Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a big difference between affordable housing in a given town and housing that is affordable across the region. In my opinion, keeping above that threshold isn't some high-minded effort by the noble people of Lincoln to improve their community, but a calculated effort to keep 40b developments out of their town. If they cared about keeping housing affordable, they'd relax the 2 acre lot limits. I say this as someone who lives in a town that also keeps above the 10% limit and is a lot more open about the motivation, so I can't really fault them.
Again, the problem with increasing a town's population with affordable housing units is that the children that they bring with them will need to go to the town's public schools. In some cases (like in Newton) the classrooms become overcrowded and the quality of education goes down. Building more classrooms costs money, and the people in the "affordable" housing units would not be paying their fair share of the costs. If you go to this link: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/ppx.aspx , you can see how if Weston is fine with spending $18K a year per student in their public grade schools, then why would they want the children in "affordable" housing running up their school budget and not paying their fair share of the costs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I also wish more could be done to make our older cities more desirable. Places like Lowell, Lawrence, Lynn, Haverhill, Brockton, etc. are all fairly dense, have good transit access, and close to Boston. All of them have plenty of available housing (affordable housing at that), and both the room and desire to build more. However, these places aren't desirable for most people for a multitude of reasons.
Perhaps Governor Baker or the MA state legislature could give businesses some real tax incentives to develop satellite offices in those older cities. Keep a Boston office for that snobby main address, but allow their office workers to pick and chose where they would rather work. I'm guessing that most office workers would want to avoid a Boston commute as much as possible.
What's really the point of spending 1-2 hours in traffic each way to reach a job in the Boston area? Once in Boston, there's the rush to park in the underground parking garage underneath the building you work in. Sure the office views are great, but lunch is usually drop-off catering so there's no need to actually walk around Boston during lunchtime. Then at the end of the day, it's just jumping back into the rush hour commute home.
If that's your experience, it doesn't need to be. You don't need to drive in and deal with parking and you don't need to have the drop-off catering (is that really the usual lunch for most people, it's not in my experience)? I did the long commute for a while, and opted for the bus or train to avoid the traffic/parking and turn my commute into productive/relaxing time. I didn't live right on the train line either, nor did I live in an expensive town. I then opted to be much closer to work and shorten the commute to well under an hour (and still no driving/parking). I also make it a point to get out and walk around a bit during the day (I mostly bring my lunch or get something cheap somewhere else). I actually really enjoy it, as do most people I know. The ones who don't enjoy it? They're the people who live 50 miles from town because they want to be in the woods.
The issue is people want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a quiet suburb away from it all, you're going to... well... be away from it all. If it were beneficial for companies to open up satellites in smaller cities and towns, they would. But it's not. There's neither the critical mass of talent, or the infrastructure to handle the commuters. Office parks along 128 were originally designed to cater to the suburban car commuter. Now it's almost as much of a pain to commute from the burbs to the suburban office parks because of traffic. If you build your offices around the desires of car commuters, you induce traffic and the commute becomes a challenge. It's that simple.
The issue is people want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a quiet suburb away from it all, you're going to... well... be away from it all. If it were beneficial for companies to open up satellites in smaller cities and towns, they would. But it's not. There's neither the critical mass of talent, or the infrastructure to handle the commuters. Office parks along 128 were originally designed to cater to the suburban car commuter. Now it's almost as much of a pain to commute from the burbs to the suburban office parks because of traffic. If you build your offices around the desires of car commuters, you induce traffic and the commute becomes a challenge. It's that simple.
As someone who lives in Boston and now does the 128 commute, I can tell you first hand that most days I long to walk to a T stop and deal with the orange line. It almost all cases it was better. If there was a jam job going on on the subway, I just would maybe get something to eat or a drink, or take a walk. Not much you can do when you are stuck in your car.
As someone who lives in Boston and now does the 128 commute, I can tell you first hand that most days I long to walk to a T stop and deal with the orange line. It almost all cases it was better. If there was a jam job going on on the subway, I just would maybe get something to eat or a drink, or take a walk. Not much you can do when you are stuck in your car.
Agreed. It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination, but I actually miss the T on days I have to drive anywhere during rush hour. And I like driving.
We have offices in Worcester, and occasionally I have to go there. I used to love those days when I was living in Fall River or Dartmouth. The distance was longer, but the commute time was shorter because traffic wasn't bad. Now, I dread those days. Traffic inside of 128 is awful at anything approaching peak times (read: 6-10am & 3-7pm), no matter what direction you're heading. And there's really nothing you can do except sit there in your car.
There is some push for this, and you actually see a reasonable amount of TOD around commuter rail and subway stations. There are large scale proposals (and even some construction) underway near a lot of the proposed GLX stops, and that's not even running yet. I think in some places there are incentives for it. But something needs to happen in order to create an incentive for towns to fast track more of these projects.
Agreed. I work with a guy (we're near North Station) who moved from the Porter Square area to Salem. His commute via commuter rail is shorter now than it was via the Redline/walking from Porter even though he's further out. And because Salem has frequent commuter rail trains, he's flexible on his commute. No reason this can't happen elsewhere.
I also wish more could be done to make our older cities more desirable. Places like Lowell, Lawrence, Lynn, Haverhill, Brockton, etc. are all fairly dense, have good transit access, and close to Boston. All of them have plenty of available housing (affordable housing at that), and both the room and desire to build more. However, these places aren't desirable for most people for a multitude of reasons.
Interesting note about the commute. Salem seems ridiculously far out for that to happen. I had a similar, milder experience living on a green line community where my fastest possible method of commute was via bike.
I moved 4-5 miles out and suddenly the T could get me to work in the same 25 minutes.
