Areas near Boston to live

Submitted by LazarusLong67 t3_10oqhui in boston

My wife and I are considering moving to the Boston area and are looking for suggestions on areas to live.

We're empty nesters and currently rent (and would plan to when we move). We know we can't afford to live in Boston proper so are looking at possible areas just north of Boston (Chelsea, Revere, etc.). We currently live in downtown Saint Paul, MN.

Just looking for some suggestions on areas that might work for us. We don't like large apartment complexes that tend to have lots of families (having a playground is always a red flag for us lol). However we like newer buildings that have good amenities, ideally where you can walk to places to eat, drink, etc. Even better if its something like an old mill that's been converted (seems most of those are in Lowell area along the Merrimack). Another advantage of newer apartment complexes is they don't tend to bend you over with 1st, last, security, broker's fee, etc. lol.

Thanks in advance!

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Forsaken-Garlic4818 t1_j6gbq0h wrote

> Another advantage of newer apartment complexes is they don't tend to rape you with 1st, last, security, fee, etc. lol.

really poor taste of words dude

Anyways, you guys have expensive taste just by reading this over. With 0 information about where you are working and a hard $ cap there isn't anything to recommend. You mentioned being in an area with walkable places but nothing about in-building amenities (but if you think you can't afford in Boston proper, then you probably can't afford that either).

49

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6gkebp wrote

As for building amenities, ideally a really good gym, place to grill out, pool and hot tub would be nice too lol. We’re pretty good at finding places but not as sure about specific cities/areas to focus on.

−18

charons-voyage t1_j6hwoq5 wrote

I think you should be looking at moving to somewhere like Austin if you want all those amenities for $3k/month lol. Boston is small and we get like 2 months of “pool” weather a year. Our big apartment complexes might have 1-2 grills for communal use. I don’t know anywhere for $3k/month with a pool or hot tub lol. Maybe I’m just a pleb though

13

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6hx866 wrote

LOL...we've lived our entire lives in the upper midwest (Wisconsin and Minnesota) so are very familiar with the cold (actually you guys get warmer weather than we do, at least in the winter). Main reason we're looking out east is we have family in New Hampshire (but we prefer to be closer to a larger city). Like I said, not that we're wanting to stay directly in Boston, but more the towns north of there.

I've been scouting on Apartments.com and can find quite a few places in the $3500 range, some with and without a pool (although that's not as big of a deal)...

1

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6gf44y wrote

I work 100% remote (IT consulting) and can work anyplace in the US. Wife isn't sure where she will be working yet but will find something to supplement income.

I've seen quite a few apartment complexes outside of Boston for $3000-3500 for 2bed/bath, ~1000-1200 sq feet.

And yeah, my choice of words might be poor taste but the brokers fee is idiotic. Have rented multiple places here in Minneapolis (including one of the most expensive in the city) and never paid a fee like that. The key is finding complexes that are managed by larger national companies (Greystar, Lincoln Property Management, etc.)

−36

bostonthrowaway135 t1_j6ggtwc wrote

I strongly recommend your wife find a job first prior to picking out where to live, unless her job is going to be remote.

Where you live and how flexible her schedule is will have major implications on commute time. Distance is not a good indicator.

20

Junior_Emotion5681 t1_j6giipd wrote

This. Even me right now as I’m job hunting, don’t apply to certain jobs because the commute time will kill me, even tho miles wise isn’t that bad. On the other hand, I have an interview tomorrow on a place that is 43 miles away but I’m going to be going against traffic, which makes it the same as my current commute time to my job that is only 12 miles away.

I used to live in Revere and loved every second of it. The sumner tunnel will be closed from May to September so some commuters will divert to the Ted Williams tunnel/Tobin Bridge to make it even worst.

6

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6ghon4 wrote

We're not as worried about her working to be honest. Technically we can probably get by on my income when we first move out there. She's also got a ton of retail manager experience (Target for example) so would be able to most likely find something near wherever we decide to move.

