Is Boston designed for babies? [Archive]

czsz

02-26-2008, 04:18 PM

Ron Newman

02-26-2008, 04:35 PM

What is left in this city for adults?

Every bar and club (minimum age is 21). Every bookstore except the one you mentioned. Lots of lectures and concerts and other events at the local universities and colleges. All of the sports teams. The ballet. The symphony. The opera. The ART and the Huntington Theatre. The Harvard Film Archive and the Brattle and Coolidge cinemas. The golf courses.

I've never found Boston and Cambridge lacking in activities for adults. I'm single and childless, but I don't consider children to be some kind of threat or menace to my enjoyment of our city.

czsz

02-26-2008, 05:11 PM

It's not really a matter of Boston and Cambridge lacking activities for adults, nor is it that this constitutes a "threat or menace" to enjoying the city. It's that the activities that entice adults alone are so overwhelmed by and underemphasized compared to those offered to or for children. What's more, everything you listed save the bars/clubs (and we all know this city's nightlife is somewhat lacking) is regularly used and/or enjoyed by children - particularly the sports teams.

This city could be better if we struck a somewhat different balance.

Beton Brut

02-26-2008, 05:25 PM

...I don't consider children to be some kind of threat or menace to my enjoyment of our city.

The parents worry some of us...

Seriously, today's posts on this thread have more to do with parenting and the possible horror of subjecting young children to the inconvenience of public transportation (full disclosure -- I think the T, taken as a whole, is an embarrassment and a disgrace) than anything else.

Welcome back Ronwell!

briv

02-26-2008, 06:57 PM

It's not just this parking garage. It's the whole approach taken by the city and taken up by the media - the same homogenization process that brought us Friendly Fenway. The Platonic ideal of downtown Boston for groups editorializing in the Globe is always something that will delight and amuse families frolicking around on seasonable weekends. Parents and pastoralists brought us the family-friendly Greenway, the family-friendly aquarium, the family-friendly Quincy Market, the family-friendly Freedom Trail, the family-friendly Enchanted Village/Chowdafest and other nonsense that occupies City Hall Plaza on its two purposeful days, City Hall Plaza to begin with (because Scollay Square was certainly not family-friendly), the dead and antiseptic Theater District where you can see the Lion King and not much else (alas poor Combat Zone), the continuing presence of the dangerous-for-pedestrians-but-family-friendly Duck Tours, all the family-friendly gimmickery of central Boston parks (swan boats, Make Way for Ducklings, Frog Pond, the whole of First Night and its G-rated entertainment), the impending hypergentrification of Downtown Crossing (because thrift stores and gangs of teens hanging out were not family friendly, and, by the way, families can only come from the suburbs), lest I forget: the Science Museum (great for field trips, useless for learning anything about post-1970 developments in science), and, of course, the Children's Museum.

Don't get me started on Cambridge and its Curious George Bookstore and Harry Potter street fairs.

Even Charlie of Charlie Card fame is a cute little cartoon character.

What is left in this city for adults? A strip of shitty Irish sports bars here or there?

I don't know if it's the family-friendly-ization as much as it is the theme-park-ification of Boston. By that I mean the conscious effort, whenever the city is faced with an long-term planning decision, to create attractions, or "destinations", rather than laying down a few parameters and simply letting real places happen. The Greenway, with its manufactured cultural attractions, and the Seaport convention district are just two of the most recent and tragic products of such theme-park thinking.

In vibrant cities, that which CZ laments as being increasingly absent from today's Boston -- aka culture -- doesn't need to be conjured up by armchair imagineers, but emerges naturally. But it does need real places, densely populated by real people, not tourists, day-trippers or conventioneers. Unfortunately, Boston seems to have given up on real places a long time ago.

underground

02-26-2008, 08:54 PM

Don't get me started on Cambridge and its Curious George Bookstore and Harry Potter street fairs.

You make fun, but that's the same crowd that hangs at Aria. Just sayin'.

Beton Brut

02-26-2008, 09:21 PM

In vibrant cities, that which CZ laments as being increasingly absent from today's Boston -- aka culture -- doesn't need to be conjured up by armchair imagineers, but emerges naturally. But it does need real places, densely populated by real people, not tourists, day-trippers or conventioneers. Unfortunately, Boston seems to have given up on real places a long time ago.

Precisely -- among the reasons Chicago's Millennium Park works better than the Greenway likely ever will is that Millennium Park has worthy neighbors. The Art Institute and Orchestra Hall are "connected" to the park. Further, the buildings across Michigan Avenue face the park.

For the Greenway to have been a success, the focus should have been on funding and constructing the promised museums and other cultural attractions (either what's currently proposed, or something entirely different) instead of simply planting grass and a few ill-conceived structures we have today and offering us a dream deferred. Too many of the buildings that front the Greenway are purpose-built to turn their backs to the now-absent Artery. Some owners are trying to better connect their properties to the Greenway, but in some locations (Marketplace Center is an obvious example) this is impossible.

Suffolk 83

02-27-2008, 12:05 AM

czsz..... hey why don't you move to a city that fits you individually? because your obviously intelligent and you've hit several( and im underestimating) nails on the head. where's the action? You're inspiring me to leave the city... are you leaving it? surely you must be doing something.... surely you're not just complaining to a useless website... you must be taking action in the city!!!! right?

tobyjug

02-27-2008, 10:52 AM

Yesterday's posts were interesting, sort of like the things one heard about the "Disneyfication" of Times Square, you know, everything getting bland and sanitized. I guess it comes down to perspective, and where you think the tipping point between interesting and dull lies.

For me, you could take all the soccer moms and blonde children from the Quincy Market area and stuff them in a Range Rover, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. The bland mall type stores and bars catering to 21 to 30 year old folks would remain. Sadly, I am old enough to remember going there when it was still a run down market, and driving across the cobble streets meant rattling your fillings and perhaps loosing a hubcap. The smell was pretty strong, too! Actual working people ate at Durgin Park, as well. The harbor was not a yacht basin. The area was cool and very "real".

The tipping point for me was when all that disappeared. Everything after is an exercise in taxidermy. But it was time for the old uses to go, or the buildings would have been torn down and replaced with a Marriott Long Wharf, or another 60 State Street. Given the desire to preserve the buildings and the accompanying restrictions, their "highest and best use", i.e. that which is maximally profitable and legally permissible, became an outdoor suburban style shopping mall with bars for 21 to 30 year olds sprinkled in. So hello tourists, soccer moms, youthful drinkers, goodbye Toby. I don't go there (except once a month to the Bombay Club takeout, not as good as their restaurant in Harvard Sq., but great anyway) and have no doubt that I am not missed!

Sorry for the senile rant! No place for old men.

kz1000ps

02-27-2008, 12:15 PM

Indeed. Back to the orthopedic bed for you, mister!

underground

02-27-2008, 12:28 PM

Anyone here read "All Souls"? If you haven't, basically it's about a family living in Old Colony during the 70s and 80s. Its one of those stories where everyone's on crack, everyone's in a gang, and half of the people end up dead, but it's still uplifting because at least they had each other. It's one of those, "Remeber the Good Old Bad Days" stories.

This thread has turned into our "All Souls."

tobyjug

02-27-2008, 01:50 PM

I'll start using Grandpa Simpson as an avatar.

Ronwell Pudding

02-27-2008, 03:09 PM

I'm surprised anyone remembered me. By the way I?m missing the preposition "to" in my last post. Find where I left it out and win a prize.

So if you want a rant, I'll give you a rant. I don't post often but I read a lot therefore I have a lot to say. To make up for this I promise to take my digital camera out more and post some pictures.

I really think some of you guys are overstating your points here. I don?t appreciate homogenized urban places or family friendly locals because there usually visually dull, or contain nothing of interest to me. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Furthermore I don?t believe in this theme park-ization or whatever you might call it of urban development. I believe it?s merely the same thing that has always been happening in cities just in a different form.

To address the first issue. It?s important to keep in mind that the city is the regional hub of economic and social activity. As a result there are a diverse array of residents living in different kinds of neighborhoods who demand different things out of the city. One example, Quincy Market acts as the regions draw for many suburban families who want to spend a day shopping in Boston rather then in Natick or Burlington. It attracts commerce and generates economic activity; otherwise it would have been lost to the suburbs. As much as you may deride its existence it is a great asset to the city. One could make the argument that without places like Faneuil Hall, Quincy Market, the Aquarium or the Freedom Trail, all products I believe of the White administration in the 80?s, (when the city started to turn around) people wouldn?t have wanted to come back into the city and then start investing in it again. Though I might not want to go down there on a Saturday, a lot of other people do. Are the abundance of shops, restaurants, shoppers, street musicians and entertainers as well as hotels, offices and now parks around Faneuil Hall and Quincy Market bad because families want to go there? I?d say it?s a pretty successful urban environment.

CZSZ said, in regard to family friendly and homogenizes uses crowding out the city?s public spaces, ?EnchantedVillage/Chowder Fest and other nonsense that occupies City Hall Plaza on its two purposeful days?? Here are some other functions that City Hall Plaza holds in the summer: A BBQ Beach Party, Hip Hop Festival, Free Gospel Fest, Cape Verdian Beach Party and now and again they get a circus and I think theres even a market there on weekends correct me if I?m wrong. Granted I?m really only interested in the BBQ, and possibly the gospel music but overall that doesn?t sound particularly homogeneous or dull.

