Ecstatic
09-08-2005, 12:50 PM
Remember discussing how expensive NYC is? Just heard this on the news: Boston is now the most expensive metro area in the country. A family of four needs 64K just to meet basic needs, $6000 more than in NYC. San Francisco and Washington DC are also at the top of the heap. Here's the details:
Report rates Boston most expensive city
Housing drives up cost of living
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | September 8, 2005
Propelled largely by high housing costs, Boston is now the most expensive metropolitan area in the country, outpacing Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and even New York City, according to a report that will be released today.
The report found that last year, a family of four living in the Boston area needed $64,656 to cover its basic needs. This was $6,000 more than in New York City, and about $7,000 more than in San Francisco. Living expenses, which include healthcare, child care, and other basic needs, were $44,000 or less in Austin, Texas; Chicago; Miami; and Raleigh, N.C.
The third annual ''Housing Report Card," produced by the Boston Foundation and the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, concludes that even an uptick in housing production could not halt the relentless climb of Greater Boston's housing prices, which are increasing far more rapidly than are wages.
The result: In 2004, there were only 27 Boston-area communities in which a household whose members made the median income could afford the median-priced home in that city or town.
By comparison, in 2003 there were 59, and in 1998 there were 148.
In 2004, the median price of a single-family home in Greater Boston was $376,000, up 9.5 percent from 2003, the report says. The median price of a condo was $282,000, up 9.3 percent. Even though Massachusetts was the only state to lose population last year, prices continued to rise because demand is still higher than the supply of many types of housing.
The price increases in the Boston region slowed in 2004 relative to other parts of the country; the national rate was 12.5 percent. But home prices in Massachusetts have increased more over the past 25 years than in any other state; they remain among the highest in the country.
The high cost of living is prompting many residents, especially younger ones who can't afford to buy into the housing market, to decamp for other states, the report said. It is the latest to warn that such an exodus could have dire consequences for Massachusetts, which was the only state to lose population last year.
''Continued out-migration may solve the housing problem by reducing demand," the report concludes. ''But, the cost to the Commonwealth's long-term prosperity of losing its workforce is practically incalculable. Much more housing, appropriate for young working families, must be produced if this is to be avoided."
Barry Bluestone, coauthor of the 64-page report, heads the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. Bluestone described the study as a compilation of data from a variety of sources, including the US Census and real estate firms.
The cost-of-living ranking comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.
Report rates Boston most expensive city
Housing drives up cost of living
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | September 8, 2005
Propelled largely by high housing costs, Boston is now the most expensive metropolitan area in the country, outpacing Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and even New York City, according to a report that will be released today.
The report found that last year, a family of four living in the Boston area needed $64,656 to cover its basic needs. This was $6,000 more than in New York City, and about $7,000 more than in San Francisco. Living expenses, which include healthcare, child care, and other basic needs, were $44,000 or less in Austin, Texas; Chicago; Miami; and Raleigh, N.C.
The third annual ''Housing Report Card," produced by the Boston Foundation and the Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, concludes that even an uptick in housing production could not halt the relentless climb of Greater Boston's housing prices, which are increasing far more rapidly than are wages.
The result: In 2004, there were only 27 Boston-area communities in which a household whose members made the median income could afford the median-priced home in that city or town.
By comparison, in 2003 there were 59, and in 1998 there were 148.
In 2004, the median price of a single-family home in Greater Boston was $376,000, up 9.5 percent from 2003, the report says. The median price of a condo was $282,000, up 9.3 percent. Even though Massachusetts was the only state to lose population last year, prices continued to rise because demand is still higher than the supply of many types of housing.
The price increases in the Boston region slowed in 2004 relative to other parts of the country; the national rate was 12.5 percent. But home prices in Massachusetts have increased more over the past 25 years than in any other state; they remain among the highest in the country.
The high cost of living is prompting many residents, especially younger ones who can't afford to buy into the housing market, to decamp for other states, the report said. It is the latest to warn that such an exodus could have dire consequences for Massachusetts, which was the only state to lose population last year.
''Continued out-migration may solve the housing problem by reducing demand," the report concludes. ''But, the cost to the Commonwealth's long-term prosperity of losing its workforce is practically incalculable. Much more housing, appropriate for young working families, must be produced if this is to be avoided."
Barry Bluestone, coauthor of the 64-page report, heads the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University. Bluestone described the study as a compilation of data from a variety of sources, including the US Census and real estate firms.
The cost-of-living ranking comes from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.