Rent the Driveway vs. Rent the Runway?

We have become a society where everything can be temporary.  I was reading an article in last Sunday's paper about a woman who rented her apartment, her furniture, and her clothes!  She was happy not to be making a commitment to her belongings long term, but it seems to fly in the face of another trend--the Danish hygge (nesting, cozy).

When people want to nest, to feel comfortable and at home, do they want to rent?  Even the also-trendy "tidying up" movement, where you only keep what gives you joy, seems to imply that what gives you joy you want to own.

Although millennials are said to be firm renters in central cities, even they appear to head for homes, often in the suburbs, when they marry and have children.  There seems to have arisen a happy medium:  Now there is no stigma about renting.  People may choose to rent in order to try out a new area, vacation or temporarily relocate, split their time between two locations, or save money while they look for the perfect home. Those same people who get dress clothes from Rent the Runway can decide to rent a driveway, and sometimes not even spend more.

There is also no stigma in owning, and others may choose that route.  In the way that most of us have favorite lounging clothes, old and treasured jeans, and maybe even some childhood stuffed animals, many will choose to luxuriate in a space all their own.  They may want to feel settled, even as others want no ties.  They may want the enforced savings that paying a mortgage can provide.

Although we both sell and rent property, we tend to come down on the side of owning, at least in some periods of life.  Building or buying a homestead, where a family can gather and make memories, is still the American dream.  But the great thing is, you can choose for yourself.  And there's something for everyone.

Financial Times Article

Yesterday, I posted an article from Financial Times of London, comparing the New Haven market to the Cambridge, MA one.  We lost.  I thought it was not a fair comparison.  New Haven is a very different place--it's a center city, with suburbs around it.  Cambridge IS a suburb, of Boston.  It seems to me that that makes them very different, with many more low-income areas in New Haven. 

Having lived in both places, I don't find them as disparate as the article would make them appear.  Harvard has always had a very good PR image, and has managed to weather bad news without making as many headlines.  Most people would no more walk through Cambridge Common after dark than stroll across the New Haven Green.  Yet, somehow, the national media has always presented New Haven as a dangerous place in which to live or attend school, while Cambridge comes across as a trendy, high-end metropolis.  Granted, Yale has more high-crime areas within walking distance than Cambridge does, but the subway system in Boston has the potential to deliver crime there as well.  My old dorm had an incident a few years ago, where someone was killed after a student opened the gate for a "townie" (yes, Harvard now locks its gates as well). 

It is true that Cambridge has two major institutions--Harvard and MIT--compared to New Haven's Yale, and that the biotech spinoff effect is therefore twice as great.  It's also true that dual-career couples have a somewhat easier time both finding jobs in the Boston area (although New Haven offers the possibility of NYC).  Real estate values are indeed higher in Cambridge, especially since Massachusetts is undoubtedly further along in its recovery from the Great Recession.  Yet I would argue that both are residential hubs, with lively nightlife, lots of educational institutions, and plenty to do.  I would even give New Haven the edge in the arts, especially if you take Boston out of the equation.  There may be statistical truth to the article, but it presents a very one-sided look at the numbers, in my opinion.

Who Would Have Thought It?

If someone had told us twenty years ago that the center city's residential properties would be holding value better than those in the suburbs--better even than direct waterfront--we probably would have scoffed. It's clear right now that the hot market is New Haven--the closer to downtown, the better.

This isn't by accident. President Levin of Yale, who has been in office for fifteen years, lived in New Haven for many years before he became Yale's leader (and, in fact, has continued to live in his own home, rather than the one that Yale provides). He has made it clear that he would be happy if every new hire lived there as well. The last time that I heard, 47% of Yale's senior faculty lived within the city limits. In today's New Haven Advocate, the stated equivalents of New Haven's municipal police and firefighters were 13% and 17%. Yale's showing clearly represents the payoff of a long-term strategy.

There is another factor at work, however. Current demographics favor the central city, although this is a change from earlier generations. Young professionals have always preferred urban life, but now, increasingly, so do empty nesters. The arts, the dining, the conveniences, and the lack of commuting time have all contributed to make New Haven a popular housing choice. Even those with school-age children, if those children attend one of the city's prestigious private schools, have been moving into the city neighborhoods.

And that's all good news for the region, since a vibrant city makes for healthier suburbs.