I am a 20 something working professional and as far as I am concerned, and I?ve been here 5-6 years, I have been able to find plenty of lovely places within and around the city that I can use without being bothered by tourists or suburbanites. Neighborhoods like Central and Inman Square, Allston-Brighton, JP and Brookline have served me pretty well. I've found plenty of interesting places with like minded people in this city. I've enjoyed events in the Common, Downtown and in the Seaport, found independent bookstores, good bars and lovely parks. If your looking for a good bar, restaurant, concert space, bookstore or coffee house PM me I'll recommend something. I can go on but the real point is there are enough different places for everyone in this city that we don?t need to vilify and marginalize places like Quincy Market, the Seaport and The Greenway because they fit with our vision of what the city should looks like. I still not going down to Quincy Market because there nothing there I want to buy. But I could still go down there and appreciate what a pleasant public space it is while I watch the crowds at any time of day and in any season.

Now if you want to discuss ways to make enhance these areas that?s a different topic all together. I have plenty of ideas about that.

Now to my second issue. In order to create vibrant urban places you need to create the spaces within which they can function. With an example like the seaport you basically a blank slate, all the land you need but no way to attract investment. Fact is with the economics of the day you?d like to attract businesses to the area before you start to build. In order to do that you need a reason for people to go down there, a museum perhaps, or a convention center, maybe a outdoor concert space. Any use that will create other uses, hotels, restaurants, shops etc are preferable. That creates the critical mass necessary to start an area growing. In olden times that could have been something as simply as a factory, now it?s a convention center. Lets not forget cities exist for reasons independent of utopian planning principles. Once someone creates the space then its there and given time many different tenants may inhabit it, the uses will evolve and so will the character of the neighborhood. I don't see how thats not happening in the seaport.

If now-a-days, to get the project off the ground you need large corporate tenants who have the capital to take the risk and invest in the building then so be it. If you want to build a consortium of small business owners who pool their money together and invest it in a new project, so they can carve out a place within the neighborhood I would encourage you to do so. But what is most important to the city is that it create the space to grow and expand. Now as far as not laying the ground work for the area, they extended a highway, put exits in, paved a few new streets, added a mass transit line and put in place zoning regulations to govern the growth. What more do you want the city to do.

My overall point is that if a city functions the way it should it will provide the space so that all the social and commercial activities of its large and diverse citizenry are represented somewhere with in its greater political boundaries. Conventioneers, tourists and family?s are ?real? people too. The processes of development are just as natural as they ever were. This myopic view presents Boston has some sort of theme park is a unfairly critical. Boston functions pretty well, arguable better than all but 10, maybe 5 places in the entire United States. Not that we need to cut it some slack but lets at least keep the criticism constructive.

atlantaden

02-27-2008, 03:34 PM

Sadly, I am old enough to remember going there when it was still a run down market, and driving across the cobble streets meant rattling your fillings and perhaps loosing a hubcap. The smell was pretty strong, too! Actual working people ate at Durgin Park, as well. The harbor was not a yacht basin. The area was cool and very "real".

I, too, am old enough to remember this area. I remember it as being a dump and a place very few people bothered to explore. I also remember when Quincy Market was brand spanking new and how damn wonderful it was.....and how proud I was that the city actually took these old, historic buildings...scooped em out...and filled em with the coolest restaurants and stores. Almost overnight, millions of people were visiting the area..not just tourists but locals as well. Maybe because the Quincy Market concept was copied in so many other cities and that the stores there now are found everywhere, that it lost it's uniqueness. But I'll certainly take today's Quincy Market over what was there before...as well as the waterfront and most of the rest of the city. Not too many years ago, large portions of the city were falling down rat-traps; the Harbor and the Charles were practically sewers, thousands were moving out...not a pretty picture. I'll take today's Boston over the Boston 50 years ago anyday!

tobyjug

02-27-2008, 04:35 PM

My dear Atlantaden, in your passion for beauty you fall victim to the "narcissism of slight differences". Re-read my post and you will see I wrote the old market "had to go" to preserve the buildings. So my friend, I agree with you. My point was (and is)that the question of when an area becomes dull is temporal and subjective. Today, some find the presence of soccer moms et al. "dullifies"; I agree, except that for me, the area had become dull long before the first Croc or Birkenstock trod upon virgin cobble. Others may find that area was more interesting in the days of old when it was a dump. Some may also find this true of other departed dumpy, but interesting things: the Combat Zone of the early 70's, Buzzies Roast Beef, the Naval Base at the Navy Yard, the original Brandy Pete's bar, Newspaper Row, and on, and on, and on...
One tries to accept change with grace, that others will find uses for the city which, though boring to me, are not to them. Thus, logically it follows that Boston can be cleaner, be less dumpy, have nice new tall buildings, be more prosperous, yet at the very same time, be duller for the change.
Almost everyone on the board would likely agree that the ideal is to preserve the best that was, but demand the best that can be.

nico

02-27-2008, 05:03 PM

the ideal is to preserve the best that was, but demand the best that can be.
^This should be the credo of the board.
But Buzzie's was the worst roast beef ever.

aquaman

02-28-2008, 08:33 AM

Or we could not make crucial urban planning decisions based on suburban families' "fun day out" in the city...

Seriously, fewer little blond children running around Quincy Market with their soccer mom freaking out over where they might be while secretly lusting after a tour through Urban Outfitters...that's fine by me. There are other people in line to use this city.

The thing is, the city ought to be a place for everyone's use, including the blonde suburban soccer moms and their bratty kids. Boston would have a much poorer and, frankly, uglier, grittier and dying inner city if it did not have many of the family friendly areas mentioned in this thread.

Those dreaded suburbanites who bring their kids in from the suburbs infuse some serious cash into the local economy on lunch and a duckboat tour, tickets to see "Wicked" or a day of shopping along Newbury Street or wandering around Harvard Square. And believe me, that Curious George store and the now-closed Hello Kitty store on Newbury can be enough lure for my kids that they'd gladly suffer a day of my wandering in and out of bookstores for fifteen minutes of candied confection in either spot.

Family-friendly places make a city's street scene more multi-generational and more vibrant, and the money spent by such families offers incentive for other restaurants and retailers to open shop, giving city dwellers more options after the minivans head back to Wellesley or Medfield.

Should all our urban planning be done with a focus on satiating the needs of suburbanites? No, and thinking it does right now is false. But a few family friendly attractions makes Boston or Chicago or San Francisco or NYC what they are. The flip side is Detroit. You prefer that?

belmont square

02-28-2008, 10:25 AM

Boston functions pretty well, arguable better than all but 10, maybe 5 places in the entire United States. Not that we need to cut it some slack but lets at least keep the criticism constructive.

I'd go further and say that the point is not even arguable--Boston functions better as an urban place than all but four cities (NY, Chi, DC, SF) and good arguments could be made to place it as high as number 2.

On the kids point, I live in the city and have two. I realize that in 2008 there probably aren't enough people raising kids in the city to support the aquariums, faneuil halls, etc without the suburban families. That being said, the presence of these child-friendly resources helps to balance some of the challenges in raising kids here. My girls and I have no trouble taking the subway to these venues, but then we also ride it almost every day.

I guess one of the things I like about living in a city is that all age groups are represented. In a typical Boston suburb, the elderly, childless adults, and young adults are nowhere to be found. Boston (and many other big cities) are in much greater danger of turning into places where you don't see kids than they are of being overrun with them. It's one of the reasons I don't mind the gatherings of "menacing" teenagers in Downtown Crossing (by the way, in what community are the teenagers not the most menacing characters?)--it's evidence that Boston has not yet devolved into a lifestyle center for empty nesters and childless adults.

GW2500

02-28-2008, 10:57 AM

Should all our urban planning be done with a focus on satiating the needs of suburbanites? No, and thinking it does right now is false. But a few family friendly attractions makes Boston or Chicago or San Francisco or NYC what they are. The flip side is Detroit. You prefer that?

Trust me you don't want Detroit, my family ( along with a million of Detroiters) left there for a reason.

I'd go further and say that the point is not even arguable--Boston functions better as an urban place than all but four cities (NY, Chi, DC, SF) and good arguments could be made to place it as high as number 2.
.

I'd say Boston is definately behind NY and Chicago. Probably on par for the most part with the other two. But Philly deserves its props as atleast a real city with urban fabric too.

skintreesnail

02-28-2008, 12:07 PM

The last few posts were great responses to the cornucopia of Boston-bashing that?s been going on in this thread. I think it?s the youth in the city that adds to its charm and light-hearted feel. And seriously, Boston has as many ?places? as any other great city and doesn?t suffer from being as overbearing. If you really want to see some disneyfication, check out the Baltimore harbor. And the T is an embarrassment? Are you kidding me?

I live in Philadelphia, and even though it?s a great city with lots of culture and entertainment, it still has so many problems that it really can?t touch Boston yet, but I hope that someday it will. You think that you have some problems there with NIMBYs, which I?m sure you do as all places do, well here we have vast fields of prime real estate surface parking scattered throughout the city, and pits where construction had begun but never was completed due to outcries of the community or just messed up planning/corrupted developers. And speaking of disneyfication, we have an entire block here in the middle of center city, dubbed the ?Disney Hole? after a Disney-funded theme park/shopping center that never was built in the late 90s. It is now a surface parking lot as it has been for years. And we still can?t get it together to fix up our waterfront.

I would even put Boston over Chicago in some cases. It?s so flat there and Boston is so close to some pretty great mountain ranges, not to mention the amazing New England coastline. Also, every time I?m in Chicago, I get this overwhelming feeling that everyone there think way too highly of themselves. And it definitely doesn?t feel as safe.

The greenway really isn?t bad at all. Also, it?s still in its early development stages and will change. Last time I was in the city I was overjoyed by the absence of the artery and really loved the vast open prairie land that it created and thought that it really was aesthetically pleasing. A part of the city is now visible that never was before. You really should be more proud of your city. It's very beautiful.

Beton Brut

02-28-2008, 01:24 PM

And the T is an embarrassment? Are you kidding me?

Thanks for your kind words about Boston.

