 |
Property Makler
Advanced analytics for residential real estate investing | ||||||||
|
Dubai, UAE US |
Dubai US Market Research
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH housing market
Housing market indicators
| Indicator | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025* | Change | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | YTD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Listing Price per Square Feet | $409 | $449 | $465 | $466 | -0.2% | 9.8% | 3.6% | 0.2% | |
| Active Listing Count | 4,407 | 4,063 | 4,107 | 7,941 | 25.8% | -7.8% | 1.1% | 93.4% | |
| Median Days on Market | 58 | 53 | 60 | 37 | 18.4% | -8.6% | 13.2% | -38.3% | |
| Share of listings with price increase | 0.7% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.5% | |||||
| Share of listings with price decrease | 12.3% | 12.2% | 13% | 14.9% | |||||
| Employees, thousands | 2,807 | 2,815 | 2,835 | 2,835 | 2% | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0% | |
* last available value
Home prices
Short term housing supply drivers
Long term housing demand drivers
Long term housing supply drivers
Note: 12M MA - 12 months moving average, Permits - New Private Housing Structures Authorized by Building Permits. Source: FRED
Housing market overview
Cities and towns in the Boston‑Cambridge‑Newton, MA‑NH MSA
- The MSA spans much of eastern Massachusetts plus southern New Hampshire, centered on Boston, Cambridge, and inner suburbs.
- Key regions for housing analysis:
• Urban core – Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, Malden
• Affluent inner suburbs – Newton, Brookline, Belmont, Lexington, Winchester, Arlington
• Middle‑income suburbs – Quincy, Medford, Waltham, Watertown, Melrose, Braintree
• Outer/I‑495 suburbs – Framingham, Marlborough, Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, Nashua NH, Salem NH
• Exurban/coastal – towns on North Shore, South Shore, and semi‑rural I‑495 belt - Below table focuses on representative municipalities (not full MSA list) that drive most housing activity.
| Area | City/town | Population (approx) | Density (people/sq mi, approx) | Income level | Quality of schools (GreatSchools – typical range) | Crime level (relative within MSA) | Property tax (approx effective rate %) | Personal income tax | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban core | Boston, MA | ~675,000 | ~14,000 | Mixed – from low to very high | 2–9 (wide variation by neighborhood) | Higher than MSA average; varies strongly by area | ~1.0–1.1 | None local | Highest job density; strong transit; heavy condo and multifamily stock; strict zoning and high entitlement risk in many neighborhoods. |
| Urban core | Cambridge, MA | ~120,000 | ~16,000 | High | 6–10 (very strong public options; magnets) | Moderate urban; generally lower than Boston’s highest‑crime areas | ~0.9–1.0 | None local | Anchored by Harvard & MIT; very high prices and rents; intense demand from tech/biotech and academia; inclusionary zoning and strong tenant protections. |
| Urban core | Somerville, MA | ~81,000 | ~19,000 | Upper‑middle | 5–9 | Moderate urban | ~1.1 | None local | Densifying with Green Line Extension; strong multifamily and triple‑decker stock; active planning and affordability requirements. |
| Affluent inner suburb | Newton, MA | ~90,000 | ~4,900 | Very high | 7–10 (among top in state) | Low | ~0.9 | None local | Predominantly single‑family; long‑standing resistance to dense zoning but state pressure is increasing; strong appreciation history. |
| Affluent inner suburb | Brookline, MA | ~63,000 | ~9,500 | Very high | 7–10 | Low | ~1.1 | None local | Bordering Boston; high‑rise condos plus large pre‑war multifamily; strict historic and design controls; extremely high entry prices. |
| Affluent inner suburb | Lexington, MA | ~36,000 | ~2,200 | Very high | 8–10 | Very low | ~1.0 | None local | Top schools and historic character; primarily single‑family; limited new multifamily; chronic supply shortage. |
| Middle‑income suburb | Quincy, MA | ~103,000 | ~6,200 | Middle to upper‑middle | 4–7 | Moderate | ~1.0 | None local | MBTA Red Line access; significant new mid‑rise construction around stations; relative affordability versus core. |
| Middle‑income suburb | Waltham, MA | ~66,000 | ~5,000 | Upper‑middle | 5–8 | Moderate | ~1.1 | None local | Strong office and life‑science corridor along Route 128; diverse housing stock; student demand (Brandeis/Bentley). |
| Gateway city / outer corridor | Lowell, MA | ~115,000 | ~8,500 | Low to middle | 2–7 | Higher than MSA average | ~1.3 | None local | Historic mill city; large multifamily and mill loft inventory; relatively affordable; higher operating risk but strong long‑term repositioning. |
| Gateway city / outer corridor | Lawrence, MA | ~90,000 | ~11,000 | Low | 1–4 | High | ~1.5 | None local | Significant poverty; active mill redevelopment; strong renter demand and lower price points; political focus on affordability. |
| Outer MA suburb | Framingham, MA | ~73,000 | ~2,800 | Middle | 3–7 | Moderate | ~1.4 | None local | MBTA commuter rail; diverse population; mix of multifamily, retail, and industrial; room for redevelopment around commercial corridors. |
| NH urban | Nashua, NH | ~92,000 | ~2,900 | Middle to upper‑middle | 4–8 | Moderate | ~1.8–2.0 | None local (NH has no wage income tax) | Draws MA commuters; no state income tax; higher property taxes; strong SFR demand from price‑sensitive buyers. |
| NH inner suburb | Salem, NH | ~32,000 | ~1,400 | Middle | 4–8 | Low to moderate | ~1.7–1.9 | None local | Retail hub (Rockingham Park/Route 28); popular with relocating MA households seeking lower tax burden. |
To view all table columns, please open this table on a laptop or desktop screen.
