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.
"Would you explain to me as which person conducted the said planning? What were the objectives of those persons?"
The objectives to open up shops as frankly having strip malls and regular malls is not always as conducive to attracting other businesses.
"Derby St was created by a developer without input from any local body. They decided to continue with motor vehicle orientated traditions. They built a new mall near the highway. The inflow and outflow of the mall is very poor during peak operating times. It is not actually situated near anything within the town of Hingham. It is not near transit. It is not near traditional shopping such as found in the town center."
By the highway? Yes Rt 53 technically is a highway but you are implying as if the limit is 65mph. There's a huge difference between a state road and the federal interstate. This is nothing compared to 128 or 93 or 91 etc.
Given the nimby lobby that tried to block rail in Hingham what would make you believe they would want this in the center of town? Most people in Hingham have cars. Much of the town does not have sidewalks and even then they centralized buildings next to each other. The town hall, council on aging and police department are all in one large building which I might add is even larger than some of the shops at Derby St.
So the selectman and planning board did nothing at all with the businesses there?
"Was there planning involved to consider the environmental impact? Was quality of life considered?"
Potentially yes. Quality of life well how is that measured? Hingham often doesn't have sidewalks and only has pl
"Or was it a boondoggle that some like to taut as a success? Perhaps due to the consideration of higher end rentals as found within the mall the customers of said mall find it to be a success."
It is certainly more pedestrian friendly then the last plaza that was there. You have a ring to walk around with crosswalks etc. If you were expecting something like Church St in Burlington VT I'm afraid that isn't going to work. How for example can someone take food across town without a car from Whole Foods? What about a new tower from the apple store? Small scale shops sure but cars and shopping largely tend to go together otherwise you get things delivered. To note no one buys mattresses in Burlington Vt's church st..can you picture someone lugging a mattress down a street?
Ever go to Northampton? Again they have roads, streets and even a major transit depot. They have plenty of small shops but again they still have roads. http://tinyurl.com/k5963hw
Even in Lexington center which again has a higher income clientele and history still has significant traffic. http://tinyurl.com/luxvxcu
I think we can be in agreement that malls and strip malls look generic. But there are attempts to make things like this and Colony place. To get all of the vendors to agree to small scale formats would be pretty hard to do. I live in a town where the large major shopping plazas are to the north and most of the town lives near the center. You cannot get the same stores to downsize to smaller venues, period. Until we really start limiting how long buildings can be exempt from development (historic) and start making more lights and sidewalks then development might continue to be this way.
Uh, have a cookie? This isn't about you. This is about the fact that the economy of Massachusetts is geared towards the highly educated and the few lucky union members with family connections. The rest are kind of left in a post-industrial retail sales wasteland with incomes that cannot possibly afford the high COL here.
My wife and I are both physicians and we live a pretty middle class existence after decades of schooling. But I look at my relatives who aren't academically inclined and struggling to pay rent with roommates, and I worry. The person might be responsible greatly, but not everyone can be in the top 10% like Lake Wobegon.
The following speaks to the general points made in the above quoted post and the perspective shared by many. It doesn't speak specifically to people that are physicians, who can often relocate to areas with very poor economies and still make a respectable living:
The thing is that people cannot live on retail positions in flyover country either. Persons in the more populated, more economically active coastal regions often complain about the lack of affordability of their region. People in Philly, Washington, and NJ/NYC are all doing it right now. However, people from Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, and Idaho are all complaining in large numbers right now as well.
The misconception comes from thinking that if you had the middle class job the you have now, but lived in Utah for instance, that you'd be much further ahead of the game. That's true. However, what is also true is that you would be unlikely to have the middle class job that you have now in most of these "more affordable" regions, and if you did have a comparable job it would pay you less. The economy of a city such as Boston eclipses the the economies of many states. This is true for many coastal cities.
In regions that are perceived as more affordable, food would not cost that much less. Neither would utilities nor other bills (cable, cell phone). Car insurance will often cost less. Additionally, you would likely pay a comparable sum for a comparable house in most of these places, unless you chose to live where there was an almost non-existent economy. If you did that, then your chance of a good job is all but eliminated for most. A 150k house is just about as unaffordable on a BestBuy salary as is a 300k house. Settling in an cheaper area with a very small economy, when compared with Boston, essentially just eliminates most of your career opportunity. What is gained? Perhaps access to some cheap college style housing that you can afford on your retail salary. Less traffic. Less population density. However, the cost in prospects makes such a move a mistake that could have inter-generational consequences, in my eyes.