Regarding the T, as a daily passenger, I'm as serious as a heart attack. It is among the most ill-managed and ill-maintained agencies of its kind in America. The unions essentially hold control of the level of service that the T can realistically provide (and are among the best paid transit workers in America). The overall quality of service, from the cleanliness of stations and vehicles, to the timeliness and frequency of maintenance on facilities, to management of contracts with suppliers and service providers is truly disgraceful. As a lifelong Bostonian, I am embarrassed to bring out-of-town guests to the station near my home.

czsz

02-28-2008, 02:33 PM

The flip side is Detroit. You prefer that?

Way to take the expressway to red herrings and false dichotomies. Look, I love that soccer moms bring their charges into Boston and spend like crazy on ice cream and educational toys or whatever. BUT - other cities manage to attract families without setting out, explicitly, to be the most attractive to them. Fifth Avenue is a rather chaotic place to drag a pack of 5 year olds, but parents do it anyway to get to FAO Schwartz and/or Rockefeller Center. We don't need to design the city around families to get them to come if the attractions that draw them in are compelling enough that they brave the rest.

On the other hand, designing solely and explicitly for families does tend to EXCLUDE AND DISCOURAGE other groups of high-spending individuals. How many young adults and even corporations have perhaps declined to move to Boston because its nightlife is lacking compared to other cities, for example? Or because the subway closes down so early with no alternative public transportation (sure, European subways close down early, too, but every one of them has night bus service). In part, both of these things are lacking because making Boston a 24 hour city might detract in some ways from keeping it "family friendly". It might make the streets in some choice residential neighborhoods noisier, or (in the case of the T) take away money being lavished on child-friendly assets. There needs to be a better balance.

Imagine for a second that Boston built a hip design museum (cf. OCAD in Toronto) or a truly impressive concert venue (cf. Millennium Park in Chicago) on the Greenway instead of the history museum that's destined to be stuffed with Revolutionary War artifacts and packed with field-tripping schoolchildren - it might just catalyze the growth of another sort of community in the city, and diversify the sort of people milling around this part of downtown. Isn't diversity good for the kiddies, too?

cden4

02-28-2008, 03:08 PM

czsz, I understand your point but I don't see anyone intentionally trying to make the city family friendly to the expense of other groups. Can you cite some examples?

The T doesn't run late enough and has no late bus service because the unions have everyone by the b*lls, and no one is brave enough to stand up and give the riders of the system what they deserve.

Has a hip design museum or an impressive concert venue been proposed? I think either one of those would be a great addition to the city.

If anything, the biggest threat to the city are NIMBYs who say no to everything and basically want to turn it into a suburb with low density, lots of parking, and no restaurants or bars open past 11. (Why they just don't move to the suburbs, I have no idea.)

czsz

02-28-2008, 03:19 PM

It's not really a matter of explicit intentionality; I can't really cite some sort of definitive policy paper arguing for family friendliness. But it comes out in the presumptions of people who make choices about what goes into the city. The NIMBY mentality you cite owes a lot to overriding social norms which dictate that things deemed wonderful in 'family friendly' suburbia (quietude, pastoralism, easy transport for gaggles of kids, safety) are fundamentally good everywhere, including cities. And while it's a mentality we associate with NIMBYs, it has infiltrated the decision making processes of the highest levels of city government. When was the last time we heard a proposal to make Boston more fun for twentysomethings? All we get are parks, quaint museum, parks, theatre for expensive musicals, parks, zoning for condos for middle aged executives, parks, neighborhood "main streets" initiatives that encourage quaintness and such, and more parks.

The T doesn't run late enough and has no late bus service because the unions have everyone by the b*lls

This is truly fucked up. In Europe, the unions are so powerful that whole countries go without transportation for weeks - but when transit does run, there are night buses. Why are the unions in Massachusetts the only ones in the world that can't seem to bend to this?

skintreesnail

02-28-2008, 03:24 PM

Honestly, you shouldn't be embarrassed to bring people from out of town on the T; some of my best memories of Boston are riding the subway while visiting my aunt and uncle. I would spend the summer there and take the train to work in the morning to the first Job I ever had and show off the sites to my cousin who came to visit, hopping from line to line. Sure, it's lost a lot of the adventure since then, but everyone who've been to the city with me are impressed with it and enjoy riding. I have one friend who is scared to death of the NYC subway system, but had no problem with the T. And one thing I can say about the service, which I guess may have changed over the past few years, is that I never got stuck on the train. The trains in NYC and Philly are always stalling for one reason or another.

There are always areas for improvement, especially for mass transit, but I think Boston has one of the best. It's incredibly extensive and is at least much cleaner than SEPTA in Philadelphia (which I would say takes the cake on most mis-managed transit system). I can assure you that NYC's system is pretty filthy too, but its shear magnitude makes up for it. Chicago's system needs a ton of work; there are a multitude of spots along the line where the train needs to slowdown to a crawl due to the erosion of the tracks. And you can't really get everywhere you want to go on it. And as far as unions go, well they control transit pretty much everywhere. There was a big strike in philly this past summer for almost a month, where the trains were shut down completely. I know something similar happened in NYC.

I can also tell you first hand that Buffalo, Syracuse, Cleveland have some pretty skimpy systems as well. Toronto's system is pretty good, but a lot of it is streetcars that need to go with the traffic, which can get frustrating during rush-hour. A lot of pretty big cities don't even have subway systems and rely solely on buses, which are nowhere as near as efficient. Anyway, that?s my rant on this subject.

aquaman

02-28-2008, 04:09 PM

Way to take the expressway to red herrings and false dichotomies. Look, I love that soccer moms bring their charges into Boston and spend like crazy on ice cream and educational toys or whatever. BUT - other cities manage to attract families without setting out, explicitly, to be the most attractive to them. Fifth Avenue is a rather chaotic place to drag a pack of 5 year olds, but parents do it anyway to get to FAO Schwartz and/or Rockefeller Center. We don't need to design the city around families to get them to come if the attractions that draw them in are compelling enough that they brave the rest.

On the other hand, designing solely and explicitly for families does tend to EXCLUDE AND DISCOURAGE other groups of high-spending individuals. How many young adults and even corporations have perhaps declined to move to Boston because its nightlife is lacking compared to other cities, for example? Or because the subway closes down so early with no alternative public transportation (sure, European subways close down early, too, but every one of them has night bus service). In part, both of these things are lacking because making Boston a 24 hour city might detract in some ways from keeping it "family friendly". It might make the streets in some choice residential neighborhoods noisier, or (in the case of the T) take away money being lavished on child-friendly assets. There needs to be a better balance.

Imagine for a second that Boston built a hip design museum (cf. OCAD in Toronto) or a truly impressive concert venue (cf. Millennium Park in Chicago) on the Greenway instead of the history museum that's destined to be stuffed with Revolutionary War artifacts and packed with field-tripping schoolchildren - it might just catalyze the growth of another sort of community in the city, and diversify the sort of people milling around this part of downtown. Isn't diversity good for the kiddies, too?

I don't think there is a single case where you can say the city has set out to make something family friendly at the expense of others in the city. And don't kid yourself about other cities' not developing areas with families and kids in mind. I remember Times Square during the Dinkins years and can tell you everything you see in Times Square today was done to make the place safe for tourists from Indiana and attractive to people with kids. There's a giant Toys R Us in Times Square with a ferris wheel inside fercrisesake. Not exactly something that was designed to be appealing to hip 20-somethings.

New York, though, has a huge advantage over Boston: its size and scale has allowed for a sizeable part of the city's child-bearing aged population to stay within the city limits. Not in Manhattan so much, but Queens, Brooklyn, etc. are filled with families. Boston's not really a family city, but the mayor and others know that the city will die a boutique city death if it doesn't try to appeal to young people with kids. If anything, the city isn't doing enough to do what really matters to child-bearing residents: safe neighborhoods and parks and excellent schools. Stopping a good design museum in favor of a bland patch of Greenway grass miles from the residential areas of JP is really not on any young family's agenda as far as I know.

I do agree that Boston is desperate for an infusion of adult diversions -- it's perhaps one of its top 2 or 3 greatest weaknesses, IMO -- but you can't say their absence is because the city halts them in favor of families. NIMBYism and entrenched old-money interests are to blame. Bars have to close at 2 because old crabs in places like Brighton have nothing to complain about but noisy drunks and college kids. The T shuts down because Boston's system is only built one track wide in each direction and there's no other time to allow the track walkers to get through and fix problems. We don't have a cutting edge art scene or hip design museum here because there are too just few people who both want such things and have the money to make them happen here -- whether that's because all the Beacon Hill and Back Bay trust fund money goes to places like the Peabody Essex or into MassHort, I don't know. But the city doesn't quash such things because they threaten the sacred nuclear family.

Ron Newman

02-28-2008, 04:11 PM

Wherever that trust fund money's going, it's not to MassHort. If it were, we'd already have our Garden Under Glass. (To circle this discussion all the way back to its original subject.)

2 am bar closing is state law, by the way.

jass

02-28-2008, 04:41 PM

2 am bar closing is state law, by the way.

Its not a state law to be so strict on other institutions though. The IHOP at Harvard wanted to be 24 hours, and they were forced to close from 4-8am. I dont know of any Mcdonalds in the city thats open after 11pm, while 95% of suburban ones are open at least until 2am, most are 24 hours.

Im not saying that Mcdonalds and IHOP should be the focus of our city, but options are nice. Boston has very few after 11pm.

Suffolk 83

02-28-2008, 04:48 PM

I don't know about that T bash... I'm not seeing it. I'm consistantly happy with the T. Except a couple weeks ago when a bus never showed up when there was an hour in between them and it was 1130pm and cold as hell.

I think there's a great difference between the service in certain areas. Red Line and Green Line are usually right on the money. and the few times things to get screwed up, I consider it the same as a traffic accident on the highway that causes backups...shit happens.