−18

-CalicoKitty- t1_j6gptj0 wrote

My friend was recently looking at 1br apartments in new, managed buildings in Revere, Everett, Medford, Allston and they were $3000-$3200. He ended up in Newton. I wouldn't limit myself to no-fee. It seems like a waste of money, but if you can find a cheaper place it evens out. Good luck.

1

bostonthrowaway135 t1_j6gblm1 wrote

You’re not escaping 1st, last, security and brokers fee. That’s standard in Boston

23

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6ge3un wrote

You absolutely can. My building had no broker fee, no last month’s rent, and a deposit that was a fraction of a month’s rent.

Brokers fees are fucking stupid - I can’t believe this city puts up with that shit.

8

charons-voyage t1_j6hwygt wrote

Yeah most bigger buildings you can at least escape broker fee. But usually that means it’s more expensive rent than going to a random floor of a triple decker. Either way someone finds a way to get your money lol

5

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6gfe6n wrote

Yeah for as progressive as the area is you would think they would ban that shit as I'm sure it has a huge affect on lower income people being able to easily move.

−7

modernhomeowner t1_j6hq34r wrote

(Not a broker myself nor a landlord, just an economist) The broker fee actually lowers the total cost of renting for those who stay in a place a while. A landlord covering the brokers fee, has to add it to the rent, and you pay it to the landlord every year. If it's not included in the rent, you only pay it when you move. So you may pay $1200 up front but starting year two you save that $100 a month every month going forward. If you stay in one place 4 years, that broker fee saved you close to $4k.

I had an economics class where we studied that people will pay more for an item if it has free shipping, even if the item+shipping is cheaper elsewhere. Kind of the same principle with brokers fees.

−10

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6hys60 wrote

Are you seriously trying to make an argument that a background/credit check and a lockbox key code is worth ~$2500-5000, and also that an paying exorbitant fee for almost no value is for the economic benefit of renters?

🤦🏻‍♂️

9

modernhomeowner t1_j6hzg6d wrote

Yes. Well, I haven't seen a $5,000 fee; it's been 4 years since I looked at apartments, I don't know maybe they are going that high now, maybe those are just bigger than my budget. But let's take something in the middle, $3600. If you were a landlord signing a one year lease, and you had to pay that $3600 in fees, how would u do it? You'd add $300 a month to the rent, right? Maybe you'd pay $1200 of it yourself and add $200 a month to the rent. If I rented that apartment from you for 3 years, I'd have paid $7200 extra in rent rather than paying $3600 right to the broker. It's paying for free shipping, people don't want to see that shipping cost, they'd pay more for an item to avoid it.

−3

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6i1m49 wrote

Landlords don’t have to pay that in fees. Brokers fees are solely propped up by insane rental demand in Boston. Rental markets in almost every other city in America do not suffer them.

I understand math and passing costs to the consumer, I’m arguing that brokers do nothing, charge exorbitant rates for doing nothing, and offer no long term value to renters or landlords.

You’re arguing from a place that brokers provide value and are a necessary part of the equation. They aren’t.

6

modernhomeowner t1_j6i3s8n wrote

You are right, they could not use a real estate agent and get away with not paying the fee. There will always be some tenant acquisition cost, either a broker, advertisement listings, a management company, a vacancy allowance, or some combination.

NY law recently shifted broker fees onto the landlord rather than the tenant. Rents in NYC increased at a faster pace (33%) in the last 2 years (when the law was passed) than Boston (25%), despite NY losing a higher population than Boston. That 8% difference on a $2500 a month apartment is $2400, basically that broker fee, and that person in NY now has to pay that $2400 every single year rather than just when they moved in. Getting rid of broker fees in NYC didn't save the tenant, it actually costs them more now.

−2

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6i4re2 wrote

Again, I understand the math. Brokers offer no value and tenant acquisition costs are a small fraction of a month’s rent in Boston. Adding a broker inherently makes the transaction more expensive for renters, directly or indirectly.

Rent seeking landlords and the scummy ecosystem around them are greedy parasites to a functioning city.

