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.
I agree with much of what you are saying. Revitalizing places in those cities is a great idea would be a great way to increase the affordability of housing. But like in Boston (where the middle class is being pushed out), developers are not interested in building affordable units. If a developer could build profitable trendy lofts in Lowell, he's going to. And you still have the issue of how to get them to those jobs in the suburbs. Would it be ok if the Redline extended out to Weston?
You forgot one thing. The middle class move out of the city primarily because of the quality of the schools. Boston Public Schools would need to increase the number of schools designated for good students. (Long overdue anyhow for the people already living in Boston IMO.) You can reread thread after thread on this forum where people have posted about the mad scramble they go through with the school lottery to get their children into the few decent public schools and then leave city life to give their children a better education. Without better schools, new affordable housing will only maintain the middle income people without families.
I looked in West Roxbury for awhile. When I asked people on the street how they liked living there, every single time the response was something like, "I can't wait to leave, the schools are horrible."
This is largely town dependent and quickly drops off once past the 495 belt.
I see a number of central MA towns making active moves away from further development. For instance, Dunstable just acquired a massive tract of land which was highly developable/desirable for conservation purposes. Groton likewise. In fact, a number of central MA towns (Berlin, Sterling, Paxton, etc.) have been intentionally stifling development for years by requiring private septic ... developers seem to hate this, I assume because it reduces margins.
Even Shrewsbury, a town which has shown no hesitance in developing every inch land, is no longer providing public sewer hook ups ... which effectively stifles future development. A few land owners in town are very unhappy about this.
There is also the reality that land is expensive and/or unavailable in many of these towns (either because of massive post-war development, conservation efforts, and/or active/viable farms). And unlike the 'burbs of Toronto, locals (and building code) will not tolerate 3000 sqft homes on 4000 sqft lots.
Surely this won't stop land development in the area; however, it is likely to drive the type of housing built. We aren't likely to replicate the types of massive/dense post-war developments which were built from the '50's through '90's . Most of the recent builds I see in the area are 2600sqft+, 2+ acres, and high price tags. Buying a new home is a luxury.
These towns in Central Mass and ones west of 495 (besides the Merrimack Valley and Route 9 area) also have much lower levels of demand, and aren't really in any sort of urban area, with Worcester's urban area not expanding much beyond its own borders.
But this is definitely a tactic that towns use. Plenty of towns in the Boston area do this as well. They use conservation and bylaws as a means to keep out development (they can also pass plot minimums and other such regulations on residential properties in zoning codes). So yes, even in free market loving America, plenty of towns, at least in our area, take measures against the free market to "protect" their communities, some of which can be good (we want some conservation within out metropolitan area right?), but also can become excessive, wasteful, and inefficient, as well as become a direct cause of sprawl, housing inflation, drive til you qualify, and a sort of urban area dilution. And different towns carry these measures to varying degrees.
Buying a new home is a luxury, but should it be?
Of course those large post-war suburban developments are a thing of the past. Most of the growth is now in inner cities, so you see the huge condo and apartment construction boom in Boston and Cambridge. But also those huge suburban developments aren't as necessary anymore, we don't have that big of a population. Nonetheless, if you just drive around, there is a significant amount of housing development going on if you just look around.
Boston's "sprawl" is hidden by a bit of veneer. Most of our "lower-density" suburbs are kept lower density through regulation and zoning to "preserve the historic character of the community." Larger minimum lot sizes prevent the higher density suburban development that you see in suburbs a similar distance from the city center in places like Boston, LA, Phoenix, etc. Boston has low-density "sprawl" radiating out in further distances than many other cities because the inner suburbs have zoning that prevents the higher density development that could accommodate the population growth. It's part of the reason why prices are so high in so many communities and it's part of the reason so many people are commuting from the Worcester area, Southern NH, Northern RI, and the Southcoast.
Frankly, I'd like to see more effort going into encouraging redevelopment of our older urban centers outside of Central Boston (i.e. Lynn, Haverhill, Medford, Malden, Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, etc). Our zoning and general NIMBY attitude toward larger scale development outside of the city center prevents the type of development you see in the Bay Area, LA, or even places like Tyson's Corner in Virginia. Repurposing some of the older urban centers ringing Boston would be a great way to accommodate growth, add more affordable housing to the metro area for the working and middle class, and maintain the charm that makes places like Weston, Wellsely, and Sudbury so attractive.
The first paragraph is just facts and the second paragraph I agree with. It's why I'm so disappointed in developments like Legacy Place, Universal Ave in Westwood, N2/TripAdvisor in Newton, and these other Route 128 ring developments that should be taking inspiration from projects like Tyson's Corner
well sure if you have the money it's no problem. I think an issue is many people don't have the money to build. People who have money are simply able to buy available homes. I do know someone who recently had an amazing 5000 sq ft home built in needham. All the bells and whistles. I know she comes from a LOT of money. So sure someone like this can build a home. But the average person cannot.