Ronwell Pudding

02-28-2008, 05:02 PM

I can say I wholeheartedly support a later bar closing time. In Brighton Center it is 1 AM, that is unacceptable. I find it strange then when I'm home in Upstate New York (not exactly your booming metropolis) visiting family (its where I was raised) I can stay out until 4 AM at bars. Also can we please sell beer and grocery and convenience stores. Again I'll site my experience in New York where its allowed; and there still is a market left for liquor stores.

Given the city efforts to redevelop the Downtown Crossing I happen to think its a perfect area for a district that allows a 3 or 4 AM closing time. It would give the area a reason to exist now that the retail and department stores are closing. A few clubs, restaurants and bars mixed in with the theaters would draw crowds. Say Thursday, Friday, Saturday 3 or 4 AM closing, extend the T hours those days until closing time; it already has good access to the Green, Red and Orange lines. College kids and the nearest residents, they won't complain. Plus the ways the street work it can be easy for the police to manage the boundaries and keep drunken activity contained. I'm not imagining a new Combat Zone but with the intimacy of many of those streets it might make for a cool scene.

As far as 24 hours, besides Store 24 some of which I've actually found closed at 4 AM, there is an IHOP in Brighton along the river and I heard of a 24 hour McDonalds in Somerville and of course South Street Diner.

czsz

02-28-2008, 05:36 PM

I don't think there is a single case where you can say the city has set out to make something family friendly at the expense of others in the city. And don't kid yourself about other cities' not developing areas with families and kids in mind. I remember Times Square during the Dinkins years and can tell you everything you see in Times Square today was done to make the place safe for tourists from Indiana and attractive to people with kids. There's a giant Toys R Us in Times Square with a ferris wheel inside fercrisesake. Not exactly something that was designed to be appealing to hip 20-somethings.

Expressio unius non exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing does not necessarily imply the exclusion of others. Of course New York and other cities have this problem, too. But it's not that bad there, because

New York, though, has a huge advantage over Boston: its size and scale

...after which you mention that this

has allowed for a sizeable part of the city's child-bearing aged population to stay within the city limits ... Boston's not really a family city, but the mayor and others know that the city will die a boutique city death if it doesn't try to appeal to young people with kids. If anything, the city isn't doing enough to do what really matters to child-bearing residents: safe neighborhoods and parks and excellent schools.

I agree, although Boston already has one of the highest percentages of parkland of any American city. Maybe the reason they're not always so well maintained is that, in the quest to create pastoralism in the city, we've stretched the city's finite resources. That's why

Stopping a good design museum in favor of a bland patch of Greenway grass miles from the residential areas of JP is really not on any young family's agenda as far as I know.

is a flawed assumption. If the city weren't spending as much time and energy planning for and supporting family-friendly activities, it would be able to spend more on other things, like the

adult diversions

that you agree this place lacks. Because clearly the private sector isn't picking up the slack, considering

We don't have a cutting edge art scene or hip design museum here because there are too just few people who both want such things and have the money to make them happen here -- whether that's because all the Beacon Hill and Back Bay trust fund money goes to places like the Peabody Essex or into MassHort, I don't know.

But this is true of other cities, too. The wealthy always more consistently fund "high culture" - the conservative art museum, the symphony, the botanical gardens. Devotees of the avant-garde are few among their ranks. We have to wonder whether some shift in civic priorities - or culture - is what's needed to effect a change.

p.s. - I think we might need a new thread

Lrfox

02-28-2008, 08:39 PM

I can stay out until 4 AM at bars. Also can we please sell beer and grocery and convenience stores.

We are sooooo off topic and we probably need a new thread and I'm sure our esteemed administrators will take care of it. Still, I'm going add to this.

Ronwell, I agree with you. I go to school in Maine, and every Hannaford, Shaws, Mobil, Irving, Rite Aid, etc sells liquor as well as beer. There's no reason (other than the Bay State's ever so slow weening off of the blue laws) that Massachusetts shouldn't do this as well.

Second, the law on last call needs to be ammended. I believe in New York State, the law is 4am but each town has the option to have last call earlier (New York City needs a 4am last call, but does Stockbridge or Smithfield?). Something like that would work here especially if each neighborhood had the option to adjust last call to anytime that's earlier than the state law. Like you said, a 3am last call in DTX would be great, but in some residential areas not only would it be a bad idea, but you'd never get support from the community.

I know that on the Southcoast, in places like Fall River and New Bedford, certain bars just close the door at last call, 2am, but continue to serve the people in there until they leave (I'm sure there are some in Boston, I just haven't been). Granted, Boston is not Fall River or New Bedford (thank god), but if there's a market for real late night bars there (i left Billy's Cafe in Fall River at 5am once this past summer), then Boston will certainly have a market for them; especially with the college kids in town.

I'm hopeful that in my lifetime, Boston at the VERY least operates mass transit, even if it's just light rail and certain buses, until shortly past last call (whether it's 2,3, or even 4am). This is something that needs to happen. Boston is not New York City, but it is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country and it's embarassing that your options for getting home from the bar at 2am are Taxi (or limo), Walking, or Driving. I can tell you with a certain degree of certainty that while the first two (walking and taxi) work for people who live in town; those of us who live outside 128 don't have a good option, and there are plenty of us who are in town to party (especially during baseball season). I'd rather take a taxi from Braintree to a buddy's in Weymouth than take a taxi from DTX to Weymouth. I know that suburbanites aren't a primary concern when planning these things, but when they go out and party, they go to Boston because believe it or not, Randolph doesn't have the best scene at night.

**Edit**
The flaw with the argument for more parkland in order to attract families is that the city can't win. If a family wants vast amounts of open, safe space, they'll move to the 'burbs or the country. If the city tries to provide endless open space, it'll lose its urbanity. Density and open space aren't mutually exclusive, but there is an equilibrium and I think that one of Boston's best traits is that it's damn near to that equilibrium. Boston won't have a problem attracting young people as long as the colleges and places like Newbury st., Harvard Square, Quincy Market (at night), etc exist. Families that want the country will move there, you can't persuade them to stay... The key is in the schools and the parkland that does exist. If you can provide a decent school system, a relatively low crime rate, and safe parks, the families that are willing to live in an urban area will stay.

Ron Newman

02-28-2008, 09:17 PM

Massachusetts doesn't have a law against selling alcoholic beverages in grocery stores.

What it does have is a law that says any one owner can only have 3 liquor licenses statewide. If you're a big company like Shaw's or Stop & Stop or Trader Joe's, that means you can pick three of your stores to have these licenses, and that's it.

Riverworks

02-28-2008, 09:40 PM

In response to "MassHort" from a previous post ... I know that for the last 10-15 years the agency was thinking about moving the entire airport to Manchester, NH. All money going into the airport was shut off for years. It wasn't until recently that Massport realized that they wanted to definitely keep the airport in East Boston. As a result, they've been pouring money into the airport left and right. I know for a fact that all of Terminal D (soon to be dubbed the Terminal E expansion) will accommodate all of Northwest Airlines and give Airtran a new home in Terminal C. More airlines are trying to be added every month.

But let's just be thankful that we don't have another South Boston on our hands here. Can you imagine the airport gone? East Boston used to be a tiny island (Noddles Island) and was maybe 1/4 mile wide, 1 mile long... All of that land added was because of the airport. I wonder what urban planners were thinking when they were looking for a site in the 1930's and 40's.

I work on Long Wharf ... and the Greenway definitely is depressing. The only thing that keeps my attention is the racing traffic as I try to cross over to State Street. I openly welcome the "new tower" /development proposed for the Aquarium garage. I only hope that the developer will consider the site's context and engage it appropriately. Progress on these Greenway buildings need to happen fast. Anyone seen Cloverfield? It feels like that monster took a walk through downtown Boston and left a large void in its path. Just the scale of the Greenway compared to the surrounding high rises is really disturbing to me. And the amount of green spaces ... I just wish city officials would've thought things through ... not just the existing, the demolition, and the proposed ... but the finished product and the feel of the area. We need more projects like the Chinatown's Gateway Center and the Back Bay's Columbus Center to take back our city.

Riverworks

02-28-2008, 09:44 PM

Lrfox

02-28-2008, 10:25 PM

Why sell alcohol in supermarkets? You would only end up making more trips. In New York for example ... you go to a liquor store and they only sell the hard stuff and wine, whereas beer is sold in supermarkets. I like how liquor stores in Massachusetts only sell ... well .. liquor. It's all in one place. Not everyone just wants beer (or the other).

I don't understand. Wouldn't you be making fewer trips if the grocery stores carry both hard stuff and beer (and of course, groceries and pharmacy items)? I am not sure about New York, but in Maine, Beer, Wine, and Hard Stuff are sold together in grocery stores (there are plain old liquor stores too). I can go pick up the burgers and dogs for my cookout, the beer for the boys, the vodka (or wine) for the ladies and some deoderant and shampoo... all in the same place; now THAT's convenience.

Ron, I didn't know that about the liquor liscenses in Massachusetts. I understand the logic behind it, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult for a large chain (such as Shaws or Stop and Shop) to liscense each particular franchise.

KentXie

02-28-2008, 10:32 PM

I think the best place to do all these things is at the Seaport. They are already building a mall there and tons of restuarants. I always hoped that the Seaport would turn out to be the new entertainment district. Put a few theater there for musicals, ballet, movies, etc., put some dance clubs, bars. Hell forget the current Fan Pier plan and build a canal that was envisioned in the earlier design. The WTC of Boston there and so is the convention center, ICA, Children's Museum and the Computer Museum which means that the area should expect a huge amount of pedestrian traffic if we can just add more things to it. Hell turn one of the piers into a mini Soldier Pier of Chicago. Put an arcade there. The only bad result from this is that if the Seaport did end up like this, it will suck DTX dry.

