Those leaving Boston, or who have left Boston. Do You Have any Regrets? Where did you move?

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Martha Anne

I really, a New Yorker who lived in Boston (and whose family is from Cambridge, originally), find your point of view to be absolutely tragic.

And I, as a Bostonian, find yours to be misguided and inaccurate. I'll elaborate below.

No wonder Boston has lost so much of what it was.

I'm curious, how does the height of buildings take away from Boston? Can you actually cite an example or two, or are you just venting? Did the Custom House Tower (Boston's first REAL high-rise) take away from the city? How about the Hancock Tower (the old, beautiful Art-Deco one, OR the newer gem designed by I.M. Pei)? What is it specifically about HEIGHT that is so bad?

You know, buddy, not everyone wants high rise buildings all over the place.

You know, buddy, I never said they do. In fact, if you read my posts about this issue, you'll see that I'm pretty sincere about keeping it centralized in the Financial District and the Spine south of Boylston where there is a precedent for it. I think it would be an absolute crying shame to plop a tower on Hanover St. in the North End, on Louisburg Square on Beacon Hill or along Commonwealth Avenue. Height is entirely inappropriate in certain areas where it would be out of scale or detract from what makes that specific are wonderful.... which is, again, why I mentioned that Boston should ONLY build tall where there is precedent.

My husband works in lower Manhattan every single day. You call Manhattan super desirable? Are you serious?

Yes. I am serious. Manhattan (The lower half, anyway) is home to the most expensive and exclusive residential real estate in the nation. There is a reason for that and I can assure you that it's not the most elite residential area in the nation because it's "not desirable." It's expensive because it's super desirable and there's such precious little space. You may not care for the lifestyle of the big city; but to not understand why Manhattan is so exclusive and expensive (read: because it's desirable) for people shows a real disconnect with how the real estate business works. The lower half of Manhattan is about as desirable of an URBAN area as you'll find anywhere! There's really not much to debate there.

If that were so, why do so many tourists say: Nice place to visit but I sure wouldn't want to live there! And my husband has worked in Manhattan for decades and is a native New Yorker and does not feel as you do at all. Nor do I.

That's because they are TOURISTS! More often than not they feel that way because they can't afford a nice property in Manhattan because, again, the area is so elite and expensive for residences. Even still, some people just prefer a quieter lifestyle, but that hardly means Manhattan isn't desirable just because YOU don't want to live there. I love visiting Bar Harbor, Maine. It's beautiful, but it's so far away from any urban area that I couldn't live there... that doesn't take away from it's desirability to most people.

However, Manhattan is the epicenter of culture in the United States. It's home to some of the top fashions in the world, the top restaurants, the top nightlife, the best shows, the best bands, etc, etc, etc. People will (and DO) pay premiums to live there. Furthermore, many of those people pay millions of dollars to live in those high-rises that you and your hubby so despise. Hardly undesirable.

Boston was drop dead fantastic until the tall buildings all went up. Terrible loss and ruination of a wonderful town.

Once again, kindly cite some examples of how the tall buildings ruined anything in Boston. I'd sure as heck like to know. I know some of them may not be what you'd consider stunning architecturally; but for every ugly tower in Boston, there are dozens of ugly low-rise buildings lining the streets.

The three biggest disasters in Boston were the demolition of neighborhoods for the Central Artery, the Demolition of Scollay Square for Government Center, and the Demolition of the West End for the suburban nightmare that is the new West End. Those are all HUGE losses in Boston and none of were the result of tall buildings. They were the result of TERRIBLE planning.

High Rise buildings are just fine in the right context (i.e. in an area with other tall buildings). The only issue in constructing them is to make sure they interact properly with their surroundings. Boston has done a good job with that. In fact, it could be argued that building tall buildings has actually improved many areas. Prudential Center stands as a glaring example of this. Until Prudential Center was built, you had a gaping hole in the middle of the city (it was a rail yard and highway). Prudential came in and filled in that eye sore and even reconnected the Back Bay with the South End. In additon, it provided tons of jobs.

Buildings in a city succeed or fail based on ONE common factor.... street level interaction. This applies for buildings that are one story tall or buildings that are 100 stories tall. If a building fails to engage the pedestrian at street level, it is a failure. This is why City Hall fails, this is why the Midtown Hotel fails, this is why the Congress Street Garage fails (yes, garages can have an inviting street level as well). In order for a TALL building to truly succeed in context, it needs to work on the street level at engaging the pedestrian. It may be a work of art, but if it doesn't do the job it needs to at the street level, it's a failure. Boston doesn't have this problem and neither does New York (while cities like Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc all do). The Financial District in Boston has an excellent streetwall and is incredibly engaging to the pedestrians walking through. It's as dense as any neighborhood you'll find in the city and to top it off, most of the historic architecture there is still very much intact. Same goes for Boylston Street and the high rises along that stretch. They REALLY don't take away from it at all. In fact, the John Hancock Tower (Boston's tallest, btw) actually enhances the area around Copley Square by providing a stunning contrast (as well as wonderful reflections of the plaza and Trinity Church) to the surrounding architectural gems like the Boston Public Library, Trinity Church and the Fairmont Copley Plaza.

Tall buildings are necessary in order to stay competitive with other cities. Boston more than just about any city (with the exceptions of NYC, Chicago and San Francisco) has limited space. In order to maximize the potential of that space, we need to build up. Building out can't be done in Boston without demolishing existing infrastructure while Building up can be done while keeping the surroundings in tact (for proof, look at the tower over Russia Wharf, the Construction at Filene's, the proposals for South Station Tower, and the proposal for the Dainty Dot building in Chinatown-- all towers that sit on TOP of historic low-rise buildings... keeping the history in tact while building for the future). If Boston doesn't build up it's going to lose business to the suburbs and other cities. It can be done properly without ruining the integrity and character of Boston... the stuff that makes this city TRULY great. Boston has a storied past. Preserving it is of dire importance (something that the people who brought you Gov't Center and the current West End didn't understand); but in order to ensure a vibrant future, continuing to make progress is necessary. To create more space for growth and higher demand, we need to build up. There's no reason it can't be done while keeping the history too.

[creative36]

I lived in Milton, ma and moved to just outside of philly and totally miss mass. I miss pretty much everything about it. Love the winters, love the city. People are just as rude in philly area. I missed all the marijuana that was flowing around at the time. Everyone was cool and the women. Women were everywhere. I really missed that women in pennsylvania are ugly and snobs. Snobs! go figure.

[GROVE51]

i use to live in south boston (southie ) and i now live in roanoke,va and iam very glad i moved here!! Not much crime like in boston! Things are cheaper here! My rent i pay $345 with light's and heat incluted and i have a bathroom,bedroom,liveingroom and a kit!!! Now a apt. In boston like that would cost alot more money then that!! Unless you lived in houseing and i did live in houseing there in southie but i hear it has a lot of crime there now!! Did any one find whitey yet?! Lol!!

[Bad2theBone]

Originally Posted by creative36

I lived in Milton, ma and moved to just outside of philly and totally miss mass. I miss pretty much everything about it. Love the winters, love the city. People are just as rude in philly area. I missed all the marijuana that was flowing around at the time. Everyone was cool and the women. Women were everywhere. I really missed that women in pennsylvania are ugly and snobs. Snobs! go figure.

Where in Milton did you live? I lived on Sumner st. during the 50's & 60's. Moved to S. Florida in 1970.

[Braunwyn]

I love MA too. The winters suck, tho. OTOH, they're beautiful as well. I have recently moved to metro-west, and I'm digging it.There's nothing in the US like Cambridge that I've come across. As far as people coming off as rude, I don't think so. I've come across rude people in San Fran the most. People here are just real, imo.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by GROVE51

i use to live in south boston (southie ) and i now live in roanoke,va and iam very glad i moved here!! Not much crime like in boston! Things are cheaper here! My rent i pay $345 with light's and heat incluted and i have a bathroom,bedroom,liveingroom and a kit!!! Now a apt. In boston like that would cost alot more money then that!! Unless you lived in houseing and i did live in houseing there in southie but i hear it has a lot of crime there now!! Did any one find whitey yet?! Lol!!

That's cheap and I don't blame you for liking it much better. There's no question you wouldn't find that in Boston for the money. On the other hand, Crime is actually a bit lower in Boston than it is in Roanoke, so I don't know where you're coming from on that front (check the crime stats right here on City Data).

[Highwyre237]

I'm originally from NY, came to Boston for college and Moved to Austin,TX after about a year out opf school... Within 6 months I moved back. It was great to skip a New England winter, but when you're used to and enjoy the speed of the northeast, you cant move to a southern city...

[Martha Anne]

In reply, in part, to the post by 1rfox:

I will assume that you are not as old as I am. I already had my 60th birthday. When I was starting college, the only tall buildings were the Pru and the Customs Building (which my cousin and grandfather worked in as customs workers <s>! My cousin is still alive and 99 or 100 years old and she worked as a clerk in that building for 40 years, can you imagine that?)

But, anyway, when I started college in the mid 60's, all of Boston, especially the Back Bay and Beacon Hill, was lovely to behold, with the tallest structures being the church steeples and the Customs House. You must remember that the Customs House is reminiscent of the occasional tower or tall building in 19th century London or even in Italy. It is not to be compared with a skyscraper-type tall modern structure, in my opinion. It's a narrow tower, and in keeping with the colonial architecture and scale of other buildings that were built in the 18th and 19th century in this city. This is just my opinion. Boston was lovely in the 50's because this period architecture was what you saw on the horizon, not some ubiquitous modern tall office building. When the John Hancock building went up, not everyone was happy, believe me! Not everyone wanted to see a tall modern design introduced into Copley Square - although I will now admit to you that I got to like it pretty fast. But I never got to like the destruction of the original roof line and atmosphere in the financial district, all the way up to Faneuil Hall, believe me! Maybe I am not for "progress" or something. I don't know. Supposedly, others might say, we "need" these tall modern office towers. But I think that the way Boston used to look was far more desirable than it looks now.

You asked what it is about height that I prefer: Well, I just want to see the original rooftop and church steeple lines of Beacon Hill and the Back Bay - too late for that now, though!

[Martha Anne]

To 1rfox,

Just stand on the MIT-side, the banks, of the Charles River and look over at Boston. What you see is not the wonderful roof tops of Beacon Hill and the Back Bay: You look at modern skyscrapers or tall modern buildings. This is what I am talking about. Very sad, IMO. Actually, tragic!

[Martha Anne]

Firefox wrote:

<<Tall buildings are necessary in order to stay competitive with other cities. Boston more than just about any city (with the exceptions of NYC, Chicago and San Francisco) has limited space.>>

OK, you finally said it. You are saying we need these tall buildings.

Even if you are right, this doesn't mean that we have a city which is anything like it was. In many ways, it's just another modern city.