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.
Like I’ve said many times before- there are a lot of vacant lots in Boston south of Mass Ave. many are city owned or under litigious contention. This is easy to underestimate simply because we focus so much in developments, the urban core.the number of vacant parcels in Boston would probably surprise you.
I will say the city squandered opportunities for thousands and thousands of units at Harvard Commons and Olmsted Green massive low density suburban divisions meant to ad political clout and homeowners to Mattapan. They began construction back in 2004 and still aren’t done. Not a lot of demand.
Olmsted Greens current construction site (this is fairly dense apartment building by that are under construction as of 2020): https://goo.gl/maps/xftLRQEyh1948oqd7 lotta vacant land that’s lowkey in Boston...
Aside from those two places and a few other very mall early 2000s infill the infill is pretty consistent with existent density and architecture. While it’s not huge apartment complexes, the infill is consistent and was the primary way in which Boston grew its population from 1985-2010.
The city could still add 30k just through inner city infill in residential areas IMO. It’s not like Boston is a sitting duck by any stretch of the imagination. And don’t forget it has the capacity to simply build up.They’re building a 25 story residential tower in Roxbury. We already have residential buildings like that in the city.
That being the case, those infill opportunities in D.C. hold 400+ units each. We're talking about an additional 100,000 units. Navy Yard, Buzzard Point, SW, Federal Center, Northwest One, NOMA, Union Market, Old Soldiers Home, Bryant Street, RIA, Ivy City, New City, U Street/Shaw, H Street/Atlas District, Downtown DC (Office Conversions), etc. etc. etc.
We’re talking by about the city of Los Angeles and cities as a whole. Why are you and some others tossing “urban core” in there? That’s a totally different question and thread entirely. Not even that much overlap.
Sullivan Square station is in Boston, but if you were standing on an inbound platform at 8AM I would guess it would be maybe 25% Bostonians, and basically nobody on the train when it pull up would be a Bostonian. The reason the Theatre district is a Theatre District is because people live in Malden and Brookline. Boston Children's is the size it is because people live in Watertown and Revere. Newbury Street is sustained by people who live in Cambridge and Quincy.
Boston's density of commerce and vibrancy day and night, weekday and weekend is directly tied to the areas that surround Boston. If Metro Boston had 2,000,000 people the Boston Garden would be empty more days, and the Theatre district might have 4 not 11 venues, Newbury Street would be only one level of retail, Longwood would be 1/2 the size, Boston would have the BSO or the Boston Pops, BU or Northeastern etc etc.
That being the case, those infill opportunities in D.C. hold 400+ units each. We're talking about an additional 100,000 units.
I don’t think its out of the realm of possibility that Boston take some of it early 1990s properties and either redoes them wit additional units or they simply expand them. Also just as likely they begin to zone the one story store fronts in Hyde Park and Mattapan up like they have in adjacent Roslindale. Boston generally had a slow and piecemeal approach to things and so I’d never count it out.
The largest housing projects still have to be redeveloped too. And there is still room for 5/6 more ultra high rises downtown.
I don’t think its out of the realm of possibility that Boston take some of it early 1990s properties and either redoes them wit additional units or they simply expand them. Also just as likely they begin to zone the one story store fronts in Hyde Park and Mattapan up like they have in adjacent Roslindale. Boston generally had a slow and piecemeal approach to things and so I’d never count it out.
The largest housing projects still have to be redeveloped too. And there is still room for 5/6 more ultra high rises downtown.
That is a good point. Is there any movement there? D.C. just announced this:
Development above shows more a non-solid approach to multi-residential complexes. Notice the green park space shown....
Americans are not looking for a city to become more NYC dense and a city that builds blocks of solid low green-frontage formats. They want green surroundings for their apt.condo complexes. Conversions of or more as residential to already full blocks of a wall of same height offices where interior lighting with having windows was not a factor for offices.... will be for residential. Depends on how they were built?
We are in a era of moderate-density still preferred and as much high-density sought. So boasting who dense conversions will get and promote building solid dense blocks..... is not what most want. Boasting 100,000 new units will have its limits if height is restricted and building without green-space is far less seen as desired. Does not mean none will get built or expanded. Just means those who HOPE for HIGH-DENSITY developments close-knit.... might not see what they dream of to be the new normal?
