WooNoto t1_j53gwo5 wrote
Build some condos that local residents can buy for the love of God.
These new apartment owners are not even locally based. It’s enough, let locals own these condos. Keep the money in Worcester.
NativeMasshole t1_j53ljxa wrote
I don't think that's ever going to happen without some kind of subsidization. Or public housing. Both of which have obvious issues. Other than that, nobody is building anything you or I could afford.
legalpretzel t1_j56ekhp wrote
This. I have a coworker who would love to buy a condo but it needs to be on a bus line because they don’t drive…there aren’t many out there that meet their needs.
WooNoto t1_j56f3oh wrote
Worcester badly needs to do address the public transit problem. It is a joke and no one cares about the people that depend on it. It’s ridiculous.
Robespierrexvii t1_j56ocze wrote
I'm new to the area (coming up on a year in Worcester) and this was what floored me about this city. The lack of any coherent transit system, or in reality, the lack of support for any mode of transportation that isn't a car. I can't run more than like 9 miles uninterrupted in this town. I don't think I've seen a single bike lane the whole time I've been here.
Reliable public transit, bike infrastructure, or even just sidewalks that don't just end/have trees growing out the middle of them would be a great start to actually help this city achieve it's full potential. These are the kinds of things that increase opportunity for citizens in a city. More opportunities means more financially secure citizens, more people with expendable income, and in turn better economic health. Cars are expensive and often cause more financial hardship in the long or sometimes short term. I lived in Milwaukee WI, for about a decade without having a car. If I had needed one I'm not sure I would have made it through school. I really don't know how people make it in this town without a car.
eyice t1_j5b50qp wrote
it's so crazy to me—public transport & walkable neighborhoods are one of the best ways to make the city desirable for more people without immediately fucking over the lower income people already living in those areas, and yet it's totally being casted aside
WooNoto t1_j57vmsf wrote
Worcester residents want more parking sadly. They don’t understand that so many don’t want to drive in this city with hills everywhere. Improved public transit and pedestrian infrastructure is a benefit for EVERYONE. Drivers, non drivers, businesses, the city, etc, but people are extremely selfish.
I’m not tuned in politically so I couldn’t tell you what’s stopping the city govt from doing something about this, but I’m sure it has to do with money.
AceOfTheSwords t1_j5a1yps wrote
There's also the fact that the WRTA is not directly under the control of city government. The city council and various committees have much more control over where a parking garage goes than they do on the hiring of more bus drivers and restructuring of bus routes.
AceOfTheSwords t1_j59y5dm wrote
For what it's worth, where these and other apartments are being built (walking distance from the hub) is pretty much the ideal location to live in if you want to use the current bus system. Having basically any bus be able to take you home is a massive improvement.
AceOfTheSwords t1_j5a1bhj wrote
Looking at Zillow there are currently three condos for sale near downtown that are either directly on or within a tenth of a mile of Pleasant St, which has a bus route. Granted that's still not a ton of options but it's also the middle of winter. It's pretty near comparable to the number of options someone looking for a single family home in Newton Square or Tatnuck would be facing at the moment, for example. Or really just most single requirements imposed on a search would get you to that limited a selection.
But maybe there are other requirements that haven't been specified that limit the options even further.
Cran125GPS t1_j5b7ocn wrote
Condos in a building like this unfortunately aren't going to happen. It's not financially feasible in a market like Worcester, for a number of reasons.
Trying to be helpful here, not argumentative, so here are a few reasons:
The return per square foot just isn't there. You can rent these units for a higher psf rate than you can sell them. I know everyone is complaining about housing costs here in Worcester, but the reality is that you can buy a single family home for less cost per square foot than it would take to build a similarly sized condo, by a large margin (about $200-$300psf to buy vs $500 psf to build where you'd need to sell for $700psf to make a return) so they aren't economically viable. No one is going to buy a 700k 1,000SF condo in Worcester.
Condos are significantly more expensive to build than apartments, which excacerbates the problem. The level of finishes on a condo tend to be higher, and the build quality has to be higher. When you are renting an appartment, it's pretty much take it or leave it to the person that wants to rent. In a condo building you want to pre sell, and then there are always issues when the units are built of people that bought the condo coming and and having crazy punch lists and huge battles trying to finish the project. It's just a huge headache that developers don't want to deal with.
Continuing on the last point, if you are a developer buidling these as appartments, it's a one owner sitsituation. You either hold it and make money of the rents, or you sell it to an institutional buyer that really only cares about the cash flow coming in. If these were condos, you now have 100 different buyers to deal with, and a condo association to deal with while you are trying to unload the rest of the units. Everyone knows how much of a pain HOAs are and building condos means you have to deal with one. All it takes is a few angry buyers to sue for whatever they want and you can be locked up in years of legal battles. I think you are on the hook for 10 years. So people just don't want the liability and renting as appartments makes all thay headache go away.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments