What I hate about Boston

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by JohnAKeith

I'm not getting into this conversation .... but, here's my comment.

Landlord: I just built a new low-priced complex, the rent is $1,200 for a one bedroom.
Me: Awesome!
Landlord: Sorry, I already have someone interesting in paying full price.
Me: I'll pay $1,201!
Landlord: Okay ... wait, someone's willing to pay me $1,202.
Me; I'll pay ...

Get it?

And this happens because DUN DUN DUN DUN!

Low supply.

Landlord: I just built a new low-priced complex, the rent is $1,200 for a one bedroom.
Me: Awesome!
Landlord: Sorry, I already have someone interesting in paying full price.
Me: I'll pay $1,201!
Landlord: Okay ... wait, someone's willing to pay me $1,202.
Me: To hell with you, I'll take that new apartment that is an extra 5 minutes away with the smaller one bedroom for $1000.

Except that people looking for apartments in Boston doesn't have to choice to do so.

Get it?

Good

You also don't need to look as far as NYC to find a successfuly middle-income apartment complex. There's one in Boston called Harbor Point on the Bay. A few of these in the city would be great additions.

[itchy]

Co-Op City is Hell on Earth. I cannot think of a more hideous, wretched place on the East Coast. And we're actually having a conversation about how Boston should emulate it?

Of course people making decent money should not under any circumstances be getting discounts paid for by other taxpayers for their housing. If you're making nearly $100K, you can get a great home in any one of many suburbs that offer some of the finest living conditions on the planet. Taking money from other people -- most of whom are earning less than you -- so you can have your less-well-off neighbors fund your dream condo next to the Fens is not a reasonable use of government's taxing powers.

I fail to understand why anyone feels he is entitled to live in a prime downtown neighborhood with extremely limited space (space that is limited due to a city's zoning regulations, not due to "evil rich moneybag types"), and I don't think anyone demanding this can offer a logical explanation of why he does either. The fact is that nobody has a "right" to live in the Back Bay (or Fenway, or any other particular place). My parents never thought they did, I don't think I do, and I grew up fine in a cheaper suburb without feeling that of the 20,000 people who are able to live in the Back Bay I should be one of them, regardless of whether I or my family can pay for it ... just because.

You want to see more middle-class people living in Boston? Well, geez, the city isn't that small; they can move to Roxbury, can't they? Do they not want that? If not, why? Is it that they only want to live among rich people? If that's the case, they should keep earning money until they too are in that category, and then they can rub elbows amongst the Thurston Howells of the world honestly and on their own dime. And if they really just want to live in Boston, I'm sure they'll do fine looking for a place in Roxbury; more people with that attitude would probably turn Roxbury into a more desirable place that people will actually be seeking out some day in the not-too-distant future.

Going back to our Brutalist Martian Colony in the Bronx, Co-Op City, while in the vicinity one will note that there's not a lot of middle-class people for miles. And that is largely because Co-Op City has created a socioeconomic black hole around it that nobody wants to be near, driving out the middle class just as it has been driven out of the non-central neighborhoods of cities around the country by housing projects built with only the best intentions ... but which result in crime-ridden neighborhoods with failing schools and falling housing values that the middle class quite rationally wants to get away from. If you want the middle class to do well, let people figure out their own solutions to their problems; adults have a way of being able to do this fairly well.

[czsz]

there's not a lot of middle-class people for miles

Co-Op City is on the border of Westchester County suburbs that are primarily middle class and affluent people.

It shares bus lines with City Island, which is very middle class.

To the extent it's isolated, it's more isolated infrastructurally by highways and rail lines.

[blade_bltz]

but which result in crime-ridden neighborhoods with failing schools and falling housing values that the middle class quite rationally wants to get away from.

But it's irrational for middle class people to avoid crime-ridden neighborhoods with failing schools that happen to be outside the vicinity of housing projects? I'm of course referring to all of those parts of Roxbury that weren't torn down during urban renewal. Say, the entire neighborhood north of Franklin Park, and Grove Hall areas.

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by itchy

Co-Op City is Hell on Earth. I cannot think of a more hideous, wretched place on the East Coast. And we're actually having a conversation about how Boston should emulate it?

Of course people making decent money should not under any circumstances be getting discounts paid for by other taxpayers for their housing. If you're making nearly $100K, you can get a great home in any one of many suburbs that offer some of the finest living conditions on the planet. Taking money from other people -- most of whom are earning less than you -- so you can have your less-well-off neighbors fund your dream condo next to the Fens is not a reasonable use of government's taxing powers.