Seems this new decade will not be about high-density building.... but rising density with people wanting access to open and green space too. Why the more suburban-type multi-residential buildings.... might rule more new-builds? Time will tell and close-knit single homes not become more a desired infill? The type you can buy home and land and NOT HAVE HOA fees forever long after a mortgage is paid. I certainly do not want it. At least I can keep my home as long as I pay my taxes. Not bound by HOA's controls and limitations. Over the long run.... best to invest in a fully single-home and lot IMO. One well-built and merely kept upgrades with age even less important if quality is present.
Why many are fine with dense Urban living when young and somewhat think differently once married with children? Add work-from-home for professionals and automation to multiply quickly in the future for many types of jobs..... will people want the most urban setting to live?
I don’t think its out of the realm of possibility that Boston take some of it early 1990s properties and either redoes them wit additional units or they simply expand them. Also just as likely they begin to zone the one story store fronts in Hyde Park and Mattapan up like they have in adjacent Roslindale.
I definitely think that is possible in Boston because it is happening in D.C. with the Federal Center and you know how dead that place is:
Then stop trying to compare cities that aren’t comparable? Just seems silly and it remind me of when we add to Boston to make it compare to cities that are way bigger. Adjust the expectations and scale and move along. As we know most people in LA don’t live in Central LA. Seems detached from reality and just a data nerd thing we’re doing here...
972,000 people live in LA's most dense 50.3 square miles, including me and at least one other LA poster. It includes most of LA's trendy areas, except the beach cities. That's not "most of LA", but it's more people than any city, except NYC.
Development above shows more a non-solid approach to multi-residential complexes. Notice the green park space shown....
Americans are not looking for a city to become more NYC dense and a city that builds blocks of solid low green-frontage formats. They want green surroundings for their apt.condo complexes. Conversions of or more as residential to already full blocks of a wall of same height offices where interior lighting with having windows was not a factor for offices.... will be for residential. Depends on how they were built?
We are in a era of moderate-density still preferred and as much high-density sought. So boasting who dense conversions will get and promote building solid dense blocks..... is not what most want. Boasting 100,000 new units will have its limits if height is restricted and building without green-space is far less seen as desired. Does not mean none will get built or expanded. Just means those who HOPE for HIGH-DENSITY developments close-knit.... might not see what they dream of to be the new normal?
Seems this new decade will not be about high-density building.... but rising density with people wanting access to open and green space too. Why the more suburban-type multi-residential buildings.... might rule more new-builds? Time will tell and close-knit single homes not become more a desired infill? The type you can buy home and land and NOT HAVE HOA fees forever long after a mortgage is paid. I certainly do not want it. At least I can keep my home as long as I pay my taxes. Not bound by HOA's controls and limitations. Over the long run.... best to invest in a fully single-home and lot IMO. One well-built and merely kept upgrades with age even less important if quality is present.
Why many are fine with dense Urban living when young and somewhat think differently once married with children? Add work-from-home for professionals and automation to multiply quickly in the future for many types of jobs..... will people want the most urban setting to live?
Not only are you wrong, you are uninformed. That development is surrounded by extremely dense zero lot development. The areas to the right in the picture are parking lots also slated for zero lot dense development. Parks are something that must be included in development which is a lesson learned over the last 300 years of urban planning.
Here are two examples on the right of the picture below:
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
972,000 people live in LA's most dense 50.3 square miles, including me and at least one other LA poster. It includes most of LA's trendy areas, except the beach cities. That's not "most of LA", but it's more people than any city, except NYC.
Again I know LA pretty well. You can make statements like that if you want to, but then we all have to face the reality. In that 50 sq mi area, there's obvious density, a lot of it hidden, yet this is too prevalent in the urban format throughout. When I think of LA's residential streets across that "dense" area you're referring to, I'm often reminded of this:
There is no such thing as a built out city. Sure people wouldn’t want to flatten Beacon Hill, Society Hill or Georgetown or some other neighborhoods but like 85%+ of existing housing stock of any city is cheap crap housing nobody cares about. Plus whatever industrial land that’s being repurposed.
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.
