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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_League
How would it ruin the area? If you mean it would totally disrupt the bucolic character of the faux-rural suburbs then yeah, that's the point.
Personally I don't agree with many of the zoning laws at all. If someone pays for a piece of land they should be able to live on it, build on it, run their business on it, rent it out however they see fit.
I don't agree with any of this. Sounds almost libertarian (aka childish) in thinking. We don't live in bubbles where our actions don't affect others. Such measures would turn the lovely nature of Eastern MA into something more similar to southern cities, which are generally pretty hideous and non-liveable, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
As it is now, exclusive zoning in suburban Boston is a big factor in our outrageous housing prices in the city and suburbs. And the people in the those towns like it that way.
Yes, they do, and because of that, this will never happen. People like their towns as they are for the most part. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes, both more parking (not surface lots) and more dense housing is needed near commuter rail stops, but I just don't see the lack of building some here claim. I see building everywhere. I see places being torn down and built bigger, often two or three units becoming six or eight, for example.
I don't agree with any of this. Sounds almost libertarian (aka childish) in thinking. We don't live in bubbles where our actions don't affect others. Such measures would turn the lovely nature of Eastern MA into something more similar to southern cities, which are generally pretty hideous and non-liveable, IMO.
Don't you see how selfish it is for affluent towns to hoard land and drive up prices ?
If we are seriously out for the greater good, the #1 priority should be making this a city where a median wage-earner can afford to live comfortably.
Right now the median rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in boston is over $2700 without utilities. That is more than 80% of the per-capita income in the city!
The towns that vote against density are exactly the ones who are in a bubble of their own design. And they could care less about everyone else because they already have theirs
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_League
Don't you see how selfish it is for affluent towns to hoard land and drive up prices ?
If we are seriously out for the greater good, the #1 priority should be making this a city where a median wage-earner can afford to live comfortably.
Right now the median rent for a 1 bedroom apartment in boston is over $2700 without utilities. That is more than 80% of the per-capita income in the city!
The towns that vote against density are exactly the ones who are in a bubble of their own design. And they could care less about everyone else because they already have theirs
I know plenty of people with one bedrooms. I had one myself until I moved. No one is paying CLOSE to that much. None over $2000 even. Mine was $1200 when I moved out and he re-rented it after doing improvements for $1450. And yes, plenty of these apartments are newer rentals (as in not legacy pricing) and they are relatively affordable. It's still expensive, sure, but the jobs the people in these areas are doing pay very well.
Prices are going up because the job market is robust and people are earning a lot. There is housing going up all over, its just not going to be cheap. Newer construction is going to be pricey.
Yes, they do, and because of that, this will never happen. People like their towns as they are for the most part. Nothing wrong with that.
There is something wrong with that though. Growth is change, and places need to change to accommodate that. The problem is that what people like in many of these towns is unsustainable. Car-dependent single family homes on large scale lots close to a growing urban centers are not sustainable development. Zoning so that that is the only type of development that can occur on that land prevents sustainable development from taking place in huge swaths of metro Boston.
Quote:
Yes, both more parking (not surface lots) and more dense housing is needed near commuter rail stops, but I just don't see the lack of building some here claim. I see building everywhere. I see places being torn down and built bigger, often two or three units becoming six or eight, for example.
I agree about the need for more parking/housing near commuter rail (and rapid transit which should be strategically extended too). I also don't believe that the state should just roll into the Wellesleys, Westins, Dovers, etc. of the world (especially West of 128) and force all corners of each community to accept multi-family development. The goal should be to encourage denser development around transit (even in these wealthy towns), and loosen some of the restrictions and opposition power around it.
I also agree that there's a ton of new construction, but still not enough to keep the pace with the population growth. To compound that, in many more urban gentrifying areas, wealthy new homeowners are converting multi-family homes to larger single family homes. It's happening to one on my street in Somerville right now.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I also agree that there's a ton of new construction, but still not enough to keep the pace with the population growth. To compound that, in many more urban gentrifying areas, wealthy new homeowners are converting multi-family homes to larger single family homes. It's happening to one on my street in Somerville right now.
Yes, and in Somerville I had it happen on my street where two families were made into 6 units. It goes both ways. I see far more of the latter than the former.
You simple cannot build your way to prosperity. Expanding lanes in highways doesn't reduce congestion over time (studies have shown this time and time again), and packing in more housing doesn't reduce pricing either. It just doesn't. What will reduce prices is a tanked economy.
And yes, car dependent development isn't sustainable, which is why the increased building needs to be where it is being done. Cambridge, Boston, Malden, Somerville, etc. Not out in freaking Canton (which also has loads of building). Boston, the inner core, is NO WHERE near as dense as it could be or even should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
The goal should be to encourage denser development around transit (even in these wealthy towns), and loosen some of the restrictions and opposition power around it.
And this is being done and has been for some time. 300 new units on one site alone in Belmont (right on the border), meanwhile, housing is being built densely right in Boston left and right.
These things are being done, but they take time. Not a year, or two years, or three, but decades. Urban and regional planning is a generational thing.
You simple cannot build your way to prosperity. Expanding lanes in highways doesn't reduce congestion over time (studies have shown this time and time again), and packing in more housing doesn't reduce pricing either. It just doesn't. What will reduce prices is a tanked economy.