Houston is an exception, currently. It is a city with an amazing economy and relatively low housing costs, but living there requires that, well, you live there. I would not choose to live in the Houston metro area due to critical QOL issues that could not be amended with salary. I did want to mention an exception to my perspective.
I spend a lot of time staring at city and region specific economic data and maps.
I could speak to any one of the cities that I mentioned, but I'll specifically refer to Boston from here on out. The Boston Metro area has one of the best, most stable economies of any large city in the most prosperous country in the world. My point is that it is rare to be located in a better region for work opportunity than Boston, unless you scale up to NYC or San Francisco. The Bay region, however, is ranked as less economically stable than is the Boston area although it has a larger output the last time that I checked. The disparity is likely due to the fact that the Bay Area economy is less diverse than is Boston's.
Many other cities, that seem good on paper or upon other types of superficial inspection, lack diverse economies or are not as economically vibrant as people generally perceive and they tend to be hit hard during recessions or will be hit hard when the one or two industries evolve that are practically propping up the entire job market.
The synthesis:
The reality wall that many people hit and the subsequent fall from the middle class, in my opinion, is due to a failure in parenting. I don't necessarily blame the Boomer generation, because they were riding the tails of the post war economy and were shielded from economic reality by better, more plentiful jobs per capita in both the government and private sectors (more and better pensions and career longevity).
However, at the same time, if you are an adult who lives in the world you should be able able to figure out how the job economy works, where it was headed, and what to tell your kids to make sure that they could not only match your lifestyle but do better than you. Instead, most (but certainly not all) Boomers seemed to take the approach that they would raise children in the middle class and divine intervention, connections, or good luck would help their children sort out the economy in a way that would at least allow them to match the QOL that they enjoyed. That's the approach that my parents took. It's a wholly irresponsible approach to raising children. However, in their defense, gaining the pertinent information is now much easier to accomplish in the internet age.
It's true that you need a professional's job to survive in Massachusetts. You also need that professional job to have a reasonable life in Philadelphia, NJ, DC, Utah, Kentucky, and everywhere else. So, instead of fleeing the place where your job opportunities should technically be outstanding (a career non-specific statement), figure out how to get into a professional job in a large, healthy professional economy that will very likely pay you well for it. This also applies to trade careers. The union opportunities aren't any better in Tennessee (especially in Tennessee).
There is also the strategy of moving to where no one wants to move to work (Alaska, Asia for instance) to command higher pay. I've been down that road, and have settled on burning most of my thirties in poverty in an expensive northeast city to put myself through professional school. It was a sacrifice but I'm happy that this is the path that I chose. I'd rather spend the time now then have no real options in my 40's and 50's, or be an economic exile.
The point is to be happy. However, sometimes "being happy" means that you win a little bit. You can't win if you quit the game or move to a place where they aren't really playing it. And your children will likely hate you for it because, in doing so, you severely limited their opportunity. The key is to pick yourself up by doing a lot of research and then going back to school, and then give your kids the head start that you weren't given (speaking to those persons who are lost for options). I know it isn't as easy as my motivational speech makes it sound, but, really, what else is there? A lot of life is just putting one foot in front of the other.
By the highway? Yes Rt 53 technically is a highway but you are implying as if the limit is 65mph. There's a huge difference between a state road and the federal interstate. This is nothing compared to 128 or 93 or 91 etc.
Save your nonsense. You sound and look like a troll. Now, you are trying to protect your self-image.
Derby Street is a stone's throw from Route 3, which is the major highway and connects directly to 93. You can see the on-ramp from the Mall entrance.
The ZBA was consulted for variances after the plan was developed. It was crafted against the plans of the town. Did you actually read the article?
The following speaks to the general points made in the above quoted post and the perspective shared by many. It doesn't speak specifically to people that are physicians, who can often relocate to areas with very poor economies and still make a respectable living:
The thing is that people cannot live on retail positions in flyover country either. Persons in the more populated, more economically active coastal regions often complain about the lack of affordability of their region. People in Philly, Washington, and NJ/NYC are all doing it right now. However, people from Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, and Idaho are all complaining in large numbers right now as well.
