Why is the housing stock so crappy in Boston metro? (Newton: transfer, quality of life)

[FCMA]

Originally Posted by tamajane

Like other hot markets. You can stick it out and hope for the best or move on.

Yep. Moving on can be a tough pill to swallow when this is where you’re from. I came of age in the late 90s, the final era of real estate being within reach of regular people and became complacent, thinking that would be a consistent reality. By the time I graduated college in 2005 and became a teacher and then a green collar nonprofit professional it became morbidly clear that the rug had been pulled out from under us and this was not a place for our kind any more unless strategically shacked up with a six-figure sugar spouse to support our caste’s quaint hobby-jobs.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Williepaws

Yeah can you imagine that.. people wanting open space and conservation land instead of sitting on top of each other and listening to even more traffic and noise.

^This is exactly what I keep talking about, and the attitude that's holding back progress.



Drive 128 from Waltham to Braintree, and 90% of what you see is trees. Why can't SOME of that be developed? It's already a busy freaking highway! What "quiet and serenity" are you trying to preserve. Build SMARTLY people. Areas that are ALREADY sliced to death by busy expressways and railroads have plenty of capacity that is being wasted.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by massnative71

^This is exactly what I keep talking about, and the attitude that's holding back progress.



Drive 128 from Waltham to Braintree, and 90% of what you see is trees. Why can't SOME of that be developed? It's already a busy freaking highway! What "quiet and serenity" are you trying to preserve. Build SMARTLY people. Areas that are ALREADY sliced to death by busy expressways and railroads have plenty of capacity that is being wasted.

A lot of it is preserved green space. Parks that have names. Cutler Park. Wilson Mountain Reservation.
Dedham Town Forest. Blue Hill Reservation. That stuff isn't going to get developed. A lot of it would be tough to develop, anyway. Cutler Park and points North is basically Charles River Wetland. They could have filled it in 100 years ago but not these days. The rest is hilly and would be tough to develop (if it weren't already parkland).

What makes way more sense is building up density in the areas that can be reasonably developed, especially where there are train lines or major roads. There will be some of that, but probably not as much as is needed.

[tysmith95]

Drive through Dover, Sudbury, Lincoln, among others. Lots of it isn't conservation land, but strict zoning.

Wealthy people want to have a taste of rural life while still being convenient to the city, but it just makes the region less affordable for the rest of us.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Drive through Dover, Sudbury, Lincoln, among others. Lots of it isn't conservation land, but strict zoning.

Wealthy people want to have a taste of rural life while still being convenient to the city, but it just makes the region less affordable for the rest of us.

Can't speak to Dover, but Lincoln and Sudbury have massive amounts of conservation land or historic properties (Codman House, Wolbach etc.). The rest is unbuildable wetlands/swamp.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Drive through Dover, Sudbury, Lincoln, among others. Lots of it isn't conservation land, but strict zoning.

Wealthy people want to have a taste of rural life while still being convenient to the city, but it just makes the region less affordable for the rest of us.

To the surprise of many, Lincoln is one wealthy town that diligently works to ensure they meet the 10% affordable threshold. I believe Lincoln has never had a 40B proposal made because their housing department proactively creates new affordable to stay ahead.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

A lot of it is preserved green space. Parks that have names. Cutler Park. Wilson Mountain Reservation.
Dedham Town Forest. Blue Hill Reservation. That stuff isn't going to get developed. A lot of it would be tough to develop, anyway. Cutler Park and points North is basically Charles River Wetland. They could have filled it in 100 years ago but not these days. The rest is hilly and would be tough to develop (if it weren't already parkland).

What makes way more sense is building up density in the areas that can be reasonably developed, especially where there are train lines or major roads. There will be some of that, but probably not as much as is needed.

True. Large chunks are linear strips of forest that are sound buffers (hey, build a couple of houses and build those sounds walls, that's great, right?) the rest are floodplain forest which act as water sponges, or hard rock. Why do people want to pave everything like Houston and have their flood problems? It's bonzers that "conservatives" now hate conservation; they have no morals or smarts.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

Can't speak to Dover, but Lincoln and Sudbury have massive amounts of conservation land or historic properties (Codman House, Wolbach etc.). The rest is unbuildable wetlands/swamp.

The minimum residential lot size in Lincoln is 2 acres. Sudbury has some "high density" lots of 1/2 acre, but much of the land is at 1 1/2 acre zoning. Both are low density by design and could be built up if the residents wanted them to be.

Originally Posted by robr2

To the surprise of many, Lincoln is one wealthy town that diligently works to ensure they meet the 10% affordable threshold. I believe Lincoln has never had a 40B proposal made because their housing department proactively creates new affordable to stay ahead.

Don't all wealthy towns work diligently to prevent successful 40B proposals?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

A lot of it is preserved green space. Parks that have names. Cutler Park. Wilson Mountain Reservation.
Dedham Town Forest. Blue Hill Reservation. That stuff isn't going to get developed. A lot of it would be tough to develop, anyway. Cutler Park and points North is basically Charles River Wetland. They could have filled it in 100 years ago but not these days. The rest is hilly and would be tough to develop (if it weren't already parkland).

Understood, and I never meant to imply that ever square inch inside of 128 should be paved over like this was New Jersey or something. But fact is that there is an unrealistic amount of open space for the size of the metro, and that in itself is having enormous impacts on housing, QOL and the environment. There needs to be a greater push to develop those areas that can still be.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

What makes way more sense is building up density in the areas that can be reasonably developed, especially where there are train lines or major roads. There will be some of that, but probably not as much as is needed.

Totally agree. If they want to really be proactive, I'm sure some land swap arrangements could be done (developing 50 acres of conservation land next to an interstate in exchange for purchasing and protecting another 50 acres in an area lacking infrastructure where it would be in our interest to preserve). That's what you call SMART growth. A perfect example would be the parcel of the Blue Hills Reservation bordered by the 128/95 split, Amtrak and the old S&S warehouse, that is seldom used by anybody.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

True. Large chunks are linear strips of forest that are sound buffers (hey, build a couple of houses and build those sounds walls, that's great, right?) the rest are floodplain forest which act as water sponges, or hard rock. Why do people want to pave everything like Houston and have their flood problems? It's bonzers that "conservatives" now hate conservation; they have no morals or smarts.

Love how C-D operates. You turn asking for better panning and land use policies into paving over every flood plain.



Enjoy your endless sprawl and 1 hour + commute.