It's too bad that they f*ed up such huge potential in the Seaport though.

czsz

02-28-2008, 11:12 PM

It's hard to build an entertainment district from the ground up. Part of the appeal of many places that become thriving nightlife districts is the spontaneity emerging from sheer, raw urbanity. It would be difficult to achieve this in a neighborhood thrown up over night, no matter how solid the urban planning principles.

And Boston certainly doesn't need another ersatz tourist trap ala Navy Pier. Sacrificing one of the city's historic landmarks (Quincy Market) for one is enough.

One of this city's greatest problems is that there is simply not enough dense, urban fabric left uncolonised by gentrifiers who fear noise rising one decibel level and have generally precluded youth culture (which thrives on the cheap) from taking hold. Boston needs the culture of places like Central and Inman Squares to be transplanted to a neighborhood that feels like Downtown Crossing or the North End. In these places alone lie Boston's potential to reproduce thriving and widely beloved nightlife districts like the London's Soho, Istanbul's Beyoglu, or Lisbon's Barrio Alto. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this happening, so we cast our hopes toward the tabula rasa of the Seaport, with utter futility.

belmont square

02-28-2008, 11:17 PM

I agree, although Boston already has one of the highest percentages of parkland of any American city. Maybe the reason they're not always so well maintained is that, in the quest to create pastoralism in the city, we've stretched the city's finite resources.

But if you looked at a 3 mile ring around the center of Boston, my guess is its either in line with other major cities or has less parkspace. Sure, when you throw in Franklin Park, the Arboretum, Stony Brook Reservation, etc, the percentage of park space goes way up. But are people on this board really concerned about the urban design impacts of large tracts of park space in Dorchester in Hyde Park? I'm not suggesting all the parks in the city center are assets, but when I walk around Downtown/Back Bay/South End/Fenway/Charlestown/Southie/Eastie I don't feel like I'm being overwhelmed with parkspace.

Your obsession with Boston's supposed child-orientation strikes me as odd given that we're likely at a 370 year low in the percentage of the population that are school age children. And I'll admit to being a city parent snob when it comes to dealing with the hoardes of suburban families with their oversized strollers while I navigate the Aquarium. But here's a question--if the city is making this concerted effort to sanitize the city and make it child friendly, why are there so few kids left in the city? And if the city is such a miserable place for adults, why do childless ones make up a greater proportion of the city now then they ever have?

belmont square

02-28-2008, 11:36 PM

One of this city's greatest problems is that there is simply not enough dense, urban fabric left uncolonised by gentrifiers who fear noise rising one decibel level and have generally precluded youth culture (which thrives on the cheap) from taking hold. Boston needs the culture of places like Central and Inman Squares to be transplanted to a neighborhood that feels like Downtown Crossing or the North End. In these places alone lie Boston's potential to reproduce thriving and widely beloved nightlife districts like the London's Soho, Istanbul's Beyoglu, or Lisbon's Barrio Alto. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this happening, so we cast our hopes toward the tabula rasa of the Seaport, with utter futility.

I guess if we were as big as London, as poor as Lisbon, or as big and as poor as Istanbul, we might have more ungentrified dense urban fabric. But we're not. We all understand that Europe serves as the best model for urban development. But can we please stop shaming Boston with comparisons? Guess what--Dingle, Luzerne and Karlovy Vary are all more dynamic and urban than Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc. It's not that hard to pick European examples to trump American ones.

jass

02-29-2008, 12:13 AM

I don't understand. Wouldn't you be making fewer trips if the grocery stores carry both hard stuff and beer (and of course, groceries and pharmacy items)? I am not sure about New York, but in Maine, Beer, Wine, and Hard Stuff are sold together in grocery stores (there are plain old liquor stores too). I can go pick up the burgers and dogs for my cookout, the beer for the boys, the vodka (or wine) for the ladies and some deoderant and shampoo... all in the same place; now THAT's convenience.

Ron, I didn't know that about the liquor liscenses in Massachusetts. I understand the logic behind it, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult for a large chain (such as Shaws or Stop and Shop) to liscense each particular franchise.

Exactly. In California, theres actually a large liquor store right next to the supermarket. The supermarket sells everything... wine, tequila, beer, vodka, rum etc.

The liquor store survives next door by having a much larger, and specialized wine selection, and import vodkas and such. Supermarket sells smirnoff and absolut. Liquor store sells those + polish, russian, swedish, croatian vodka etc.

vanshnookenraggen

02-29-2008, 01:04 AM

Man alive, this thread is all over the place. I want to move this conversation cause it's pretty good but this new software doesn't allow me to do it. If someone wants to branch off on a new thread go ahead.

czsz

02-29-2008, 01:18 AM

This is the continuation of the discussion that began in the Greenway thread, branched off par van's request.

First, my two most definitive and controversial posts on the issue:

It's the whole approach taken by the city and taken up by the media - the same homogenization process that brought us Friendly Fenway. The Platonic ideal of downtown Boston for groups editorializing in the Globe is always something that will delight and amuse families frolicking around on seasonable weekends. Parents and pastoralists brought us the family-friendly Greenway, the family-friendly aquarium, the family-friendly Quincy Market, the family-friendly Freedom Trail, the family-friendly Enchanted Village/Chowdafest and other nonsense that occupies City Hall Plaza on its two purposeful days, City Hall Plaza to begin with (because Scollay Square was certainly not family-friendly), the dead and antiseptic Theater District where you can see the Lion King and not much else (alas poor Combat Zone), the continuing presence of the dangerous-for-pedestrians-but-family-friendly Duck Tours, all the family-friendly gimmickery of central Boston parks (swan boats, Make Way for Ducklings, Frog Pond, the whole of First Night and its G-rated entertainment), the impending hypergentrification of Downtown Crossing (because thrift stores and gangs of teens hanging out were not family friendly, and, by the way, families can only come from the suburbs), lest I forget: the Science Museum (great for field trips, useless for learning anything about post-1970 developments in science), and, of course, the Children's Museum.

Don't get me started on Cambridge and its Curious George Bookstore and Harry Potter street fairs.

Even Charlie of Charlie Card fame is a cute little cartoon character.

What is left in this city for adults? A strip of shitty Irish sports bars here or there?

It's not really a matter of explicit intentionality; I can't really cite some sort of definitive policy paper arguing for family friendliness. But it comes out in the presumptions of people who make choices about what goes into the city. The NIMBY mentality you cite owes a lot to overriding social norms which dictate that things deemed wonderful in 'family friendly' suburbia (quietude, pastoralism, easy transport for gaggles of kids, safety) are fundamentally good everywhere, including cities. And while it's a mentality we associate with NIMBYs, it has infiltrated the decision making processes of the highest levels of city government. When was the last time we heard a proposal to make Boston more fun for twentysomethings? All we get are parks, quaint museum, parks, theatre for expensive musicals, parks, zoning for condos for middle aged executives, parks, neighborhood "main streets" initiatives that encourage quaintness and such, and more parks.

et maintenant, la lutte continue...

belmont wrote:
But here's a question--if the city is making this concerted effort to sanitize the city and make it child friendly, why are there so few kids left in the city?

Possibly because the city is increasingly expensive, and families can't afford to live in it. Nor do they look too kindly on the school system. The "concerted effort" at "sanitization" mostly targets more affluent suburban families who commute in to use the city as if it were a theme park.

And if the city is such a miserable place for adults, why do childless ones make up a greater proportion of the city now then they ever have?

For the same reason - more families are moving out. But, don't forget that a significant percentage of "childless" adults flocking to Boston's central neighborhoods are old empty nesters whose interests are usually every bit as blase as those of suburban families with children.

czsz

02-29-2008, 01:19 AM

Started a new thread on the children issue. Belmont, please follow me there:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=46544

czsz

02-29-2008, 01:22 AM

I guess if we were as big as London, as poor as Lisbon, or as big and as poor as Istanbul, we might have more ungentrified dense urban fabric. But we're not. We all understand that Europe serves as the best model for urban development. But can we please stop shaming Boston with comparisons? Guess what--Dingle, Luzerne and Karlovy Vary are all more dynamic and urban than Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc. It's not that hard to pick European examples to trump American ones.

I'll briefly respond to this here because it has (kinda sorta) more to do with development like the Greenway. True, Boston bests American cities like Dallas and Jacksonville. Yay, us. At the same time, it does have the opportunity to match [urban culture] wits with the likes of Genoa, if not Dingle et al. Why not go for it? Whatever happened to the ideal of Boston as a world class city? What mayor would run on the slogan "at least we're better than Phoenix"?

Ron Newman

02-29-2008, 07:21 AM

Ron, I didn't know that about the liquor liscenses in Massachusetts. I understand the logic behind it, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult for a large chain (such as Shaws or Stop and Shop) to liscense each particular franchise.

Except that grocery store chains aren't franchises. The stores are company-owned.

statler

02-29-2008, 07:57 AM

I love the idea of a design museum in Boston.

I looked up OCAD in Toronto and just by their website (http://www.ocad.ca/home.htm) they seem to function in the same capacity as MassArt (http://www.massart.edu/indexF3.html) does here.
The website does not mention a museum per se. They do have a student gallery (http://www.ocad.ca/static/student_gallery/about.htm) and a professional gallery (http://www.ocad.ca/about_ocad/news_events/newsroom/news_releases/nomadic_residents_rirkrit.htm) which I assume is what you were referring too. I wonder if this is a role MassArt could fill here.
With all the money that schools in this area get MassArt should be able tap into that and expand and open their own museum like the other colleges have.
On a side note, the BAC should grow as well.
We have enough 'general study' schools, the specialized schools should get some love too. Berklee and Emerson do OK for themselves and contribute to the public (http://www.berkleebpc.com/) sphere (http://www.maj.org/) in their own way. It would be nice to see the other schools step up as well.

aquaman

02-29-2008, 08:35 AM

First off, I never advocated pastoralism in anything I've said. I think the NIMBY pursuit of "open space" is not fitting in a city that is fairly low rise and which already has plenty of acreage dedicated to parks. (I do advocate safe, small parks and playgrounds and other outdoor spaces for those who live in their immediate vicinity.) If anything, Boston needs more density and urbanism in the "hinterlands" (Hyde Park, Roslindale, etc.). Heck, I'd love to see just about every triple decker in this city bulldozed in favor of more densly built apartment buildings.

