:06 PM
To: PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>
Cc: Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>; rona twofisch.com <ro...@twofisch.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] studio and 1 BR prices in market rate buildings
PJ,
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAKhjUPe9aYLm8GESB2g1d4p0PXxTb_cb5UQ3Si7cjWTS4eaECQ%40mail.gmail.com.
rona twofisch.com
Good morning Asheem.
I heard the figure about developer purchasers from someone on the Somerville delegation (a state elected official, I think it was Mike Connolly) when they testified before the Revenue committee in September 2025. I am looking into the way it was calculated. I have experience in residential real estate and was on the Affordable Housing Task Force. Therefore, I have spent lots of time mucking around in the data. But, I did not develop this particular figure.
“Luxury” is not a real term in Somerville, it’s sort of random and includes Ikea and Home Depot kitchens and plastic surround tub enclosures. Having updated systems, energy efficient features, and level floors counts as luxury around here. Well, after the fresh paint is slapped on and the floors get sanded.
I own a two-family house. I have spent decades bringing it out of the 1970s aesthetically, and out of the 1920s structurally. I understand the cost and do not intend to dishonor people who are rebuilding old properties for their own use, with one or two rental units. However, people like you and Colin are not the norm. People have been buying two-family houses and flipping them to two condos for decades. That has shrunk the pool of naturally occurring affordable housing.
My points are:
Owner occupied two and three family houses are a shrinking commodity. They are the naturally occurring affordable housing in Somerville (until we get serious about ADUs).
Old properties can be renovated and compete with new construction as A-/B+ (and sometimes A) level housing and are not invariably C level housing. Old is not necessarily bad in historic areas like Greater Boston.
I am looking into getting the answer to how the developer figure was calculated. I am not ignoring the question.
Thank you for the positive engagement,
Rona
johnh...@gmail.com
Thanks for the articles Aaron, I read through some and will get to all after the workday.
I was pointing to some mechanisms that were used on housing projects I’ve been involved with over the last 25 years that achieved various percentages of “affordable” units up to 100% “affordable”.
The Bloomberg article also mentions this need.
As I said, I completely agree there are many opportunities on underutilized sites around the city, particularly in the commercial corridors and around transit centers to replace
existing buildings with taller and higher density housing, and which could provide other positive benefits to streetscape.
I realize that many in the group are looking to radically reinvent Somerville to high-rise development with an extremely high density, (compared to other communities in our region).
I am simply stating my own viewpoint that an understanding of the effects to quality of life for what would be built should be studied and clearly understood, and precedent examples can be
helpful. I like the Bloomberg article mentioned Helsinki as I was just there and found the downtown great and very pedestrian and bike friendly.
I was also giving a viewpoint that I was attracted me to Somerville when I bought my home 26 years ago, because it was a walkable community near transit, and where you could have a detached home
with small yard.
Another personal opinion - I don’t like the bacon strip high-rise building in Union Square, and I wouldn’t want to see something like this all around Davis, or replicated all over Somerville.
Perhaps, my home will be taken by eminent domain and replaced by a tower, but I hope not.
Do we know the lasting effects of building extreme density, is the benefit long-term or would this be akin to widening roads to alleviate traffic congestion, which then leads to more traffic?
Asking a question, don’t know? However, Brooklyn was once a village…
John
From: Aaron Weber <aaron....@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 9:18 AM
To: johnh...@gmail.com
Cc: Michael Chiu <michael...@gmail.com>; PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>; Brendan Ritter <brendan...@gmail.com>; rona twofisch.com <ro...@twofisch.com>; Davis Square Neighborhood Council <daviss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DSNC] studio and 1 BR prices in market rate buildings
John,
The research is quite clear that increasing the total quantity of homes is directly correlated with falling prices. The amount does need to be sufficient to increase the vacancy rate from our paltry 1-3%, but the fact that lack of supply causes high prices is irrefutable. Case studies in Jersey City, New Rochelle, Denver, Austin, Minneapolis, and Aukland all bear this out.
Is market-rate housing alone sufficient? Of course not. Creating broad affordability will require a mix of market-rate and subsidized homes, at all levels, in all shapes and sizes. Our city's work at 299 Broadway (the old Star Market site) is exemplary: they've put in a great deal of money through several different financing mechanisms to increase the affordability percentage there from 20% to 50%. But it cost a LOT of money to make that happen. Remember, each apartment costs more than six hundred thousand dollars to build — more if you pay the higher labor and administrative costs created when you accept subsidy funding.
I'm not making this up off the cuff. Here are some citations to support my claims:
General audience journalism:
- Bloomberg: No, Really. Building More Housing Can Combat Rising Rents
- Wall Street Journal: Sunbelt Construction Boom Threatens Top Apartment-Building Owners (WSJ presents this as a bad thing for landlords, but it's good for tenants)
Academic research:
- Journal of Economic Geography: Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents? ("the supply effect dominates the amenity effect, causing net reductions in the rents and sales prices of nearby residential properties.")
- Journal of Urban Economics: Condominium development does not lead to gentrification
- SSRN: Does Building New Housing Cause Displacement?: The Supply and Demand Effects of Construction in San Francisco ("increasing the supply of market rate housing has beneficial spillover effects for incumbent renters, reducing rents and displacement pressure while improving neighborhood quality.")
- UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies: Research Roundup: The Effect of Market-Rate Development on Neighborhood Rents
Best,
Aaron
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/044b01dc4f3e%24139d6100%243ad82300%24%40gmail.com.
Aaron Weber
- Bloomberg: No, Really. Building More Housing Can Combat Rising Rents
- Wall Street Journal: Sunbelt Construction Boom Threatens Top Apartment-Building Owners (WSJ presents this as a bad thing for landlords, but it's good for tenants)
- Journal of Economic Geography: Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents? ("the supply effect dominates the amenity effect, causing net reductions in the rents and sales prices of nearby residential properties.")
- Journal of Urban Economics: Condominium development does not lead to gentrification
- SSRN: Does Building New Housing Cause Displacement?: The Supply and Demand Effects of Construction in San Francisco ("increasing the supply of market rate housing has beneficial spillover effects for incumbent renters, reducing rents and displacement pressure while improving neighborhood quality.")
- UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies: Research Roundup: The Effect of Market-Rate Development on Neighborhood Rents
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/044b01dc4f3e%24139d6100%243ad82300%24%40gmail.com.