Massachusetts Has Changed (Boston, Worcester, Lowell: leasing, luxury, incomes)

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Of course it is subjective. Some people think nicer quality restaurants are a negative. Cleanliness is a negative. Nicer housing being built is a negative. Higher paying jobs a negative. A more educated populace a negative.


In some cases I do as well. Things can be nicer and I like them less.

Take the Seaport for instance.... I liked it better as a parking lot

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Of course it is subjective. Some people think nicer quality restaurants are a negative. Cleanliness is a negative. Nicer housing being built is a negative. Higher paying jobs a negative. A more educated populace a negative.


In some cases I do as well. Things can be nicer and I like them less.

Once again, those things are all neighborhood dependent. Where I grew up is no cleaner or safer today than it was 30 years ago.



There is also such a thing called over saturation. Higher paying jobs only benefit those in need of one, and most of the current jobs seem to be going to foreigners and others outside of the region (serving little benefit to those already there). Only so many nice restaurants are needed for the regular middle-class person who may go out for a $70 steak once a year or on special occasions.



And I had more fun in the old Kenmore Square than I ever will in the new "Seaport".

[timberline742]

I did too, but its folly to say Kenmore isn't nicer now. I was interested in The Rat and a few other places, but it IS nicer now. I visit every once in awhile (well, drive my mother to her old neighborhood parish) Chelsea where my mother grew up, and it's miles beyond what it was in the 80s too. So even much of the "cheaper" sections of the Boston area are much nicer.


Can't agree with the rest of your post since the people I know with 100k plus modern gigs in Boston (and there are a lot of those) are almost entirely from people who grew up or went to school in the region.

And nice restaurants aren't about expense account steak houses! It's about quality and diversity of that quality. The restaurant scene at every level is more diverse and better now than 20 years ago.


Boston isn't even close to being oversaturated. It has LOTS of growth potential.

[GeePee]

I mean even most of the "projects" got cozy little facelifts. Bromley heath got a name change, but no upgrades unfortunately. People are still getting shot in Dot and Mattapan on a nightly basis. Seems like those areas will never change. But hey now i can feel "safer" in Kenmore. It's a shame IMO what happened to places like Kenmore and Harvard Sq. Its a corporate shopping mall for suburbanites with a "city feel". The small pocket of China town, and some parts of the S. End is the only part I actually recognize these days.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GeePee

I mean even most of the "projects" got cozy little facelifts. Bromley heath got a name change, but no upgrades unfortunately. People are still getting shot in Dot and Mattapan on a nightly basis. Seems like those areas will never change. But hey now i can feel "safer" in Kenmore. It's a shame IMO what happened to places like Kenmore and Harvard Sq. Its a corporate shopping mall for suburbanites with a "city feel". The small pocket of China town, and some parts of the S. End is the only part I actually recognize these days.

I agree with you. It's not really for me anymore, for the most part. I want The Rat/Channel/Man Ray experience, but, things change. They're nicer now.


I'm not so into "nicer" a lot of the time, so warehouse shows in Olneyville, etc or shows at Dusk, etc are where I'm at.


I'm not a 6 figure Starbucks/$12 Panera salad/whatever person though.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Some abandoned housing and vacants lots have been infilled in Boston Lowell’s Cambridge Chelsea Lynn and Somerville.

Outside of that I think we all agree not much has gotten visually nicer in Mass.

I agree green space is very minimal and all the old buildings mixed in with all the bland new buildings it is very crowded and a little ugly. The flat tax is going to kill this state, Either that or not investing in infrastructure at all it’s literally a slap in the face how they only want to do private shuttle is in private companies to everywhere the housing remains expensive because the suburbs will not let lower income people into the suburbs and transit won’t be billed out into the south shore and metro west.

People in Massachusetts are very very arrogant about our state they feel it it’s the best at everything and better compared to everyone else at every single thing when in fact Massachusetts has many many problems but it does have many many fantastic strength I just don’t think that the state is governed well at all. However I will say it’s nicer than Connecticut but really marginally better than New Jersey.

I’ve always given New Jersey tremendous credit on this board for handling such a dense urbanized, educated, parochial population. If people in Massachusetts were not as cocky and arrogant as they are we would be largely following your jerseys lead with some small tweaks one thing that doesn’t get credit is that New Jersey does tremendously well and educating minority youth in its public schools in some of it’s poorest cities that’s why only one maybe two of their cities is a total basket case, Camden and Trenton.