But to follow up on the notion that Boston is designed for babies... No, it isn't designed for, nor is it particularly friendly to the coo-coo kind, but we've got plenty of babies of the kukoo kind living here.

I have 2 kids in grammar school, so I think I can assess whether or not Boston is kid friendly. I'd love to live in the city, but it's a fairly hostile place for young families -- unless you want to live in West Roxbury, which is practically Dedham anyhow. Boston's public schools are cr_p, the cost of housing is mindboggling for the space I'd need (two kids, me, a nanny), insurance rates, safe streets, lack of safe playgrounds, heck even trying to push a stroller on poorly maintained sidewalks or through an unshoveled snow bank on each side of a crosswalk make life hell. All of that forces young families to look at the reality of living here v. the burbs and the burbs will win each and every time.

The state of Boston now is that only people left in the city with kids are the ones who cannot afford to get out (the Detroit model) and those who are so wealthy they can insulate their kids from the true nature of living in the city (the Hingham-ization of the South End). The rest of the population is old-timers who rail against change, old money NIMBYs, college kids and child-free yuppies. I don't think that makes Boston a very healthy city or a very diverse world class one.

There is absolutely no reason why Boston cannot be a city that is friendly to young families with kids. NYC has found a way to do it, as have London, Paris, Chicago, Barcelona, and dozens of places around the world.

I see no conflict between (1) zoning DTC, Landsdowne Street, the Seaport and Kenmore Square as 4 am districts and (2) having affordable housing and putting some city money into building decent playgrounds and schools in Dorchester and Roxbury. We can do both. Making this city family friendly AND having an exciting Renzo Piano museum AND allowing restaurants to stay open past 1 am AND selling wine in grocery stores AND having some kid-oriented diversions within the city limits are not impossible.

The enemy of making any of that possible are the NIMBY babies, the kukoo ones, who don't want anything to change, NOT the residents with diaper-clad babies.

pelhamhall

02-29-2008, 08:52 AM

^ Very good points. Boston has a government model where you have to do your time on the city council, jockey with the special interests, wheel-and-deal behind closed doors with lobbyists and union officials, and then you get to be Mayor. I really, really, really hope Menino does not run again, and some wealthy, successful business person candidate emerges with a self-funded campaign to steer the city out of the rut of cronyism, glad-handing, back-slapping, old-school, smoke-filled, union-hall politics that we're stuck in right now. I hate reading these articles in the local media about which city councilor is going to be the next mayor... as if we all have 2-3 choices of who will appointed next. I wish some brash, brilliant business person would emerge ready to take the reins... but I'm not holding my breath. We'll get a city councilor with years of political favors and baggage to pay back.

underground

02-29-2008, 09:08 AM

Please don't revoke my hipster card when I say this, but Boston isn't boring. One time, I thought I was bored, but it turned out I just had mono.

cden4

02-29-2008, 10:03 AM

It's easy to forgot how not boring Boston is. A few times a year, I go to visit my parents in a sleepy suburb of the Pioneer Valley. Talk about boring! It's good that so many of us continue to press on to make Boston an even better place, though. The best thing I can say is that education and inspiration goes a long way. In many cases, NIMBYs just don't know any better. They think they're fighting the good fight, but they just don't know. Teach them how growth and development can make their neighborhoods better, not just for others but for them too! Teach them how more development does not always mean more traffic. Inspire them to want to make their city better for everyone!

kmp1284

02-29-2008, 11:08 AM

Indeed, I've never found Boston to be truly boring. Would I like more? of course, who on this board wouldn't. In the course of a month I can go out to bars five nights a week and go to a good and different bar every night for the whole month without going more than 1.5 miles from my apartment. As for clubs, I'm not a huge club person, I used to go to Avalon quite a bit but since that's been closed I've gone to Estate two or three times and Saint twice and for what a club should be, at least to me, they pass muster. Neither is particularly great as compared to my New York clubs, but seriously, city of 8 million versus city of 600,000, stupid comparison for stupid people. New York has a lot of clubs but not many of them are that good. I've been to upwards of 20 clubs in NY and there are only three or four that I go back to regularly when there. For all the people who are as deathly bored in Boston as they claim to be, simply, what is your problem? what do you like to do that cannot be accomodated? What could Menino, Flaherty & Co. do better beyond allowing bars to stay open until 4am and/or running the T later or 24 hours?

cden4

02-29-2008, 12:13 PM

One thing I would like to see is a more active streetlife. Parks are great, but I think we could use more sidewalk cafes. I think the plan for Downtown Crossing to truly pedestrianize the area is great, so that we can get some tables and chairs out there for people to just sit, socialize, and people-watch. I'd like to see this type of thing happen OUTSIDE of downtown, particularly in the neighborhood business districts. Too much of the city has car-oriented streets which discourage passive pedestrian activity. For most residents, the streets ARE their backyards. Make them places for people, not cars. That will also help make it more attractive to families, if they feel they can walk with their children without being threatened by fast-moving vehicles.

belmont square

02-29-2008, 01:10 PM

I see no conflict between (1) zoning DTC, Landsdowne Street, the Seaport and Kenmore Square as 4 am districts and (2) having affordable housing and putting some city money into building decent playgrounds and schools in Dorchester and Roxbury. We can do both. Making this city family friendly AND having an exciting Renzo Piano museum AND allowing restaurants to stay open past 1 am AND selling wine in grocery stores AND having some kid-oriented diversions within the city limits are not impossible.

I strongly agree.

All of that forces young families to look at the reality of living here v. the burbs and the burbs will win each and every time.

I strongly disagree. I'm not faulting you for your decision to move out of the city. But my family hasn't made that decision. Most parents move out because of the schools, but the way I see it--we can't afford to live in any of the towns where the public high schools could compete with Boston Latin or Latin Academy. And even in the more affordable towns with mediocre schools, we'd have to spend much more on transportation, and would spend much more time commuting to city jobs (and away from our kids).

I think there is plenty of affordable housing in East Boston, Dorchester, Roslindale, Hyde Park, JP for people that want to stay in town. At the end of the day most self-professed city lovers opt for the promise of better schools and more space in a suburban environment. Hey, its their choice.

But if we've identified the need for cities to retain families in order to remain vibrant and healthy, don't we need to criticize the city-loving (I'm differentiating from those that never expressed an interest in remaining here after mating) parents who flee to the suburbs for a lack of courage and vision as much as we criticize our NIMBYs, park designers, BRA officials, and transit operators?

cden4

02-29-2008, 01:26 PM

...don't we need to criticize the city-loving ... parents who flee to the suburbs for a lack of courage and visionYes indeed.

Yes we certainly do. I think the current generation who is having kids are more willing to take a chance and try to improve the city schools than the past, at least from what I've seen.

I currently live in Somerville, and I tell people that when I do have kids (within 5-10 years or so), I fully intend to stay in Somerville. I still get many reactions of "oh but what about the schools (the high school in particular)?". My response is usually that school is what you make of it, and that the Somerville schools are actually quite good and are getting better. In addition, people need to have the courage to realize that diversity (economic, racial, cultural, educational) is a GOOD thing for children. It's a cross section of the real world. It's a global society now, and the earlier children can learn to interact and collaborate with a wide variety of people, the better we will all be. (Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now!)

tobyjug

02-29-2008, 05:00 PM

I love the new thread title!
Anyway, I was at a Clapton-Winwood concert last night at Madison Square Garden (boy, has that place aged poorly.) Wishing to shake off the horror of watching 20,000 drunken middle-aged white people trying to dance, I thought I'd stroll through Times Square. Can you say goo-gaa-gaa? Went for a cigar this morning at Nat Shermans and actually saw a "Build-A-Bear Workshop" on Fifth Ave! If you beamed down from space, you'd have sworn that Manhattan was designed by babies too. Aha! Light bulb moment! The real problem here is the "Manhattanization of Boston."

dirtywater

03-01-2008, 09:24 AM

I think the best place to do all these things is at the Seaport. . . . The WTC of Boston there and so is the convention center, ICA, Children's Museum and the Computer Museum which means that the area should expect a huge amount of pedestrian traffic if we can just add more things to it.

The Computer Museum hasn't been there for years. Its space was taken over by the Children's Museum and the Computer Museum became part of the Science Museum.

atlantaden

03-01-2008, 10:56 AM

John Hynes tried to make his future Seaport square "designed for babies" who will grow into school-age children by including a private school for the families that would move into his development and if you remember, Mayor Menino blew the school plan to bits within a day! Hynes had the foresight to understand that for families to settle and invest in their family's future in the city, they need to feel comfortable with the schools their children will be attending. In this case, Boston had a golden opportunity to encourage families to move back into town but, IMO, the Mayor wrongly and shortsightedly, squashed what parents look most for in a neighborhood besides safety...and that's the local school.

rikahlberg

03-02-2008, 09:48 AM

I have to take issue with putting the blame for Boston's faults on the pols and redirect it at the people who flee!

If you actually get engaged in civic projects to improve the city and make your neighborhood a better place, you will find yourself talking with your neighbors and building relationships with the city's staff and find that it's not such a bad place after all.

