Blighted/Decayed areas in Boston???

[umassphysgrad]

I'm new to Boston, Hanover St. to be precise. I thought North End was supposed to be the neat area. Why all the houses are made of wood? What happened to steel and cement? (I have seen places from East Somerville down to North Quincy, they're all the same pretty much) These places are like 100 years old or more. How come they were not demolished and rebuilt? I mean just the stairs (6 inch run, 10 inch rise) They don't even pass the most basic standards.

There are 'new' residential complexes built. I know one in Jackson Sq. called 225 Centre (couldn't rent there as I arrived too late and it was needless to say snatched) For this new and hip building shockingly the prices are not all that different from these crappy old dilapidated houses.

[Whatsnext75]

Welcome to boston! Completely normal around here. I dont even want to know what rent is like on hanover st..

[bigfatdude]

Originally Posted by umassphysgrad

There are 'new' residential complexes built. I know one in Jackson Sq. called 225 Centre (couldn't rent there as I arrived too late and it was needless to say snatched) For this new and hip building shockingly the prices are not all that different from these crappy old dilapidated houses.

That building is in the direct line of fire between Academy and Bromley-Heath, hence the lower than normal rent.

[BostonBornMassMade]

^Hes right. There are some stretches of weeks/months when Jackson Square can be a nightmare in terms of safety. Frequent muggings. somehwat normal occurece of gunfire

[umassphysgrad]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

^Hes right. There are some stretches of weeks/months when Jackson Square can be a nightmare in terms of safety. Frequent muggings. somehwat normal occurece of gunfire

That may be true, and I can't say I have heard much nice things about anything in Roxbury, though with 3min walk to T, virtually you won't even have enough time to be seen let alone tagged and mugged; unless it's literally a war zone there which I doubt.

But still the question remains: how come new descent residential buildings are so far and few in between? I know some penthouses (Millennium Tower) for super rich people, but that's how many they are: too few.

Again you can argue for city-dwellers (always-busy early-career professionals and not super rich penthouse owners) these places are not 'homes' but only temporary housing until they can move to the suburbs. Still large number of middle-class people live all their lives inside city limits and these neighborhoods and I found it odd that there are people that even BUY these houses to LIVE IN.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by umassphysgrad

But still the question remains: how come new descent residential buildings are so far and few in between? I know some penthouses (Millennium Tower) for super rich people, but that's how many they are: too few.

Again you can argue for city-dwellers (always-busy early-career professionals and not super rich penthouse owners) these places are not 'homes' but only temporary housing until they can move to the suburbs. Still large number of middle-class people live all their lives inside city limits and these neighborhoods and I found it odd that there are people that even BUY these houses to LIVE IN.

Be careful what you wish for. Anybody who is going to scrape a 150 year old wreck of a building off the lot in the North End is going to replace it with luxury condos. Those are clearly out of your price range. It must cost $300+ per square foot to build in Boston. The dirt the structure sits on is worth a fortune. You're not going to be renting it to new grads.

Boston is pretty much fully built out. It is an extremely congested place so that places a huge premium on living close to where you work. That jacks up the value of the land these old homes sit on. If you can barely scrape together the cash to pay the mortgage, you're not going to tear the house down and replace it. Building costs are so high that it's not affordable.

[such sweet thunder]

Originally Posted by umassphysgrad

That may be true, and I can't say I have heard much nice things about anything in Roxbury, though with 3min walk to T, virtually you won't even have enough time to be seen let alone tagged and mugged; unless it's literally a war zone there which I doubt.

But still the question remains: how come new descent residential buildings are so far and few in between? I know some penthouses (Millennium Tower) for super rich people, but that's how many they are: too few.

Again you can argue for city-dwellers (always-busy early-career professionals and not super rich penthouse owners) these places are not 'homes' but only temporary housing until they can move to the suburbs. Still large number of middle-class people live all their lives inside city limits and these neighborhoods and I found it odd that there are people that even BUY these houses to LIVE IN.

Don't blame it on Roxbury -- that's JP.

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by umassphysgrad

But still the question remains: how come new descent residential buildings are so far and few in between? I know some penthouses (Millennium Tower) for super rich people, but that's how many they are: too few.

Are you from the US or somewhere else? In this country, certainly in and around Boston, the residents/citizens have a lot to say about redevelopment. Usually they don't want any and established residents oppose the tearing down of old buildings in their neighborhoods and replacement with new ones. Why? The new ones will always be larger and bring more cars and traffic. In many locations too the residents fear new larger buildings will attract a different, transient or otherwise undesirable group of people. Also people have a heavy preference for houses over apartment buildings, even if the houses are apartment buildings in thin disguise, like Boston's triple-deckers.

On the positive side of things, people want to preserve the existing character of the towns and neighborhoods. Many of the houses were built in the 19th century with materials and craftsmanship that can't be duplicated today. They contribute to a certain character of the street and neighborhood that people value. The classic case of this is Beacon Hill but local residents will have the same emotional attachments to nearly any neighborhood you can name. So it's very hard to build new things. Years ago government at different levels built a lot of stuff or subsidized others to build it. Some of that, especially the housing projects, stand out like sore thumbs. There's still a lot of low-mod income housing built with gov't help but it's designed to blend in with existing neighborhood character. A lot of that in Roxbury.

So if you're from China or South Korea or many other countries you expect things to be new on massive scale. Not so here!

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by missionhill

Are you from the US or somewhere else? In this country, certainly in and around Boston, the residents/citizens have a lot to say about redevelopment. Usually they don't want any and established residents oppose the tearing down of old buildings in their neighborhoods and replacement with new ones. Why? The new ones will always be larger and bring more cars and traffic. In many locations too the residents fear new larger buildings will attract a different, transient or otherwise undesirable group of people. Also people have a heavy preference for houses over apartment buildings, even if the houses are apartment buildings in thin disguise, like Boston's triple-deckers.

On the positive side of things, people want to preserve the existing character of the towns and neighborhoods. Many of the houses were built in the 19th century with materials and craftsmanship that can't be duplicated today. They contribute to a certain character of the street and neighborhood that people value. The classic case of this is Beacon Hill but local residents will have the same emotional attachments to nearly any neighborhood you can name. So it's very hard to build new things. Years ago government at different levels built a lot of stuff or subsidized others to build it. Some of that, especially the housing projects, stand out like sore thumbs. There's still a lot of low-mod income housing built with gov't help but it's designed to blend in with existing neighborhood character. A lot of that in Roxbury.

So if you're from China or South Korea or many other countries you expect things to be new on massive scale. Not so here!

Good post, and spot on.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by umassphysgrad

That may be true, and I can't say I have heard much nice things about anything in Roxbury, though with 3min walk to T, virtually you won't even have enough time to be seen let alone tagged and mugged; unless it's literally a war zone there which I doubt.

But still the question remains: how come new descent residential buildings are so far and few in between? I know some penthouses (Millennium Tower) for super rich people, but that's how many they are: too few.

Again you can argue for city-dwellers (always-busy early-career professionals and not super rich penthouse owners) these places are not 'homes' but only temporary housing until they can move to the suburbs. Still large number of middle-class people live all their lives inside city limits and these neighborhoods and I found it odd that there are people that even BUY these houses to LIVE IN.

the worse part is within 3 min of the T that's where most of the mugging are.. that's where all the people are. That's where the projects are. I had a Dominican friend in high school who lived in those projects who was mugged multiple times in one school year-in part due to the fact that he was somewhat frail. This was around 2010.