The misconception comes from thinking that if you had the middle class job the you have now, but lived in Utah for instance, that you'd be much further ahead of the game. That's true. However, what is also true is that you would be unlikely to have the middle class job that you have now in most of these "more affordable" regions, and if you did have a comparable job it would pay you less. The economy of a city such as Boston eclipses the the economies of many states. This is true for many coastal cities...A 150k house is just about as unaffordable on a BestBuy salary as is a 300k house. Settling in an cheaper area with a very small economy, when compared with Boston, essentially just eliminates most of your career opportunity. ... The Boston Metro area has one of the best, most stable economies of any large city in the most prosperous country in the world. My point is that it is rare to be located in a better region for work opportunity than Boston, unless you scale up to NYC or San Francisco. ... It's true that you need a professional's job to survive in Massachusetts. You also need that professional job to have a reasonable life in Philadelphia, NJ, DC, Utah, Kentucky, and everywhere else. So, instead of fleeing the place where your job opportunities should technically be outstanding (a career non-specific statement), figure out how to get into a professional job in a large, healthy professional economy that will very likely pay you well for it. This also applies to trade careers. ... The point is to be happy. However, sometimes "being happy" means that you win a little bit. You can't win if you quit the game or move to a place where they aren't really playing it. And your children will likely hate you for it because, in doing so, you severely limited their opportunity. The key is to pick yourself up by doing a lot of research and then going back to school, and then give your kids the head start that you weren't given (speaking to those persons who are lost for options). I know it isn't as easy as my motivational speech makes it sound, but, really, what else is there? A lot of life is just putting one foot in front of the other.
Take that, whiners! Geography is destiny so suck it up and take your opportunities. Sometimes we need a reminder like this. Thanks to golgi1 for such a thoughtful post.
Take that, whiners! Geography is destiny so suck it up and take your opportunities. Sometimes we need a reminder like this. Thanks to golgi1 for such a thoughtful post.
+1
Before we married, my husband lived in one of the Midwest states for a few years. He was one of the very few he knew who didn't have to financially struggle because he had a professional job. He still says that although the COL in those states is lower, the overall salaries are also lower, too. He knew people who were struggling despite holding 2 or 3 PT nonprofessional jobs.
The following speaks to the general points made in the above quoted post and the perspective shared by many. It doesn't speak specifically to people that are physicians, who can often relocate to areas with very poor economies and still make a respectable living:
The thing is that people cannot live on retail positions in flyover country either. Persons in the more populated, more economically active coastal regions often complain about the lack of affordability of their region. People in Philly, Washington, and NJ/NYC are all doing it right now. However, people from Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, and Idaho are all complaining in large numbers right now as well.
The misconception comes from thinking that if you had the middle class job the you have now, but lived in Utah for instance, that you'd be much further ahead of the game. That's true. However, what is also true is that you would be unlikely to have the middle class job that you have now in most of these "more affordable" regions, and if you did have a comparable job it would pay you less. The economy of a city such as Boston eclipses the the economies of many states. This is true for many coastal cities.
In regions that are perceived as more affordable, food would not cost that much less. Neither would utilities nor other bills (cable, cell phone). Car insurance will often cost less. Additionally, you would likely pay a comparable sum for a comparable house in most of these places, unless you chose to live where there was an almost non-existent economy. If you did that, then your chance of a good job is all but eliminated for most. A 150k house is just about as unaffordable on a BestBuy salary as is a 300k house. Settling in an cheaper area with a very small economy, when compared with Boston, essentially just eliminates most of your career opportunity. What is gained? Perhaps access to some cheap college style housing that you can afford on your retail salary. Less traffic. Less population density. However, the cost in prospects makes such a move a mistake that could have inter-generational consequences, in my eyes.
Houston is an exception, currently. It is a city with an amazing economy and relatively low housing costs, but living there requires that, well, you live there. I would not choose to live in the Houston metro area due to critical QOL issues that could not be amended with salary. I did want to mention an exception to my perspective.
I spend a lot of time staring at city and region specific economic data and maps.