Moved another few miles and then commuter rail again got me to work at the same office in just about 25 minutes.
As for those cities, they are all different. I am from Haverhill which is maybe in the best shape of those that you mention however is the most remote. The culture of these towns has been just ravaged too by drugs to the point where they are basically missing the generation that fuels the desirability of dense urban living in the first place. I mean I was a straight A student and I was maybe 15? the first time a good friend OD'd. I'm only 25 now and just a lot of kids we grew up with are gone, dozens. Lowell was just as bad for this stuff despite its "renaissance". I'm not as familiar with the other towns, but they also had gang and violence problems that most Haverhill kids could only pretend to relate to.
The point is the only way these towns will be desirable is if they are flooded with outsiders. Despite relatively low levels of violence, the valley towns are a void of productive millennial culture and will never become centers of innovation and commerce unless that change is made by transplants. The housing is not even that affordable for what it is. South Coast cities look like a better deal from a cost of living perspective.
Last edited by Space_League; 11-08-2018 at 10:40 AM..
Interesting note about the commute. Salem seems ridiculously far out for that to happen. I had a similar, milder experience living on a green line community where my fastest possible method of commute was via bike.
I moved 4-5 miles out and suddenly the T could get me to work in the same 25 minutes.
Moved another few miles and then commuter rail again got me to work at the same office in just about 25 minutes.
It's wild how far out he moved and how quick it is still. And to your point, Biking is the quickest way for me to get in right now too.
The kicker is the walk from Charles/MGH which adds another 10+ minutes to the commute. Plus 20 or so on the train. There are like 4/5 trains from Salem per hour at peak in the morning which gives flexibility, and at least one of them runs with limited stops so it's a 25 minute trip. Since N. Station is closer to the office than Charles, the overall trip time is actually quicker for him.
Quote:
As for those cities, they are all different. I am from Haverhill which is maybe in the best shape of those that you mention however is the most remote. The culture of these towns has been just ravaged too by drugs to the point where they are basically missing the generation that fuels the desirability of dense urban living in the first place. I mean I was a straight A student and I was maybe 15? the first time a good friend OD'd. I'm only 25 now and just a lot of kids we grew up with are gone, dozens. Lowell was just as bad for this stuff despite its "renaissance". I'm not as familiar with the other towns, but they also had gang and violence problems that most Haverhill kids could only pretend to relate to.
The point is the only way these towns will be desirable is if they are flooded with outsiders. Despite relatively low levels of violence, the valley towns are a void of productive millennial culture and will never become centers of innovation and commerce unless that change is made by transplants. The housing is not even that affordable for what it is. South Coast cities look like a better deal from a cost of living perspective.
I agree with all of this. I grew up in the Fall River/New Bedford area and everything you're saying applies down there too. I have been to 5 funerals for OD victims. My ex's fiancee died of an OD leaving her and their 2 children behind. The only way for these towns to change is with a massive culture shift, but I don't know how that happens.
I'd agree that the South Coast cities are the cheapest, but they're also even more remote/disconnected than Haverhill, Lowell, Lawrence, etc. With a train, you're still looking at a 90 minute commute from either. Taunton stands to benefit the most since it's closer, and like Salem, will get double frequencies since it'll get both sets of trains going to Fall River/New Bedford.
It's wild how far out he moved and how quick it is still. And to your point, Biking is the quickest way for me to get in right now too.
The kicker is the walk from Charles/MGH which adds another 10+ minutes to the commute. Plus 20 or so on the train. There are like 4/5 trains from Salem per hour at peak in the morning which gives flexibility, and at least one of them runs with limited stops so it's a 25 minute trip. Since N. Station is closer to the office than Charles, the overall trip time is actually quicker for him.
I agree with all of this. I grew up in the Fall River/New Bedford area and everything you're saying applies down there too. I have been to 5 funerals for OD victims. My ex's fiancee died of an OD leaving her and their 2 children behind. The only way for these towns to change is with a massive culture shift, but I don't know how that happens.
I'd agree that the South Coast cities are the cheapest, but they're also even more remote/disconnected than Haverhill, Lowell, Lawrence, etc. With a train, you're still looking at a 90 minute commute from either. Taunton stands to benefit the most since it's closer, and like Salem, will get double frequencies since it'll get both sets of trains going to Fall River/New Bedford.
I'd think Lynn would be the best positioned to get absorbed into a growing Boston Metro. Blue line extension?
As someone who lives in Boston and now does the 128 commute, I can tell you first hand that most days I long to walk to a T stop and deal with the orange line. It almost all cases it was better. If there was a jam job going on on the subway, I just would maybe get something to eat or a drink, or take a walk. Not much you can do when you are stuck in your car.
Why not get an e-bike, GeePee? They're pretty great. Not that many days of the year when you can't manage on a bike, especially with power-assist. If it's 15 miles or less you can enjoy a backroads to-and-from sliding right past the traffic, as only bikes can do, with little of the effort involved in riding an ordinary bicycle.
Perhaps Governor Baker or the MA state legislature could give businesses some real tax incentives to develop satellite offices in those older cities.
The state has maintained a "Gateway Cities" policy for years for the benefit of stimulating business development in these old cities. Whether it involves tax incentives I don't know but that's a good idea!
Why not get an e-bike, GeePee? They're pretty great. Not that many days of the year when you can't manage on a bike, especially with power-assist. If it's 15 miles or less you can enjoy a backroads to-and-from sliding right past the traffic, as only bikes can do, with little of the effort involved in riding an ordinary bicycle.
As an avid cyclist I used to scoff at this idea. The more I look into it, and the better the tech is getting, I think I may actually be going this route at some point. Those batteries are getting better and smaller. I wish the reputable brand ones werent the price of a used car though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