A city is alive and it needs care and feeding -- the sidewalks don't repair themselves, street trees don't grow on their own, and sidewalks don't get shoveled by some central-planning authority. These things happen because people make them happen.

czsz

03-03-2008, 02:18 AM

If you beamed down from space, you'd have sworn that Manhattan was designed by babies too. Aha! Light bulb moment! The real problem here is the "Manhattanization of Boston."

Well, thank god all of New York isn't Midtown, or you'd be right. But to illustrate things differently, what's designed for babies in New York is Disney World to Boston's educational Brio. The attractions in this city are built to cultivate intelligent, if sheltered, children.

PaulC

03-12-2008, 11:03 AM

belmont square

03-12-2008, 11:40 AM

If I had kids I would never send them to Boston's public schools.

This is the typical reaction of adults of means in the city. Sometimes I wonder what it's really based on though. I'm no expert, but much of what I've read about education leads me to believe that the education level and income level of the parents are the biggest predictors of a child's success in school. Public schools in places like Weston or Newton, or private schools anywhere are full of kids with highly educated and higher income parents, so it's no surprise these schools do great on tests, or send more kids to elite colleges.

There probably aren't enough upper- or middle-class children in the Boston schools to have a sufficiently large sample size, but I wonder how that popuation performs relative to their private or suburban peers. This is probably my bias coming through, but I would imagine a kid going through the Boston Public schools and graduating from a place like Latin would have some life skill advantages over a kid from Marblehead or Needham.

BostonObserver

03-12-2008, 12:13 PM

This is the typical reaction of adults of means in the city.

I'm far from being an adult of means. I've lived in Boston off and on since 1977 and I've had enough exposure to the schools to know.

This is probably my bias coming through, but I would imagine a kid going through the Boston Public schools and graduating from a place like Latin would have some life skill advantages over a kid from Marblehead or Needham.

I would agree with that but it's hard to get into this school. Many families move out of the city if thier kids do not get accepted

belmont square

03-12-2008, 12:26 PM

If you aren't an adult of means then you might not be able to make the decision Paul C references--never sending your kid to the public schools. I'm not talking "Boston Brahmin" means, I'm talking "pay private school tuition or move to a suburb with half decent public schools" means.

Sure, Latin is tough to get into. And so is Latin Academy. If the choice is Jeremaih Burke or BC High, then I can see the point. But many parents never consider the schools at all, as if the child of two parents with masters degrees living in the South End is not going to be able to read as a 4th grader just because they attend a Boston public elementary school.

Look, I'm not arguing that the schools are the best in the world. But since 1977 have you met a lot of upper middle class families (and above) with college degrees who've sent their kids to the schools, and if so, did they perform worse than their private/suburban peers? It's an honest question.

czsz

03-12-2008, 04:15 PM

Many of the people I know who grew up in the Boston city limits and attended the better public high schools were educated in private schools first.

Beton Brut

03-12-2008, 06:36 PM

Many of the people I know who grew up in the Boston city limits and attended the better public high schools were educated in private schools first.

This is often but not universally true. I attended and graduated from Boston Latin in the 80's. Many of my classmates attended "sister school" K-6 or K-8 before BLS. I'm a product of the public schools. My parents (a cop and a telephone operator with high school educations) made sure to be personally involved in my education, and this was key to my success.

I believe this is still true, in and beyond Boston.

underground

03-31-2008, 12:15 PM

I saw this in the Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/31/in_reversal_young_children_making_a_comeback_in_ny c/)this morning and knew I had to post it here. Evidently it's New York that's designed for babies, not Boston. Personally, I've always suspected that we're better than them. Now I have the scientific proof to back it up!

belmont square

03-31-2008, 02:29 PM

That article talks about the return of "middle class" white families to Manhattan, then later says that the median income of these families is $285,000.

Suffolk 83

03-31-2008, 06:27 PM

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not but go to downtown crossing tomorrow and ask if Boston is 'built for babies'... the answer is clear

Scott

04-01-2008, 06:47 AM

We were all babies once and we were probably all pushed in strollers. Some people are rude about it, my wife and I try not to be. I really don't understand the notion that they don't have as much right to be somewhere as others. I don't take him into bars or strictly adult places but I do take him into some restaurants because he is always well behaved. Only once did he have a meltdown in a place and we left right away, because I think we pushed the nap thing a little too far.

Is Boston designed for babies?

Yes, there are excellent medical facilities in this city and incredible educational opportunities, that is reason enough to have a child here.

No, having a child means planning a whole day of what to eat, where to change him, what will keep him entertained, naps...naps...naps! and the city isn't very good for that. The suburbs are often better and that is too bad because you will get the money out of most parents as fast as tourists.

endus

04-01-2008, 10:40 PM

Why does everywhere in the world have to be child friendly? I know so many New Yorkers who liked the city better the way it was...crime and all.

Scott

04-02-2008, 05:36 AM

belmont square

04-02-2008, 11:17 AM

Why does everywhere in the world have to be child friendly? I know so many New Yorkers who liked the city better the way it was...crime and all.

Are you talking about the city's first 320 years before rampant suburbanization when most New York metropolitan families raised their children there? Or the subsequent 40 years or so when most middle and upper class families decamped to the suburbs, leaving only the very wealthy and poorest children behind?

This pro- or anti-child debate strikes me as very odd. I'm not sure how anyone that is in favor of sustainable development (as most on this board seem to be) can be opposed to families living in the city, where kids can walk to schools and playgrounds, ride public transportation to get to activities when they are teenagers, don't have to drive a car at the age of 16 (and the risks in that behavior) to access activities, and get exposed to the range of socioeconomic classes and age groups that exist in the world. Yes, there should be sections of cities that are not designed for children--adult entertainment zones, industrial zones, districts of office buildings--but why should any other part of Manhattan or Boston not be sensitive to the needs of all age groups?

Scott

04-02-2008, 06:38 PM

Let's take the argument further; Why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for the Comm Ave improvement project? It is not as if it helps anyone but the students and the colleges have so many people wishing to get in that we shouldn't spend any public money at all when they will bang the door down no matter what. If they complain they can go somewhere else because there are 5 more waiting to take their place. Then we should force the colleges to pay taxes on their property at the same rate that I do because places like Harvard, BU and BC have forgotten that their mission is to educate Bostonians or Catholics and not some snot nosed kids from Long Island or Buffalo who has a bag full of daddy's money.

How's that?

czsz

04-02-2008, 07:20 PM

Actually, Boston city planning has been pretty unfriendly to students of late. Restrictive zoning on multiple-occupancy apartments, the hypergentrification of old haunts like Kenmore Square, expansion plans for dorms and such nixed citywide.

The totem pole of interests in terms of this city's physical development goes something like this:

-old neighborhood residents with far too much time on their hands to scrutinize ERFs
-uncreative developers with their hands down City Hall's pants
-babies
-yuppies waiting to colonize another fun but somewhat rundown neighborhood with designer seafood restaurants
-
-
-
-
-
-students

Scott

04-03-2008, 06:29 AM

Of course, that was all sarcasm, I always get fired up on the day the residential tax bills arrive.

endus

04-03-2008, 10:18 AM

Are you talking about the city's first 320 years before rampant suburbanization when most New York metropolitan families raised their children there? Or the subsequent 40 years or so when most middle and upper class families decamped to the suburbs, leaving only the very wealthy and poorest children behind?

Subsequent 40 years. :)

This pro- or anti-child debate strikes me as very odd. I'm not sure how anyone that is in favor of sustainable development (as most on this board seem to be) can be opposed to families living in the city, where kids can walk to schools and playgrounds, ride public transportation to get to activities when they are teenagers, don't have to drive a car at the age of 16 (and the risks in that behavior) to access activities, and get exposed to the range of socioeconomic classes and age groups that exist in the world. Yes, there should be sections of cities that are not designed for children--adult entertainment zones, industrial zones, districts of office buildings--but why should any other part of Manhattan or Boston not be sensitive to the needs of all age groups?

Because those zones are under constant attack from the breeders. I've been in bars in Cambridge at 10:30 at night and had people walk in with a baby! No joke. The situation is completely out of control. I want strip clubs and seedy businesses to have a place to exist, mostly because I think the people who frequent those businesses have a right to do so (I, personally, would neeever go to a strip club....nope....definitely not....nosireee...). We are homogenizing our culture at such an insane pace now. It's not just that the city in general has to be kid friendly, it's that people want to be able to take their stroller through the combat zone at 2am. It's one thing to create sustainable development, it's another to revamp the city as a bastion of yuppies.

Local business is obviously the first victim of the homogenization, as we see eeeeever so clearly in Harvard Square. The second set of vicims are the people who grew up in the city. Affording a house in Arlington, where I grew up, is nothing but a cruel joke now. I realize that my scope is creeping a bit here, but I think that it's all interrelated. It seems that the more you aim at making the city "safe" and "kid friendly" the more you chase out the locals and their businesses. In doing so you completely destroy the character of the city and what made it a cool place that people wanted to live in the first place, and the more you turn it into yet another strip mall filled with culturally bankrupt corporate line-towers. These people want to live in their idea of what "Boston" is, not the actual reality of what Boston is. They view all of the things that make the city what it is as a blight and a hindrance to their vision of a bed bath and beyond on every corner and no one throwing up in the alley behind their apartment when the bars close.

I won't even get into gentrification and the effects on the racial makeup of an area that it can have.

endus

04-03-2008, 10:28 AM

Because we parents pay taxes and vote, en masse. If the powers that be do not accommodate us, their political career will be brief.

Get used to it.

btw- I personally have never heard anyone who witnessed it, say that they miss the crime in New York.

You should try talking to some more interesting people. Try the local bondage dungeon...or maybe see if you can sneak into a subway tunnel in the middle of the night...you'll find them.

It's not the crime that they miss as much as the character.