Citizens: income and education
- MSA population ~5.0M; median household income roughly high six figures compared to US, among the top large metros.
- Income distribution:
• Large upper‑middle and high‑income segments in core and inner suburbs
• Persistent low‑income pockets in gateway cities (Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Brockton) and parts of Boston. - Education:
• One of the most highly educated US metros
• High share of adults with bachelor’s or higher, especially in Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, Lexington, Arlington
• Strong graduate and professional degree concentration around universities and R&D corridors. - Demographics:
• Significant student and recent‑graduate population, creating strong rental demand
• Growing Asian and Hispanic communities; long‑term immigration has supported population and housing demand.
Key economic sectors
- Higher education and research
• Harvard, MIT, BU, Northeastern, UMass, Tufts, plus many smaller institutions
• Drives demand for faculty, staff, student, and spinoff‑company housing. - Biotech, life sciences, and healthcare
• Global hub in Cambridge, Boston Seaport, Longwood, Route 128/Route 2 corridors
• Stable, high‑wage employment; strong private and NIH funding. - Technology and digital
• Software, AI, robotics clusters in Cambridge, Seaport, Waltham, Burlington, and along Route 128
• Mix of big‑tech offices and startup ecosystem. - Financial and professional services
• Asset management, insurance, consulting, law concentrated downtown and in Back Bay
• Office‑to‑residential conversion potential in some submarkets as hybrid work persists. - Manufacturing / advanced manufacturing
• Smaller share than historically but still present in gateway cities and NH
• Some transition toward advanced manufacturing and logistics in outer corridors. - Tourism, hospitality, and culture
• Strong but cyclical; supports short‑term rental demand in certain neighborhoods (subject to local regulation).
Housing buying market – supply drivers
- Zoning and land‑use constraints
• Many MA suburbs maintain low‑density zoning, large lots, and height limits that severely restrict new SFR and multifamily supply.
• Transit‑oriented upzoning is advancing under state MBTA Communities laws, but implementation is uneven and politically contentious.
• Cambridge, Somerville, Boston allow more density but pair it with strict design review, inclusionary requirements, and long entitlement timelines. - Regulatory strictness and permitting
• Strong neighborhood activism and lengthy public‑hearing processes in many towns.
• Historic districts, coastal regulations, and environmental review slow or limit infill in key locations.
• High inclusionary zoning percentages in Boston/Cambridge and linkage fees for larger projects raise pro‑forma thresholds. - Construction costs and workforce
• Labor costs significantly above national average; union labor prevalent on large projects.
• High soft costs (architecture, legal, permitting) and expensive insurance for urban infill.
• Limited skilled‑trade capacity constrains how much new supply can be delivered annually. - Land scarcity
• Built‑out inner core; marginal infill often requires teardown, assemblage, or environmental remediation.
• Outer suburbs and NH have more greenfield opportunities but increasingly face local opposition and infrastructure constraints. - Financing and interest rates
• High land and soft costs mean projects are very interest‑rate sensitive.
• Credit tightening and construction‑loan constraints have delayed some large multifamily and condo projects, limiting forward supply. - Public policy incentives
• State‑level push for multifamily near transit could gradually raise supply in compliant communities.
• Tax‑increment financing and local incentives used selectively for mill conversions and mixed‑use in gateway cities.
Housing buying market – demand drivers
- Migration and population trends
• Overall MSA population growth is modest but positive.
• Net domestic out‑migration from high‑cost urban areas partially offset by:
– International immigration
– In‑migration of students and early‑career professionals
– Movement from more expensive inner core to relatively cheaper outer suburbs and NH. - Growing industries
• Biotech and life sciences – continues to be a major driver of high‑income professional households in Cambridge, Boston, and Route 128 suburbs.