I don't think anyone is saying that building more automatically means prices go down. The economics of that don't hold up. But new housing units do help keep costs from getting further out of hand. That's why it's important to keep building - even the "luxury" units.
Quote:
And yes, car dependent development isn't sustainable, which is why the increased building needs to be where it is being done. Cambridge, Boston, Malden, Somerville, etc. Not out in freaking Canton (which also has loads of building). Boston, the inner core, is NO WHERE near as dense as it could be or even should be.
Not arguing that. The point is that even the Cantons of the region should do more to encourage smart growth around transit hubs. In many comparable communities, any such proposal is met with vitriol and fierce opposition. Of course the innermost urban core is where the most dense concentration of construction needs to occur. But we should also see more in the 'burbs, and it shouldn't face the uphill battle it currently faces.
Quote:
And this is being done and has been for some time. 300 new units on one site alone in Belmont (right on the border), meanwhile, housing is being built densely right in Boston left and right. These things are being done, but they take time. Not a year, or two years, or three, but decades. Urban and regional planning is a generational thing.
Agreed, it's happening in some suburban pockets, but not at the rate it needs to. And the current obstacles that developers face in many of these suburban pockets ensure that it takes as much time as possible.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,930,903 times
Reputation: 40635
I literally don't know how it can go any faster. Every developer seems stacked to the gills with projects, every contractor bursting with work. Every property that isn't being used, or is underutilized, seems to having something happening. Sure, there are brownfields/ugly dumpy places still, but there seems to be plans for every one I look at. Every time I go through a place after even just 6 mos and the change is palpable. It's too fast, if anything.
The Blue Hills Reservation, south of Boston, is about 7000 acres. The Middlesex Fells Reservation, north of the city, is about 2200 acres.
Virtually every major metropolitan area has preserved green space for recreational and environmental purposes relatively close to its urban core. This land is not going to be developed. No urban planner is going to suggest such a crazy strategy.
It would be a crazy strategy and need to overcome the protective hurdle of Article 97 of the MA constitution. The idea that protected green space be converted to housing is basically a lunatic pipe dream in MA because any state DCR, Fish & Game, town Parks dept or town Conservation Commission-owned property and land protected by state agency-held conservation restrictions need a 2/3 vote of the state legislature to be converted to another use. Best of luck to anyone trying that approach barring a legislative takeover by hardcore libertarians or Trumpian corporate robber barons. Unless you’re a utility company granted eminent domain power by the Feds - a pipeline is going through Otis State Forest because federal eminent domain grant via a a determination of “public good” trumped the state constitution.
Yes, its true that Phoenix's suburbs are much crappier and less desirable and uglier than Boston's, but it gets to wide open spaces much faster, which is the point. Their land use planning is horrific there. Crappy city, to be sure.
And hey, you were the one saying before to drain wetlands, like the one in Neponset, for building. Wetlands are no obstacle to you! Pave the Everglades!
Quit twisting my words please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Look at the land use from say, 1800, or 1900, or even 2000, to now in the Boston area. It is MUCH MUCH denser. If anything, the balance has gone WAAAAY too far toward development. .
Wow your lack of understanding of the issue is really beginning to show. To get a proper understanding of what has happened, you need to look at the population in proportion to developed land. I don't have time to find the figures so I am just guessing, but let's say that twice as much land in Mass. is developed now as it was in 1980 but the population has only grown by 25% in that timeframe. That is poor land use, and a full result of myopic NIMBY development policies. You also need to look at WHERE has been developed, and its distance from jobs, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
And these are independent towns/cities with long independent histories. I have ZERO freaking idea why anyone doesn't think they, and their residents, shouldn't decide their own land use.
Uh, because its causing the entire region to become completely unaffordable and increasingly impossible to get around?
One of the issues we have here in MA is that municipalities have much more power and influence than they do in other areas. This means extremely exclusive zoning can (and does) take place at the local level and there's very little that can be done to change it. DC is not a perfect model for development. Its suburbs sprawl quite a bit. But if you look at how the suburbs are governed, especially on the Maryland side, they've done a MUCH better job of developing dense around transit than Boston has. A big reason is that the county government has much more of an influence on development down there. Just look at Montgomery County - dense clusters around the rail, and lower density away from it. There's no reason Boston shouldn't be doing something similar. Working high density "nodes" around stations here (even in the 'burbs) would be a boon for affordable housing in the region. You could do this in exchange for protections for lower-density suburban areas away from stations, as well as preservation and even creation of new green space. There's no reason density and green space need to be mutually exclusive.
As it is now, exclusive zoning in suburban Boston is a big factor in our outrageous housing prices in the city and suburbs. And the people in the those towns like it that way.
Let's be fair. Due to growth of the federal government and other factors, the DC area has experienced a lot more population growth than Boston and other Northeastern cities. Not only that, the built nature of that area was entirely different from the start. It started at a much smaller population, and doesn't have all the pre-existing cities and large towns that are scattered all over Eastern Mass. You had the district, Alexandria, Arlington and a few inner beltway suburbs in MD; that was pretty much the extent of urban development. Outside of that, was pretty much a wide open free-for-all. So while that area certainly isn't a model for accommodating a growing population (traffic and sprawl IS worse than Boston), I actually give them more credit than Boston in many things (your examples of dense clusters around rail and planned mixed use ie. Shady Grove). I can confidently say that had the Boston area needed to absorb an equal growth in population, the situation would be far uglier.
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.
