Why is the housing stock so crappy in Boston metro? (Wellesley: how much, schools)

[timberline742]

No, you're not asking for better planning and land use policies. In no way, shape, or form are you asking for that. You're pushing for even more development of the very limited open space we have, which is largely open for very good environmental reasons. Heck, a lot of land that should never have been developed/paved in the first place was already developed. Good grief. Leave the sliver that's left alone. And we will have sprawl and commutes no matter what, you can not build your way to less congestion, only to a reduction in quality of life. There are other species that live here as well, not everything is about humans. I don't mind a 1hr commute, but, if I wanted, I could have a 20 min commute. That is my choice. That's pretty much everyone's choice. They just choose not to because they want other things more.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

No, you're not asking for better planning and land use policies. In no way, shape, or form are you asking for that. You're pushing for even more development of the very limited open space we have, which is largely open for very good environmental reasons. Heck, a lot of land that should never have been developed/paved in the first place was already developed. Good grief. Leave the sliver that's left alone. And we will have sprawl and commutes no matter what, you can not build your way to less congestion, only to a reduction in quality of life. There are other species that live here as well, not everything is about humans. I don't mind a 1hr commute, but, if I wanted, I could have a 20 min commute. That is my choice. That's pretty much everyone's choice. They just choose not to because they want other things more.

LMAO! It's HARDLY a "sliver" of open space. You will not find a major city anywhere with that much undeveloped land that close to the core, which much of our obscene housing costs are to blame from. And I laugh at the "environmental reasons", it's NIMBY and nothing else. You must understand that if they don't build it "here", they will build it "there", RIGHT? I'd much rather it go right next to 128, I93, I95 and the MBTA, 10 miles from DT Boston and close to other jobs...than in the town of Uxbridge.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by massnative71

LMAO! It's HARDLY a "sliver" of open space. You will not find a major city anywhere with that much undeveloped land that close to the core, which much of our obscene housing costs are to blame from. And I laugh at the "environmental reasons", it's NIMBY and nothing else. You must understand that if they don't build it "here", they will build it "there", RIGHT? I'd much rather it go right next to 128, I93, I95 and the MBTA, 10 miles from DT Boston and close to other jobs...than in the town of Uxbridge.

Yes, and look what cities that have built on swampland and floodplain experience. If you want Houston, New Orleans, etc, then go there and deal with it. That land that is undeveloped along 93/95 is almost all floodplain. Blue Hills is hard rock and also good wildlife habitat for several protected species, and this conserved open space for flood prevention and habitat is one of the best things about the Boston area. And yes, it is just a sliver that's left compared to what was there not all that long ago. We have paved and built upon almost everything with only fragments left. You should try looking at the open space map in GIS. The state makes the layers available. There isn't much at all there. If they have to build it "there" where the land isn't wetland or floodplain, or critical habitat for protected species, then build it over there.

[gf2020]

Originally Posted by massnative71

...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.

You think high housing costs are because we have green space close to our urban core? You think other cities don't have comparable amounts of open space? You are delusional as well as misinformed.

You would take part of the Blue Hills Reservation away from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and turn it in to apartments? I imagine you would suggest the same for the Middlesex Fells Reservation straddling 93 north of Boston? How about the Back Bay Fens? I'm sure Frederick Law Olmsted wouldn't mind; the gardens have only been there since 1879. Let's put up high density apartments and a Super Stop & Shop.

This is among the most preposterous suggestions I have read on C-D in the past 10+ years.

If there is developable land left inside of 128, trust me, developers will find it and develop it. They may not develop it in to what you want, however. They may decide that a self-storage facility (doesn't have those pesky septic & water requirements) is a better investment or, perhaps, an over-55 housing development.

As for open space near downtown areas, surely you are familiar with Central Park in Manhattan? Well, the Pelham Bay Park and Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx are 5 times the size of Central Park. Fairmount Park in Philadelphia is bigger than all of downtown Boston. The same goes for Topanga Park just outside Los Angeles.

I could go on and on... but I won't.

[tysmith95]

The Boston area is not like New Orleans at all. New Orleans is below sea level. There is landfill in the city itself that is subsuptable to flooding though.

And anyway we're not talking about developing parks. We're talking about the lightly used, but developed with single family homes land with 1-2 acre lots.

Do I want to get rid of the Fells or blue hills, hell no. But I do wish that Newton, Milton, and Winchester would build more multi family housing.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yes, and look what cities that have built on swampland and floodplain experience. If you want Houston, New Orleans, etc, then go there and deal with it.

Here we go again...

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by gf2020

You think high housing costs are because we have green space close to our urban core? You think other cities don't have comparable amounts of open space? You are delusional as well as misinformed.

You would take part of the Blue Hills Reservation away from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and turn it in to apartments? I imagine you would suggest the same for the Middlesex Fells Reservation straddling 93 north of Boston? How about the Back Bay Fens? I'm sure Frederick Law Olmsted wouldn't mind; the gardens have only been there since 1879. Let's put up high density apartments and a Super Stop & Shop.

This is among the most preposterous suggestions I have read on C-D in the past 10+ years.

If there is developable land left inside of 128, trust me, developers will find it and develop it. They may not develop it in to what you want, however. They may decide that a self-storage facility (doesn't have those pesky septic & water requirements) is a better investment or, perhaps, an over-55 housing development.

As for open space near downtown areas, surely you are familiar with Central Park in Manhattan? Well, the Pelham Bay Park and Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx are 5 times the size of Central Park. Fairmount Park in Philadelphia is bigger than all of downtown Boston. The same goes for Topanga Park just outside Los Angeles.

I could go on and on... but I won't.

Take a look at the Satellite views of all these cities/metro areas. It's not even close.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

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

Lincoln works diligently to ensure they meet the 10% threshold to avoid having a developer come in and propose one. Here in Burlington (not wealthy), the planning board works proactively with developers early on to maintain 10%.

Towns like Wayland are fighting "The Monster" right now which actually refers to (2) 40B proposals - one by the town for 188 units next to the transfer station and one by a developer proposing 60 units on the old Mahoney's property. Wayland has 4% affordable.

[rethcir]

Maybe not the residents but the town of Burlington can't be not wealthy, tons of business and now retail there. They would have to be really bungling their business tax policies not to be raking in dough.

[skeddy]

building more housing isn't going to make it more affordable, that ship has sailed. You've just priced out of the market.