3

modernhomeowner t1_j6i64z9 wrote

If a landlord is a large company, they don't need a realtor, they have staff. Sounds like something similar to where you live when you mention a "building". If a landlord is the 90 year old man or the 60 year old woman who owns one or two two-families (the two people I rented from), they hire experts to do everything as needed rather than having a staff, such as an electrician, plumber or realtor. You can chose to rent from those people and pay the fee, or large companies with staff, depending on what you want. You can go to an overpriced grocery store with personal attention where you get a cashier or the big Walmarts who have eliminated cashiers except for the handicapped register. We have options, but getting rid of realtors would probably just incentivize that 90 year old man to sell his properties to a large corporation who have staff to deal with vacancies.

1

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6ip6b9 wrote

You’re a broker. We get it.

1

modernhomeowner t1_j6is1v6 wrote

Literally said I'm not a broker nor a landlord. I just understand economics. Cheaper now doesn't mean cheaper later.

1

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6iwdp2 wrote

Not if you insist on paying an unnecessary middleman. I own and rent a condo in another market with much lower demand than Boston and would never even think that a broker is necessary for tenant acquisition.

2

modernhomeowner t1_j6j65sa wrote

A landlord has a choice to do the work themselves, have a staff, or hire experts (brokers, electricians, plumbers, etc). If the law forbids a landlord to charge for brokers (as it does for electricians and plumbers), it just increases the rent. As we see in NYC as they outlawed charging broker fees, rents went up to compensate. I'd be smiling ear to ear as a NY landlord, getting to raise the rent and keeping the excess each year the tenant stays.

The best part for consumers is if they want to pay the broker fee, they can, and it results them paying less over time. If they don't want to pay a broker fee, they can find someplace else, may end up paying more over time. It's a personal decision. Luckily for landlords, people are willing to pay extra to have the landlord pay the broker or their staff, or themselves.

Economist is a 9 letter word meaning cheap. If there is a way to get something cheap, I'll tell you; the law forcibly passing the broker fees to landlords isn't the way to do it.

0

HankAtGlobexCorp t1_j6jfmy0 wrote

Not once have you made a compelling argument for the existence of brokers for an average apartment and you keep referring to them as a necessity, which I disagree with.

Property management companies provide a service that alleviates a burden for passive landlords. Brokers do nothing for a typical renter or landlord for that matter that wouldn’t be better folded into a long term management service.

I disagree with housing as a rent seeking activity and do not do so above costs of paying a mortgage, HOA dues, and expected upkeep.

1

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6ia7jz wrote

The types of properties we've lived at the past 8-9 years have all been larger properties with management companies (and that's sort of what we're looking for). I do get what you're saying regarding broker fees for smaller "mom and pop" rentals. Those aren't common in most other parts of the country but the costs are rolled into the rent I'm sure.

1

modernhomeowner t1_j6ibb2q wrote

Those mom and pops are usually a great deal here. We rented a house (garage, 3 bed 2 full bath, living room, family room, dining room, backyard) for $500 less than we could get a 2 bedroom for in a building further from the T station. Who cares if I had to pay a broker fee if I was saving $6k a year; was there 2 years, saved $12k, not to mention had a way bigger place, better parking situation, outdoor space, etc. Just no gym, but I could walk to a gym, but also had plenty of space so I bought an elliptical and rack.

3

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6ibpst wrote

We would probably eventually end up in something like that (or possibly a condo - at our age we're tired of maintenance lol). Just when moving to a completely different part of the country we've found it easier to deal with an apartment building - easier to meet other people, less to know up front, etc.

Over the past 10 years we've managed to downsize from a 2700 sq foot 3-story home with a basement and storage shed into ~1100 sq. foot apartment so we're headed the other way lol.

1

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6gfa42 wrote

Have rented multiple places here in Minneapolis (including one of the most expensive in the city) and never paid a fee like that.