I could speak to any one of the cities that I mentioned, but I'll specifically refer to Boston from here on out. The Boston Metro area has one of the best, most stable economies of any large city in the most prosperous country in the world. My point is that it is rare to be located in a better region for work opportunity than Boston, unless you scale up to NYC or San Francisco. The Bay region, however, is ranked as less economically stable than is the Boston area although it has a larger output the last time that I checked. The disparity is likely due to the fact that the Bay Area economy is less diverse than is Boston's.
Many other cities, that seem good on paper or upon other types of superficial inspection, lack diverse economies or are not as economically vibrant as people generally perceive and they tend to be hit hard during recessions or will be hit hard when the one or two industries evolve that are practically propping up the entire job market.
The synthesis:
The reality wall that many people hit and the subsequent fall from the middle class, in my opinion, is due to a failure in parenting. I don't necessarily blame the Boomer generation, because they were riding the tails of the post war economy and were shielded from economic reality by better, more plentiful jobs per capita in both the government and private sectors (more and better pensions and career longevity).
However, at the same time, if you are an adult who lives in the world you should be able able to figure out how the job economy works, where it was headed, and what to tell your kids to make sure that they could not only match your lifestyle but do better than you. Instead, most (but certainly not all) Boomers seemed to take the approach that they would raise children in the middle class and divine intervention, connections, or good luck would help their children sort out the economy in a way that would at least allow them to match the QOL that they enjoyed. That's the approach that my parents took. It's a wholly irresponsible approach to raising children. However, in their defense, gaining the pertinent information is now much easier to accomplish in the internet age.
It's true that you need a professional's job to survive in Massachusetts. You also need that professional job to have a reasonable life in Philadelphia, NJ, DC, Utah, Kentucky, and everywhere else. So, instead of fleeing the place where your job opportunities should technically be outstanding (a career non-specific statement), figure out how to get into a professional job in a large, healthy professional economy that will very likely pay you well for it. This also applies to trade careers. The union opportunities aren't any better in Tennessee (especially in Tennessee).
There is also the strategy of moving to where no one wants to move to work (Alaska, Asia for instance) to command higher pay. I've been down that road, and have settled on burning most of my thirties in poverty in an expensive northeast city to put myself through professional school. It was a sacrifice but I'm happy that this is the path that I chose. I'd rather spend the time now then have no real options in my 40's and 50's, or be an economic exile.
The point is to be happy. However, sometimes "being happy" means that you win a little bit. You can't win if you quit the game or move to a place where they aren't really playing it. And your children will likely hate you for it because, in doing so, you severely limited their opportunity. The key is to pick yourself up by doing a lot of research and then going back to school, and then give your kids the head start that you weren't given (speaking to those persons who are lost for options). I know it isn't as easy as my motivational speech makes it sound, but, really, what else is there? A lot of life is just putting one foot in front of the other.
Good post with many good points raised. But one thing you fail to acknowledge is all the middle-level jobs that probably close to the majority work at in a lot of those lower cost areas. Technicians, machinists, truck drivers, teachers, loan officers, insurance brokers, police officers, EMTs, assembly workers, warehouse managers, and of course the various trades... That is where the majority work in the Boston area, and also in Atlanta or Charlotte or Denver or Kansas City. Those other areas they may make 25% less, but the COL is 35-40% less. So while the under-educated and super-educated may not fair any or much better elsewhere, the rest of us in the middle just might be better off. Many have already figured that out, and have since left for greener pastures. More will go if the current trend continues, and we'll look more like California or someplace. Or Mexico...
Good post with many good points raised. But one thing you fail to acknowledge is all the middle-level jobs that probably close to the majority work at in a lot of those lower cost areas. Technicians, machinists, truck drivers, teachers, loan officers, insurance brokers, police officers, EMTs, assembly workers, warehouse managers, and of course the various trades... That is where the majority work in the Boston area, and also in Atlanta or Charlotte or Denver or Kansas City. Those other areas they may make 25% less, but the COL is 35-40% less. So while the under-educated and super-educated may not fair any or much better elsewhere, the rest of us in the middle just might be better off. Many have already figured that out, and have since left for greener pastures. More will go if the current trend continues, and we'll look more like California or someplace. Or Mexico...
Especially if our only major job growth is in low paid retail at the many new shopping malls being built, marijuana dispensaries and casinos.
What? you mean a casino isn't good for my local economy?
If you are anywhere close to Revere, looks like you will get a chance to test run this.
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.