Most homes aren't built like that anyway though. People buy homes in new developments...anything from a condo in a high rise, to a one street cul-de-sac mcmansion development.
You could. But why would anyone without money want to live there and be reminded on a daily basis that are "poor" and that will never be able to afford the lifestyle that people who land in Weston simply can. Or should they also redistribute to lower income earners to make things more "fair" and PC?
There will be always people who can do better than you do, as well as people who do worse. You maybe do not belong to Weston right now, but someone else might look at you, and think that you actually have too much, and that you should be more generous with your space and money as well.
This is a somewhat ridiculous point. First of all, if you are adequately supplying lower and middle class housing, then it's not like your this one lower income household surrounded by a bunch of rich people for miles. The idea is that you have a mixed-income community. And of course people of mixed incomes already live up against each other. Like the very first and most obvious example is Manhattan. And it happens in Boston and the Boston area as well.
And to extend/respond to some other posts. These communities may want to preserve their charm and lifestyle, and I fully understand THEIR stake in the situation, but they unduly burden everyone else, and these, in comparison to the people who live in cities and denser or cheaper suburbs, are tiny populations. Think of some of these towns, Weston (which is the whipping boy on this thread I guess) is probably about 4,000 homeowners controlling 17 square miles of prime land where the Boston urban area comes to a halt. Lincoln is probably about 2,500 homeowners controlling 15 square miles of land. Dover is about 2,000 homeowners on 15.5 miles of land. Sudbury about 6,500 homeowners on 25 square miles of land. Sherborn maybe only 1,500 homeowners on 16.2 square miles of land. And there are still other towns like this. Carlisle, Harvard, Hingham. But if you took even 1 of these towns...just 1! And kept all the rest as they were, and decided to urbanize or develop that town, you could drastically increase the housing supply and also FOCUS development. Let's go with Weston, since it's the favorite example today, because it would be contiguous with fairly dense urbanscape between Route 9 and Route 20, and because it's close to major employment centers in Waltham along 128, and not far from Newton or Burlington 128 centers.
If Weston has the population density of Watertown, it could house a population of 136,000
If it had the population density of Somerville, it could house a population of 306,000
Even if it only had the pop density of Waltham or Weymouth you could house 82,000 & 55,000 respectively.
However, this isn't a proposal. This would never ever happen. But it shows you the massive and disproportionate effects these towns have on the metropolitan area. I do support suburban infill though, and focused development. So like Irfox, working in Lowell, Brockton, etc. but also in fairly built up suburbs like Woburn, Randolph, Dedham, Weymouth, etc.
Last edited by BitofEndearment; 06-11-2015 at 02:25 PM..
The first paragraph is just facts and the second paragraph I agree with. It's why I'm so disappointed in developments like Legacy Place, Universal Ave in Westwood, N2/TripAdvisor in Newton, and these other Route 128 ring developments that should be taking inspiration from projects like Tyson's Corner
I think Tyson's Corner was the inspiration for the original University Avenue project, but that was a victim of the most recent recession and was reborn as the current, much smaller, much more retail-focused development that is there now instead.
I think the goal was a transit-oriented development focused on Rt 128 station with businesses, apartments, and retail. I don't think there was enough demand. People either want to live in a real city or town or want a SFH in the burbs. Urban density with suburban amenities is a hard sell.
Completely untrue. It's not the diversity that will destroy the town's charm - it's the massive scale of development. Towns like Sudbury and Weston want to maintain their semi-rural character which means all housing should be single family homes on 1+ acre lots. This year, after a decade of lawsuits against a developer who wanted to build a huge apartment complex abutting conservation land, we decided the only way to prevent such a development was to spend $2.9 million of town money to buy the land from the developer. Construction is already underway to convert it into a gravel parking lot to access the trails/conservation land abutting the property.
If the town didn't want diversity, then why do you think the public school system voluntarily accepts so many METCO students from Boston? Over 75% of the minority population at SPS is enrolled in that program. I am a minority resident who bought a house in town without any subsidies. I don't feel any racism in town like I do in other Eastern MA towns because the population in Sudbury is well-educated. I find that college-educated people are generally more accepting of other cultures than non-college educated people are.
I agree with your thoughts.
However, I think that we need to move in a new direction. I think that METCO should be concluded. Most of the smart kids leave Boston. I think that it provides BPS with an excuse. We should not allow this anymore.
I agree with your thoughts.
However, I think that we need to move in a new direction. I think that METCO should be concluded. Most of the smart kids leave Boston. I think that it provides BPS with an excuse. We should not allow this anymore.
BPS should be providing a quality education.
Bill
I disagree, as it doesn't solely benefit the kids from Boston.
is it really the fault of bps? Or is it that the students there simply aren't good students thanks to their parents?
A combination of both.
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.