The key is finding complexes that are managed by larger national companies (Greystar, Lincoln Property Management, etc.) There's no "broker" to pay since you're dealing directly with the leasing office at the apartment complex.

−11

BeastCoast t1_j6gv0b6 wrote

Cool you did a thing that has nothing to do with the thing you’re asking about. What a flex!

21

cuddlebear t1_j6i6sve wrote

Based on your responses to folks who answered you, your high demands, unwillingness to be near families/community spaces, and your casual use of the words rape... any way we can convince you to stay in Saint Paul? Or at the very least move to a suburb decently far from where I live?

11

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6i9uyr wrote

Yes, I realized that the "r" word wasn't appropriate and changed my wording. Regarding families, we have our own but don't really want to be around them all the time at our age (trust me, you'll get there lol).

−6

cuddlebear t1_j6iasfy wrote

great, then don't move to a densely populated city or its surrounding walkable suburbs. Families and kids are part of what makes my neighborhood great.

4

allexesteven t1_j6ie6y6 wrote

if im reading this correctly -

  • more urban than suburban if you're looking for places to dine & drink in walkable distance
  • newer buildings with amenities....that's luxury condos. most of the buildings in the city are old and some recently renovated
  • don't like to be near families which means students or young professionals

seaport, somerville, JP, allston fit the bill best

  • no brokers fee or deposit...this gonna be near impossible. you can skip out brokers fee at some luxury condos but no deposit is tall order

reading your responses i don't think Boston might be for you

7

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6ifb75 wrote

Thanks for the honest/good info. And maybe I shouldn't have posted in the Boston Reddit and shot for more general MA area (since we already sort of knew that Boston itself wasn't going to work - a lot of people seem to be missing that I think).

We're definitely not suburb people (hate the 'burbs!). But we'd be open to a smaller city close to Boston where we could live in a downtown and have stuff to walk to right around us.

You're correct regarding either students or young professionals - there's a similar area in Minneapolis called the North Loop - full of young professionals but also older empty nesters and some retirees. It's mainly older converted warehouses/lofts with a ton of small retail and restaurants/bars nearby. Really exploded in the last 10 years or so.

Regarding deposit, we've never avoided having that, but a lot of larger properties have shifted to lower deposits now (normally nowhere near 1 month's rent).

−4

geminimad4 t1_j6jlm9o wrote

You should check out Providence! It may be a better fit for you than Boston in terms of affordability and being a smaller city.

9

allexesteven t1_j6ih73g wrote

i am afraid that anything outside of boston is going to be more suburban since that's where couples in 30-40s escape to eg: quincy, nashua, framingham, burlington, waltham, worcester

city is filled with univ students and young professionals starting out, which might be more to your liking. but city has lot more older buildings than new...which means they charge substantial premium...1 bed will cost 3k or over. anything lower and real estate agents will be there

i made my peace by choosing an older building...it's affordable, didn't pay broker fee + first & last month only, in a young vibrant area, in walking distance of cafes/diners/bars.

i would recommend coming with a budget, and from there prioritizing which things you absolutely want and what aspects you are willing to compromise on

7

ednamillion99 t1_j6ikobq wrote

Salem might fit the bill

6

LazarusLong67 OP t1_j6il98p wrote

Actually we’re coming out to the area next week just to look at some areas and Salem is one of the top places we’re considering. Just thought we’d check what might be between there and Boston.

3

herdswords t1_j6ljwg3 wrote

That’s what I was thinking. Nahant Salem Marblehead, Danvers, Revere Swampscott Admirals Hill in Chelsea is real nice too

1

phonesmahones t1_j6hwis4 wrote

Malden. There are some newer buildings in/near Malden center that could fit the bill. A friend of mine lived in the J building and loved it.

4

Mdecast t1_j6ph92i wrote

Check out the mill buildings in Lowell. Lowell does have some decent food options throughout the city.

They’ve done some good things with the mill properties. Then if you want you can always hop on the commuter rail into Boston, or take a car either way on. Route 3 or 495 and have access to more options in the neighboring towns

2