(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
Jason Mackey, Somerville Resident
When my partner and I moved to Somerville back in September 2019, it was a deliberate choice. We were tired of the sky-high rents and the cold, impersonal vibe of Kendall Square. We wanted to be part of a real community – someplace where neighbors actually knew each other, where local shops were part of everyday life, and where we could feel truly connected. And Somerville gave us that. But fast forward a few years, and it feels like this community is under siege. Rising rents and the ever-climbing cost of living are pushing out not just families, but also artists, longtime residents, and small business owners—the very people who make this city special.
Now, I know there’s a lot of debate about how to fix this. Some folks are calling for more affordable housing. And don’t get me wrong, affordable housing – housing that’s specifically priced to be within reach for people earning less money – is important. But focusing only on affordable housing isn’t going to solve the bigger problem. We need to be thinking about building more market-rate housing too. Let me explain why.
Greater Boston, including Somerville, is dealing with a serious housing shortage. There just aren’t enough places to live, and that’s driving up prices everywhere. Imagine Somerville as a popular restaurant with only 100 tables. Every night, 150 people want to eat there. What happens? The restaurant can hike up prices, and only the wealthiest 100 customers get to eat. The other 50 people are out of luck – or they end up driving up prices at other nearby restaurants. It’s the same deal with housing. If we don’t have enough market-rate housing, people with more money are going to compete for the limited homes we do have, pushing up rents and home prices for everyone else.
Here’s where market-rate housing comes in. When new market-rate housing gets built, it’s usually pretty pricey at first, attracting higher-income folks. But over time, these units age and naturally become more affordable – a process called “filtering.” Just like how today’s luxury car eventually becomes tomorrow’s used car bargain, today’s fancy apartment could become a middle-income family’s home in a decade or two. So, by building more market-rate housing now, we’re actually creating a future supply of homes that will help ease pressure on older, more affordable housing down the line.
If we only build affordable housing, we’re not addressing the root of the problem: supply and demand. Wealthier people who can’t find new, high-end places to live will turn to the older, cheaper units, and that competition drives up prices. By increasing market-rate housing, we give those with higher incomes a place to go, which takes the pressure off the existing, more affordable units and keeps them within reach for those who need them most.
Plus, speaking frankly – if we make it all about affordable housing, developers might just stop building altogether. Construction costs are high, especially around here, and developers need to see a return on their investment. Market-rate housing can help make these projects financially viable, and when we pair that with smart policies – like inclusionary zoning that requires a percentage of new units to be affordable – we can create mixed-income communities that keep Somerville vibrant and diverse.
Another point is land. We’re running out of it. In dense places like Somerville, where space is tight, building higher is a no-brainer. Going vertical lets us add more homes without eating up what little land we have left, helping to keep prices from going through the roof.
So, focusing only on affordable housing? It’s not the silver bullet we want it to be. Without enough market-rate housing, we’re just going to keep pushing prices higher. And that’s bad news for everyone, especially the people who need affordable housing the most.
The bottom line is this: we need a balanced approach. Yes, affordable housing is important, but we can’t ignore the role that market-rate housing plays in the bigger picture. If we want Somerville – and Greater Boston – to stay a place where people of all income levels can live, work, and thrive, we’ve got to build more housing across the board. That means market-rate housing too. It’s not about resisting change; it’s about shaping it in a way that benefits as many people as possible, keeping our communities strong and inclusive for years to come.
What a surprise that the venture capitalist who fled Kendall square after the actions of venture capital ruined the neighborhood wants to do the same thing to Somerville. Personally, I think the opinion of someone whose VC fund is financing a company specializing in crowdfunding Fix and Flip real estate investing (one of the things driving up the rent, and which sounds suspiciously pyramid shaped) should be taken even less seriously than those of an anonymous internet commentor.
Not to defend a VC, but Kendall Square has been an industrial wasteland since forever. It was home to dozens of manufacturing plants and factories fromo the mid-19th century onward.
This is trickle down logic applied to housing. It won’t work.
These responses are caricatures of blue-state dysfunction. First we have some self-defeating identity-based attacks, then we have some mindless “blame capitalism” salad tossed into the mix.
How on earth does the only solution to this problem get so much negativity?
You need to build the houses. Somerville adds what, a few dozen “affordable” units per year? A nice kettle full of water to a nine-alarm fire.
80% of new apartment buildings will be market-rate, per Somerville zoning rules.
Do you somehow think that there is no market rate housing being built? We don’t need to encourage and advocate for market rate housing. That’s already being built by developers, whether we want it or not. If we did not advocate for affordable housing, and also for specifically low income and subsidized housing, none would exist. Families can’t wait for the expensive market rate housing to become old and in disrepair before it can be rented out at a price that they can afford. Affordable housing and low income subsidized housing have requirements for income levels, so the so-called rich people who are looking for a good deal don’t qualify for it. And they can go out and easily find a market rate place to live.
Ok. Anon, your attack on venture capital is wild. Investing in early-stage startups has nothing to do with housing. My guess is you’re purposely confusing venture capital for private equity. My role as a VC is to support innovation and economic growth, not to dictate urban planning or housing policies. If anything, VC-backed companies contribute to local economies by creating jobs and opportunities, not by driving up rents.
Katie A., Would love to hear why you’re against investing in startups, or at least why defending a VC is somehow wrong … but you’re correct about Kendall Square. It’s always been a soulless food desert.
Slaw, calling this “trickle-down logic” is just lazy rhetoric. What I’m advocating for is a practical approach to supply and demand. More housing means more options, which in turn helps to stabilize prices. It’s not a theory; it’s how markets work.
Jorbis, you’re spot on. The negativity here is reflective of a broader unwillingness to accept market-based solutions, even when they’re the most viable options. Building a handful of affordable units won’t put a dent in the housing crisis—we need a massive increase in supply across all types of housing to make any real impact.
Marian, while it’s true that 80% of new apartments may be market-rate, the issue isn’t just the ratio—it’s the overall number of units being built. We’re not keeping up with demand, and that’s why prices keep climbing. We somehow need to make up a 5,500-unit deficit by 2030 just to keep up with population growth.
And to the other Marian, I hear your concerns, but ignoring the need for market-rate housing is a mistake. Yes, we need affordable housing, but that alone won’t solve the crisis. If we don’t increase the supply at all levels, we’re going to keep pushing prices up, which only hurts the very people affordable housing is meant to help. Market-rate housing isn’t the enemy; it’s part of a balanced solution.
Bottom line: we need to focus on expanding the housing supply across the board—market-rate, affordable, and everything in between. Ignoring the basics of supply and demand won’t help anyone, no matter how much we wish it would.