Not to get nasty, but you talk about the local politicians as if you're proud of them. I can't imagine ceiling tiles falling on your children's heads on the way to the airport to fly to Disneyland is very good for them. If you want to take credit for the losers that run this state, you are MORE than welcome to do so. Just be ready to accept the consequences when they fail as they always have and will continue to do in the future.

It's all a facade. A paper city built up to look new and shiny. The truth is that all the crime is still there, it's just a different kind of crime. It used to be that you knew where the combat zone was and you just didn't go there. Now the bridges are built with substandard concrete, the ceiling caves in on you when you're trying to drive to the airport, and your tax dollars are disappearing even faster than they did before with even less of an explanation of where they went.

aquaman

04-03-2008, 10:49 AM

Because those zones are under constant attack from the breeders. I've been in bars in Cambridge at 10:30 at night and had people walk in with a baby! No joke. The situation is completely out of control.

This is a case of bad parenting, not evidence that there is out of control pro-baby wave where city planning is concerned.

belmont square

04-03-2008, 11:40 AM

It's one thing to create sustainable development, it's another to revamp the city as a bastion of yuppies.

Affording a house in Arlington, where I grew up, is nothing but a cruel joke now. I realize that my scope is creeping a bit here, but I think that it's all interrelated. It seems that the more you aim at making the city "safe" and "kid friendly" the more you chase out the locals and their businesses. In doing so you completely destroy the character of the city and what made it a cool place that people wanted to live in the first place, and the more you turn it into yet another strip mall filled with culturally bankrupt corporate line-towers. These people want to live in their idea of what "Boston" is, not the actual reality of what Boston is. They view all of the things that make the city what it is as a blight and a hindrance to their vision of a bed bath and beyond on every corner and no one throwing up in the alley behind their apartment when the bars close.

I won't even get into gentrification and the effects on the racial makeup of an area that it can have.

Even though I have two young children I'm with you on most of this. These endangered features of the city are some of the things that made it attractive for me to move here 15 years ago, and living in a non-homogenized environment is one of the reasons I'm attempting to remain here to raise my children.

However, aren't you describing a future that's inevitable for any city that turns the tide on decades of disinvestment and becomes desirable again? The presence of subsidized housing and residential adjacencies to large transportation and industrial infrastructure makes it likely that there will always be a beachhead for low-income folks in the city, but if urban form continues to gain in popularity doesn't it reason that it will transform into a place inhabited primarily by the wealthy or upper middle class? Isn't that the case in Paris or London or the great European capitals.

I'm of an age that considers urban decay and grit to be part and parcel of a major city, and I'm no fan of homogenization. But if there are going to be residential areas where homes are not kept up and the sidewalks are strewn with litter, and we had to make a choice, I guess I'd rather live in a world where those neighborhoods were on suburban cul de sacs of cheap 1970s era faux colonials then on streets of well-built victorians and row houses in Eastie, Dorchester or Everett.

And here's the best part--the day when all of urban Boston is Disnefied or Harvard Square-ied looks to be several decades away based on my observations of walking around the city.

Scott

04-03-2008, 02:56 PM

Because those zones are under constant attack from the breeders.

"breeders" like your parents... unless there was another way to bring you into this world. I am very proud of the fact that I have reproduced so I wear that like a badge of honor.

btw- Your fellow citizens, members of organized labor spent a lot of time and treasure to ensure a certain community's right to marry. Wouldn't it be nice if that resulted in more adoptions. Wouldn't it be nice if you met that certain someone and have a child of your own? It would change your attitude.

Try the local bondage dungeon...or maybe see if you can sneak into a subway tunnel in the middle of the night...you'll find them.

Next time I'm filled with self loathing I may try that.

czsz

04-03-2008, 05:09 PM

I think some people here are confusing the worthy right of families to exist and/or live in the city overall with the unnecessary need for families and their needs to take priority over everything in nearly every neighborhood.

Scott

04-03-2008, 06:14 PM

...and what would a relative newcomer know about what is happening in neighborhoods he's never been to?

czsz

04-03-2008, 08:48 PM

Huh? What are you implying?

belmont square

04-03-2008, 10:34 PM

the unnecessary need for families and their needs to take priority over everything in nearly every neighborhood.

That's a little over the top, don't you think? The majority of city neighborhoods (Dot, Mattapan, Roxbury, Hyde Park, Eastie, Roslindale) have always had large populations of children and the needs of children in these places seem to be addressed much as they always have. In a few smaller neighborhoods (South End, Back Bay, North End, Beacon Hill) where this demographic was driven almost to extinction, the return of this species in historically very small numbers seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of alarm.

I get it. Formerly fringe groups in society--gays, artists, single adults--flooded into the areas of cities that were vacated by retreating middle class families in the latter half of the 20th century. But just because they were alone in seeing the city's charms during the darkest days of American development, should the city be reserved for them in perpetuity? If czsz or anyone else is truly a proponent of urban living, shouldn't the goal be a day when the demographics of the city more closely mirror those of the metropolitan area as a whole?

czsz

04-03-2008, 10:54 PM

If the demographics of the city mirror those of the rest of the metropolitan area (i.e. the suburbs) where to the "gays, artists, single adults" congregate when they want to do so exclusive of strollers and crying? Are you suggesting they be pushed out of the city, or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

belmont square

04-03-2008, 11:24 PM

If the demographics of the city mirror those of the rest of the metropolitan area (i.e. the suburbs) where to the "gays, artists, single adults" congregate when they want to do so exclusive of strollers and crying?

The same place I go with my kids when I want to congregate with them exclusive of uneducated people swearing every third word, high school kids smoking pot on the street, people tossing cigarette butts on the sidewalk, and inebriated college age kids stumbling out of the neighborhood bar: out of the city, because if you can't hack living cheek by jowl with those that aren't like you, then you shouldn't be in the city in the first place (whether you're a yuppie parent, or bondage dungeon dweller). By the way, when I get a night or day out on my own or with friends to enjoy the city sans kids, I'm usually able to find spots devoid of stroller and crying...could it be that the "gays, artists, single adults" are less creative/adventurous these days, or are they just not buying into the tolerance they've been selling all these years?

belmont square

04-03-2008, 11:33 PM

or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

Yes! I can't think of anything less cosmopolitan than wanting to live in a neighborhood where everyone has the same lifestyle as you. If they want to mimic the white middle class parents that exclusively settled suburbia, then I would support their colonizing a place like Tewksbury or Norton.

Scott

04-04-2008, 04:29 AM

Are you suggesting they be pushed out of the city, or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

Last time I heard that argument it was during an anti-busing rally. ;)

endus

04-06-2008, 11:45 PM

"breeders" like your parents... unless there was another way to bring you into this world. I am very proud of the fact that I have reproduced so I wear that like a badge of honor.

btw- Your fellow citizens, members of organized labor spent a lot of time and treasure to ensure a certain community's right to marry. Wouldn't it be nice if that resulted in more adoptions. Wouldn't it be nice if you met that certain someone and have a child of your own? It would change your attitude.

I've met that certain someone. Maybe someday I'll have a kid. What I won't do is take that kid to bars in cambridge in the middle of the night or down through the alley where Centerfolds is. I also won't work to bulldoze Boston's culture to make it a homogenous vanilla "safe-zone".

CSZ makes my point precisely: there is certainly a right for families to exist and have places to go and have fun. No question about it. However there is also a right of people without families to have places to go and have fun. Neither of those rights supersedes the other one.

Next time I'm filled with self loathing I may try that.

You don't need to be filled with self loathing! There are wicked cool people in both places. You'd be surprised.

...and what would a relative newcomer know about what is happening in neighborhoods he's never been to?

Not sure if this was aimed at me, but I've lived here all my life.

endus

04-06-2008, 11:56 PM

Even though I have two young children I'm with you on most of this. These endangered features of the city are some of the things that made it attractive for me to move here 15 years ago, and living in a non-homogenized environment is one of the reasons I'm attempting to remain here to raise my children.

Absolutely. You think that way because you're a smart person. As your kids grow it's those same cultural landmarks that will turn your kids into interesting and worthwhile people. Sure, there may be people peeing in the street after the mid east lets out (haha) but the upshot is an incredible local music scene.

However, aren't you describing a future that's inevitable for any city that turns the tide on decades of disinvestment and becomes desirable again? The presence of subsidized housing and residential adjacencies to large transportation and industrial infrastructure makes it likely that there will always be a beachhead for low-income folks in the city, but if urban form continues to gain in popularity doesn't it reason that it will transform into a place inhabited primarily by the wealthy or upper middle class? Isn't that the case in Paris or London or the great European capitals.

Sure. I can't argue with that. Its the inexorable force of progress. Disinvestment -> cheap rent -> artists -> culture -> cool place to live -> yuppies. That's just one path things can take but, yea, it's kind of inevitable. I think that some of the more prosperous property owners (like in Harvard Sq) could probably show a little spine and actually work and (ghasp) sacrifice to keep the city interesting, but I know that won't ever happen.

I'm of an age that considers urban decay and grit to be part and parcel of a major city, and I'm no fan of homogenization. But if there are going to be residential areas where homes are not kept up and the sidewalks are strewn with litter, and we had to make a choice, I guess I'd rather live in a world where those neighborhoods were on suburban cul de sacs of cheap 1970s era faux colonials then on streets of well-built victorians and row houses in Eastie, Dorchester or Everett.

I wouldn't hold your breath. It's only a matter of time. History matters not to developers. You need look no further than the rape of the old state Hospitals by Avalon Bay for evidence of whats to come. Bulldozing most of Danvers State Hospital was a crime and if you can't save a structure of that magnatude what hope do houses have? Sure, some will be saved, but the character of the neighborhoods will inevitably be lost. Maybe in the grand scheme of things it's better, but I don't think so.