I fail to understand why anyone feels he is entitled to live in a prime downtown neighborhood with extremely limited space (space that is limited due to a city's zoning regulations, not due to "evil rich moneybag types"), and I don't think anyone demanding this can offer a logical explanation of why he does either. The fact is that nobody has a "right" to live in the Back Bay (or Fenway, or any other particular place). My parents never thought they did, I don't think I do, and I grew up fine in a cheaper suburb without feeling that of the 20,000 people who are able to live in the Back Bay I should be one of them, regardless of whether I or my family can pay for it ... just because.

You want to see more middle-class people living in Boston? Well, geez, the city isn't that small; they can move to Roxbury, can't they? Do they not want that? If not, why? Is it that they only want to live among rich people? If that's the case, they should keep earning money until they too are in that category, and then they can rub elbows amongst the Thurston Howells of the world honestly and on their own dime. And if they really just want to live in Boston, I'm sure they'll do fine looking for a place in Roxbury; more people with that attitude would probably turn Roxbury into a more desirable place that people will actually be seeking out some day in the not-too-distant future.

Going back to our Brutalist Martian Colony in the Bronx, Co-Op City, while in the vicinity one will note that there's not a lot of middle-class people for miles. And that is largely because Co-Op City has created a socioeconomic black hole around it that nobody wants to be near, driving out the middle class just as it has been driven out of the non-central neighborhoods of cities around the country by housing projects built with only the best intentions ... but which result in crime-ridden neighborhoods with failing schools and falling housing values that the middle class quite rationally wants to get away from. If you want the middle class to do well, let people figure out their own solutions to their problems; adults have a way of being able to do this fairly well.

First, I want to state, since it seems like almost everyone who read my post inexplicably missed the part where I stated that these projects WOULD NOT BE BUILT ON PRIME LOCATIONS, i.e. Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Downtown, etc.

Because it can provide a quick boost in the amount of housing supply that many people can afford. Anything being built now in large quantity exceeds that amount and looking for housing in Roxbury with it's CURRENT growth and supply would not be sufficient.

And again for those that probably only read the first line in every posts, I'm not calling for an exact carbon copy of Co-Op City, just the idea of having REAL affordable housing complexes coming down the pipeline.

The ones I'm hoping for are more in line with Harbor Point on the Bay, of which the socioeconomic black hole you described for Co-op City does not exist.

Tell me that this looks like Hell on Earth, Co-Op City.

[Matthew]

Looks like fairly typical tower-in-the-park[ing lot] hell. It's about 0.5-1 mile from JFK/UMass, which is something, though you have to cross some nasty stretches of parking lots and roads to get there.

The reviews are interesting...

[Ron Newman]

The main problem with the Harbor Point development is the lack of basic commercial services nearby. There's no convenience store, Star Market is a long walk, and I think it's even further to reach a pharmacy of any kind.

That said, the waterfront walkway/bike path is quite attractive.

[Suffolk 83]

In the winter, that walk to Star is probably the coldest in the city. Desolate wind swept artic tundra.

[underground]

Right wing ideology aside, we could always stop worrying about low and middle income housing that's quickly accessible to downtown jobs via public transportation. And then when we've turned into Paris we can all enjoy the massive riots that break out around the fringes of the city.

[czsz]

Boston arguably already has Paris-style banlieues in places like Lynn and Brockton, where it's exiled Massachusetts' worst social conditions.

[Lurker]

Lynn and Brockton "got nuthin' on Fitchburg and Springfield.

[KentXie]

There's a section up in the northern part of Charlestown (just past Charlestown Hight) that is incredibly under-developed and it would be great if something like this gets developed there.

@Ron

That's probably one of the reasons why it's relatively cheap, but I think middle/low income families are willing to take the extra time to make errands as long as they have a place within the city limits that they can afford to stay.

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Looks like fairly typical tower-in-the-park[ing lot] hell. It's about 0.5-1 mile from JFK/UMass, which is something, though you have to cross some nasty stretches of parking lots and roads to get there.

The reviews are interesting...

I think those parking lots are being redeveloped into academic buildings and dorms for UMASS Boston.

[kmp1284]

Originally Posted by underground

Right wing ideology aside, we could always stop worrying about low and middle income housing that's quickly accessible to downtown jobs via public transportation. And then when we've turned into Paris we can all enjoy the massive riots that break out around the fringes of the city.

While that would be gloriously entertaining, the poor in this country are too lazy to riot.

[Lurker]

Typically when people riot, they tend to burn down their own neighborhoods and business, further impoverishing themselves. That cycle is ironic, ego I hypothesize that hipsters are more likely to riot sooner in Boston than the poor due to the invocation of irony.

So can we please get some "scoops" ready to drive onto Alston and get one of the local Breweries on-board with fermenting Soylent Green? It might help with the student population problem in that neighborhood and I'm sure the hipsters would happily consume Soylent Green over the old standby of PBR due to it ironically being made of other hipsters.

