Hello Lisa. One of the reasons why I'm so proud and amazed by the South End is its recovery. Not long ago (within my lifetime) the area was a dump. There were some ok areas, and there were some beautiful homes, but they were the exception, not the rule. It seems to clean up a little more each day.

I'm amazed at these houses. My uncle lived in the South end in the 80's and I hated going to visit him, the places were so small and so run down. The houses have certainly come a long way from them. I hope whom ever owns these properties keeps up the good work.

Hello bikes2work. Common Ground is one of my favorite books. I have so much fun seeing things in Boston that I read about in that book. J Anthony Lucas' historical descriptions are amazing. I think anyone interested in Boston enough to veiw this website might enjoy the book. It should be required reading in Boston high schools. I was saddened to read Mr.Lucas killed himself in 1997.


After I wrote about the Diver's house on Newton,I read that they sold the house in 1976 for $65,000. In the same article, Colin mentioned they stay in the bed & breakfast right next to their old house when they come to town. I'd love to know how much of the current house is from the Diver's restoration.

A couple of posts asked about the history of the South End. Right now I'm reading "Common Ground" which is a great history of Boston (set in the context of school busing, but really a history of the whole city). I haven't finished yet, but it describes how the South End was originally conceived a grand new area for the wealthy in the 1850's. However for various reasons it fell into decline as soon as the 1880's. One of those reasons was that the Back Bay was built in the late 1800's (note: the Back Bay was built *after* the South End) which given the proximity of the Back Bay to Beacon Hill, pulled the wealthy residents in that direction.

By 1900 the South End had declined to the point that it had 37,000 lodgers (living in one room slum apartments basically), the most lodgers of any area in the country. It wasn't until the Prudential Center was built in the mid 1960's that the area started to gentrify, a process that we see continuing to this today.

Anyway, if you find this stuff interesting, I really recommend "Common Ground", it's something like $12 on Amazon.

Hello All. Thanks for dropping by. Often overlooked in the history of the area is the lack of rapid transit. The Washington Street/Harrison Ave area never had any real transportation. The Evelvated cut through the area, but it never really served the people of the South End-just two stops on the edge of the 'hood. The east side of the neighborhood wasn't easily accessable to anyone without a car, possibly lowering land values. Lower land values could have attracted land-hungry industry.
If that's how the area developed, it could explain why the same area isn't as valuable today: no rapid transit=less desirable residential properties=no retail=lower land values. It's only a theory: I have nothing substantial to back it up.

No freaking here Jeff. You're right that price may have a lot to do with it because that particular property has been on the market for 200+ days.

But that said, Alyk's overall observation on the pricing trend within quadrants of the South End still holds: If the one bedroom in question was reduced to 399K for example, it would still trump the others on a price per square foot asking price of over $700.

I think Alyk's observations are spot on but again, perhaps the more interesting comparison would be a building like 9 Appleton Street (that Alyk wrote about yesterday) which is a midrise in the northeast quadrant, recently renovated with upgraded common areas along with the Tremont and Harrison mid-rises.

I know people might freak if I mention this possibility, but perhaps the properties were overpriced in a cooling market. I mean come on... $450k for less than 600 sqft? Good grief.

The northwest and in particular, northeast corners of the South End have always mirrored a similar value that buyers place on the blocks of Back Bay and Beacon Hill closest to the Public Garden. Arguably a similar landmark for the South End might be proximity to Copley Square, although I imagine if you asked three South Enders what they consider a desirable landmark to be near you may get three separate answers from Copley Square to Union Park to Blackstone Park.

In the northeast and northwest corners of the neighborhood, like similar areas of the Back Bay and Beacon Hill, many of the condominium conversions and renovations are now 20+ years old, so absent recent updating by individual sellers, prices p.s.f are often lower not higher than new construction in the southeast and southwest corners.

I think a comparison which would confirm your observation when researched would be if all three properties were a similar product, for example units within renovated townhouses. In the examples you used, Lawrence Street is a classic townhouse based unit whereas Tremont Street is in a late 1980s mid-rise and Harrison Avenue is a new construction mid-rise.

Your reasons seem the most logical. Historically, I don't know how the neighborhood was built - was it from the Back Bay down toward Washington St, or Washington St & Columbia Park toward the Back Bay?

The buildings on Harrison & Albany just don't lend themselves to much "quality of life" so that's why they aren't as popular. Also, distance from T, as you say, is very important.

The area near the corner of Berkeley (then, Dover) and Harrison was a very bad slum, at one time; it may be that it has never recovered.

I don't think having a homeless shelter is a terribly big negative, for that area. It's more that the buildings around there are monstrous ... including having the "Mother Church" as a neighbor.

The public housing between Washington & Harrison is also something that keeps the neighborhood developing. There's no room for the cute little shops that people with baby carriages love to visit.

I agree that the hospital is not a great neighbor, since there are usually ambulances with sirens wherever there are hospitals. Having said that, Worcester Sq is a beautiful place to live, from what I hear.

You need density for neighborhoods to thrive (hello, Jane Jacobs?), so Washington Street is too wide and Albany and Harrison Ave has too few low-rise buildings. Tremont is the de facto "retail district", but it developed over twenty years - which is both slow and fast.

Columbus Ave had potential as retail, but it's growth was stymied by the blocks of co-ops / "affordable housing" buildings, which, while giving the neighborhood "density", did not lend itself to a healthy retail environment.

The streets closest to Back Bay are considered more appealing because they are short, narrow, and therefor, "attractive". And, because they were the first to be rediscovered after the urban decay in the 1950's and 1960's.

The area down near Harrison & Berkeley would also still be considered "desirable" if the city hadn't torn down the entire "New York Streets" neighborhood and replaced it with the Herald building.

But, the building is up for sale, so maybe it can be reclaimed?