• Technology / AI / robotics – growth supports demand in Cambridge, Somerville, Boston Seaport, Waltham, Burlington.
• Healthcare – growing with aging population; stable demand generator throughout the region, particularly near major medical centers. - Remote/hybrid work reshaping preferences
• Some demand shifts from small urban condos toward larger suburban and exurban homes with home‑office space.
• NH and outer‑belt towns benefit as buyers trade longer commutes for lower prices and taxes. - Investor and institutional demand
• Strong institutional interest in Class A multifamily near transit and in life‑science corridors.
• Smaller investors target triple‑deckers and small multifamily in Boston, Somerville, Medford, gateway cities, and NH markets with favorable cash flow. - Constrained for‑sale inventory
• Long‑term owners with low mortgage rates are reluctant to sell, keeping listing inventory very tight.
• New condo delivery has not been sufficient to materially loosen supply in most desirable submarkets.
Key challenges in the housing market
- Affordability crisis
• Home prices and rents far exceed national averages; cost burden is high even for middle‑income households.
• Essential workers increasingly pushed to outer suburbs and NH, increasing commuting and congestion. - Regulatory and political constraints
• Local opposition to density slows or blocks multifamily in many high‑opportunity suburbs.
• Tension between state‑level pro‑housing mandates and municipal home‑rule traditions. - Infrastructure and transit limitations
• Aging transit infrastructure and service disruptions affect attractiveness of some core neighborhoods.
• Limited transit access in some growth corridors constrains car‑free development patterns. - Economic concentration risk
• Heavy reliance on biotech, higher education, and tech creates vulnerability to sector‑specific downturns, funding cycles, or policy changes (e.g., NIH budgets). - Climate and coastal risk
• Sea‑level rise and storm‑surge risk in coastal neighborhoods (Seaport, East Boston, Revere, Quincy, North/South Shore towns).
• Insurance costs and resiliency investments add to development and ownership expenses in at‑risk areas. - Inequality across submarkets
• Large gap between affluent inner suburbs with elite schools and under‑resourced gateway cities.
• Policy focus on fair housing and equitable transit‑oriented development may alter zoning and investment patterns over time.
Investment potential by area / region
| Area | Appreciation potential | Risk | Key drivers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston – prime urban core (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Seaport) | High (long‑term) | Moderate | Global demand; tight supply; proximity to jobs and culture; some risk from office softness and climate exposure in waterfront districts. |
| Boston – emerging and transitional neighborhoods (Dorchester, East Boston, Jamaica Plain, Roslindale) | High | Moderate to high | Relative affordability; transit access; infill and small‑multifamily renovation; political risk around rent control and tenant protections. |
| Cambridge & Somerville | High but mature | Moderate | Anchored by universities and life sciences; extremely tight land; policy risk (strong regulation, affordability mandates) but resilient demand. |
| Affluent inner suburbs (Newton, Brookline, Lexington, Belmont, Winchester, Arlington) | High | Low to moderate | Top schools; low crime; chronic under‑building; family‑driven demand; potential upside from gradual upzoning near transit. |
| Middle‑income inner ring (Quincy, Medford, Waltham, Watertown, Malden, Everett) | Moderate to high | Moderate | Transit access; spillover from core; active mid‑rise development; some cap‑rate expansion risk if new supply clusters around stations. |
| Gateway cities (Lowell, Lawrence, Lynn, Brockton, Haverhill) | Moderate (higher yield focus) | High | Lower entry prices and higher cap rates; demographic and crime risk; school‑quality perception; dependence on state investment and successful mill/DT revitalization. |
| Outer MA suburbs and I‑495 belt (Framingham, Marlborough, Westborough, Northborough, etc.) | Moderate | Moderate | More land availability; strong demand from remote/hybrid workers; reliance on auto commuting; local zoning may cap large‑scale multifamily upside. |
| NH border cities and suburbs (Nashua, Salem, Derry, Hudson, Londonderry) | Moderate to high | Moderate | No state income tax; attractive to MA commuters and remote workers; higher property taxes but lower home prices; demand sensitive to cross‑border job and commuting patterns. |
| Coastal suburbs (Marblehead, Swampscott, Nahant, Cohasset, Hingham, South Shore towns) | High (select pockets) | Moderate | Lifestyle and amenity premium; limited buildable land; elevated long‑term climate and insurance risk, especially in low‑lying waterfront zones. |
| Rural/exurban fringe within MSA | Low to moderate | Moderate | More elastic land supply; car‑dependent; appreciates when core prices spike but more vulnerable in downturns as buyers prioritize access and amenities. |
To view all table columns, please open this table on a laptop or desktop screen.
Property Makler © 2026 Contacts T&C About