/it burns

[kz1000ps]

LOL....Lurker, your logic is flawless.

[Beton Brut]

"Soylent Plaid is made of Hipsters!"

[Beton Brut]

I'm no defender of Walmart, but this about sums it up...

Originally Posted by The Boston Globe

Menino plays favorites, Boston loses

By Joan Vennochi | GLOBE COLUMNIST OCTOBER 06, 2011

CASINOS EXPLOIT the poor while offering nothing in return, except the empty promise of fool’s gold. Boston Mayor Tom Menino favors that, yet opposes a discount retailer that will bring quality products at low prices into Roxbury.

It doesn’t make sense. But don’t look for logic or consistency in Menino’s recent policy decrees. You won’t find them.

He’s against letting Wal-Mart into his fiefdom, supposedly because the giant discount retailer kills off local business. He’s for casinos even though they do the same thing.

As Donald Trump, casino owner extraordinaire, once acknowledged. “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they lose customer dollars to the casinos.’’

Like so many Menino decisions, embracing Suffolk Downs while rebuffing Wal-Mart is all about the personal.

Menino’s longtime friend, Joe O’Donnell, is part of the racetrack’s ownership team. It was O’Donnell who first put Menino in touch with Richard Fields, the track’s principal owner. Menino has confirmed that his meeting with Fields turned him from tepid casino supporter to passionate cheerleader. Since then, Fields has donated thousands of dollars through a family foundation to charities affiliated with Menino. According to a recent Boston Globe report, the Fields Family Foundation donated $10,000 to Menino’s charity in 2008 and 2009. Menino said money has nothing to do with his support, and he’s probably right. His friendship with O’Donnell matters more.

On the miscalculation that money is the chief way to Menino’s heart, Wal-Mart sharply increased its charitable giving in Boston. This year, it donated more than $2.1 million to Boston nonprofits. The company also hired Nick Mitropoulos, a friend and one-time political adviser to Menino. However, that friendship has apparently soured and isn’t working to Wal-Mart’s benefit. The mayor told people Mitropoulos “betrayed’’ him when he went to work for Wal-Mart.

Personal petulance rules the day in Menino’s Boston. It shapes policy and triumphs over economic principle. But this isn’t exactly a news flash. For the nearly two decades of Menino’s regime, it has defined the way business has been getting done. After all this time, it’s not just tiresome. It’s really bad for Boston.

In one breath, Menino tells a Labor Day breakfast that job creation should be the priority in Massachusetts. In the next, he says no to Wal-Mart, a master at job creation. As a corporation, Wal-Mart has its weaknesses, and the mayor should use his leverage to get the company to address them. But, in the final analysis, who would create more jobs at higher wages? Wal-Mart or the small retailers of Dudley Square who may have good intentions but unfortunately can’t match the merchandise variety or low prices of a giant discounter? The answer is obvious to everyone but Menino.

Meanwhile, if protecting local business is really Menino’s chief concern, how can he champion a casino at Suffolk Downs? Research compiled by United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts - an advocacy group that is trying to stop expanded gambling in Massachusetts - makes the case that local businesses are losers when gambling comes to town. Casinos are one-stop entertainment centers, providing food, drink, ATM machines, and more in one centralized location. What will that do to the North End?

When consumers spend their discretionary income on gambling, they also spend less on clothing, electronics, furniture, and cars. One study on the costs and benefits of casinos found that for every $1,000 in increased casino revenue, businesses up to 30 miles away lost $243.

Finally, job growth in the casino industry will lead to job cuts elsewhere. The Boston Business Journal concluded that the claim that casinos will create 20,000 new jobs “is bogus because the diversion of billions of dollars in one sector is destined to cause job losses in other sectors.’’

On the merits, Menino can’t embrace Suffolk Downs as he rebuffs Wal-Mart. On the merits, Wal-Mart deserves his consideration and Suffolk Downs deserves his skepticism. But the merits don’t drive Menino. They never have, never will, and Boston loses because of it.

Link.

King Tom of Readville needs to fucking go.

[Ron Newman]

Walmart just decided not to open a grocery at the former Circuit City in Somerville and not to build a big box store in Watertown. On balance, I'm glad they pulled out of Somerville, as I was not looking forward to the divisive political fighting that would have resulted here. But someone needs to redevelop that Circuit City property.

[datadyne007]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

Walmart just decided not to open a grocery at the former Circuit City in Somerville and not to build a big box store in Watertown. On balance, I'm glad they pulled out of Somerville, as I was not looking forward to the divisive political fighting that would have resulted here. But someone needs to redevelop that Circuit City property.

Dave & Busterssssssss! Ala South Shore Plaza!