Either we hike the income tax up to 6.25% or we institute a progressive tax but wealthier towns in MetroWest must be compelled to build denser housing. Some towns on the South and North Shores are doing it but they tend to be more crowded towns as is. The older more honky-tonk towns seem determined to rebel.

The whole ‘quaint and puritan New England’ shtick in Massachusetts seems woefully dated to me. Boston seems to have let it go but for Boston and other places to see more normal and more integrated with the rest of the state are there places in the state need to show that they’re interested in doing density and doing it WELL.

[bugelrex]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

I’ve always given New Jersey tremendous credit on this board for handling such a dense urbanized, educated, parochial population.

For nj, When you have one of the highest property taxes in the nation and residents can ride 1 hour to the highest paid jobs in the country... then you have plenty of tax revenue to spread around

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

I’ve always given New Jersey tremendous credit on this board for handling such a dense urbanized, educated, parochial population.

Huh? New Jersey has the worst high poverty rate failed city problem in the country. New Jersey has 10 cities with 29%+ poverty rate. Camden leads the way at almost 40% below the poverty rate. Camden and Hartford also both have an astounding 84% single parent household rate which assures generational poverty. Springfield, MA is the worst in Massachusetts at about 55%. New Jersey has a far worse generational poverty problem than Massachusetts.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Huh? New Jersey has the worst high poverty rate failed city problem in the country. New Jersey has 10 cities with 29%+ poverty rate. Camden leads the way at almost 40% below the poverty rate. Camden and Hartford also both have an astounding 84% single parent household rate which assures generational poverty. Springfield, MA is the worst in Massachusetts at about 55%. New Jersey has a far worse generational poverty problem than Massachusetts.

The overall poverty are in MA always higher than NJ though.

Isn’t Springfield 66%? I thought I saw that in another thread . Elizabeth Newark Jersey Coty Hoboken even Trenton all contribute much more to their state than Lawrence Chelsea Lynn Brockton Springfield (kudos for the trains though) etc.

Of course inter generational poverty is worse in anew Jersey than Mass it’s more urban and more embedded in the poverty of New York City and Philadelphia. Massachusetts has many cities with 20%+ poverty rate and 2 or 3 around 30%. Like I said, it’s on the way to New Jerseyfication. Not all of that NJ is good. I just don’t see places like Pittsfield Leominster Methuen Taunton and Haverhill getting any better in the next 30 years. Worcester Lowell and Springfield seem to have stabilized somewhat, the rest of the smaller cites and their smaller satellite cities will continue to grow and change.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I did too, but its folly to say Kenmore isn't nicer now. I was interested in The Rat and a few other places, but it IS nicer now. I visit every once in awhile (well, drive my mother to her old neighborhood parish) Chelsea where my mother grew up, and it's miles beyond what it was in the 80s too. So even much of the "cheaper" sections of the Boston area are much nicer.

Yeah but you always had Copley Square to fill that need. Some places are nicer. Chelsea is better now, but still not good. East Boston some parts have gotten better, others worse. Hyde Park and Mattapan definitely haven't improved over the years. Some parts of Dorchester have while some have done the opposite. West Roxbury is wealthier but not "nicer". JP and Roslindale have yuppified much in some sections, but those same sections were never "bad" to begin with. South End has made big improvements, Southie has with a few exceptions. My point is, a lot of the city has just "shifted".

Originally Posted by timberline742

Can't agree with the rest of your post since the people I know with 100k plus modern gigs in Boston (and there are a lot of those) are almost entirely from people who grew up or went to school in the region.

In select fields. Most the locals I know pulling in big incomes tend to be in the finance field or something related, or maybe business or nursing. I know a guy in IT who got laid off after training his replacement from India (who has probably been replaced himself by now for the next lower earner). I cannot emphasize how many people in the Boston are have been stuck in neutral or even slid backward since the supposed "recovery" started. I had to move to Maine of all places to advance forward. All these new places like Assembly Row are being filled with biotech people from Asia, etc. Not bad people. They work hard, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. But they see Boston as a stepping stone to get to their next placed in life, they have no roots and no desire to set any. They earn their money, enjoy their time as a "visitor" and move on.

Originally Posted by timberline742

And nice restaurants aren't about expense account steak houses! It's about quality and diversity of that quality. The restaurant scene at every level is more diverse and better now than 20 years ago.

There certainly is more to choose from, yes. Eating out has also become far more expensive and crowded. T is slower and more unreliable. Traffic and parking is MUCH worse. As a casual diner out I honestly prefer Providence, even Worcester it seems I never run out of new places to try. I suppose if I ate out 3 or 4 times a week, those would get old and I would appreciate the unlimited number of options in Boston.