The average Boston renter spends 47% of their income on housing. In Seattle, it's 28%. Why?
The average Boston renter spends 47% of their income on housing. In Seattle, it's 28%. Why?
With the biotech, university and hospital sectors growing, Boston's zoning laws often prevent new housing from being built, driving up rent prices exponentially.
You're viewing a single thread.
There's actually a decent sized income gap between the two cities, which no doubt contributes. Rents looks very comparable.
Median income for the city of Boston: $89,212 (source)
Median income for the city of Seattle: $116,068 (source)
Per the same source,
- median gross rent is very comparable between the two cities ($1,945 vs. $1,981 in Seattle vs Boston, respectively)
- Seattle has a higher percentage of its population with college degrees, which likely explains some of the higher income
- Seattle also has a higher percentage of owner-occupied homes, which probably influences this, though I'm not exactly sure how.
Seattle, the actual city proper, only has a population of around 800k. But during work hours, it has a population of around 2.5 million.
Basically a huge amount of people live outside the city limits, all the lower wage workers.
Boston probably has a larger proportion of more poor people actually within its city limits.