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.
Yes I agree that the Boston area needs to be grown differently. I wonder, though, whether this will have to wait until the next economic boom, "cause we seemed to have missed the last one (and the one before that, and the one before that).
Yes I agree that the Boston area needs to be grown differently. I wonder, though, whether this will have to wait until the next economic boom, "cause we seemed to have missed the last one (and the one before that, and the one before that).
It seems the time is right. We have a focus on Keynesian stimulus through publicly funded infrastructure projects along with a heightened understanding of the environmental and (despite the decline in prices the last few months) national security drawbacks of overreliance on the automobile. We can kill a lot of birds with one stone if we create transit networks that people will actually use.
It seems the time is right. We have a focus on Keynesian stimulus through publicly funded infrastructure projects along with a heightened understanding of the environmental and (despite the decline in prices the last few months) national security drawbacks of overreliance on the automobile. We can kill a lot of birds with one stone if we create transit networks that people will actually use.
I agree. We need to be smart about this. Proper transportation infrastructure can be a real stimulus in and of itself. Massachusetts is already better off than(and better connected to) most regions of the country in terms of mass transit. Improvements and extensions (i.e. Green Line extension, Blue Line extension, Blue line from Bowdoin to MGH, Southcoast Rail, and in the more distant future, the urban ring) can foster positive growth.
I also think some people in more powerful positions are starting to get this. One of my favorite current proposals is to demolish the Government Center Garage in favor a large, transit-oriented mixed use development that will replace the hulking parking garage with a development designed to intertwine with the city and surrounding neighborhoods (namely, North End and Beacon Hill) and will include a police station (to replace the one existing adjacent to the garage) and possibly even a public school. An urban supermarket to benefit the surrounding neighborhoods is likely to be included as well.
The smaller cities in New England (the "gateway" cities) like New Bedford, Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, etc. will have to reestablish themselves as satellite cities focusing on transit oriented development and creative local economies. Some have taken steps in the right direction. Lowell has taken advantage of its historic downtown as has New Bedford. New Bedford also has emphasized the Fishing Industry and Oceonographic research (via UMass Dartmouth and Woods Hole). The Arts have been a key catalyst for downtown revitalization in Lowell and New Bedford as well. Revitalizations around the downtown areas and exisiting transit stations (or soon to be transit stations in the case of New Bedford and Fall River) are an excellent start, but there's much more to these cities than just downtowns. We need to recreate the neighborhoods that once exisited in these cities (many replaced by monolithic housing projects or just vacated after the exodus of manufacturing).
Transit and ifrastructure improvements can play a big part in this. If you're not within walking distance of a station, you should be able to park. Like Holden said, the schedule needs to be better. More frequent trains means higher capacity railways which is something that needs to be taken into account. I believe an expansion of tracks at South Station is part of the Fall River/ New Bedford rail project, but higher capacity is necessary. Also, the subway needs to run later... especially on weekends. I'll never understand why they don't run at least 1/2 hour past last call. It's like begging for drunk driving wrecks.
Anyway, I've rambled for too long. I could go on for two more pages, but I'll end it here.
WOW! You pretty much said it all. I agree w/most of it (except for the Boston traffic...or ANY traffic...I'll go miles out of my way to avoid it, but that's me). Allow ME to brag about my ancesters too! (Heh-heh): ON my mother's side, we're descended from the Angevin dynasty (Henry II, Eleanor of Aquitaine)! If only they hadn't screwed up and lost France.
AnYway...I think more people ARE coming here, especially to the colleges and Universitites, from all over the world. This is nothing new, but we need to keep funding up for higher education and education in general. We also need to put more into tourism and STOP that idiotic wind farm off the Cape! Who's going to want to go sailing with those around? There are other places to put wind farms, like the Berkshires or all along Rte. 9, esp. which is ugly anyway, from Worcester to Boston.
As for more housing development, I'm sure you'll agree that the rampant construction of McMansions (often in front of beautiful historic houses!) has got to stop...once the housing market picks up again. Those are eyesores, and insults to our heritage, even if they're not technically ugly.
I strongly believe that Mass. will continue to draw people, because of all the things you and others named, such as: its beauty, history, educational reputation and yes, its Liberal leanings. Now...if ONLY we could get more electoral votes...!
As for more housing development, I'm sure you'll agree that the rampant construction of McMansions (often in front of beautiful historic houses!) has got to stop...once the housing market picks up again. Those are eyesores, and insults to our heritage, even if they're not technically ugly.
I absolutely agree! Unfortunately, the construction of McMansions is not only a problem, it's also the byproduct of well-intentioned zoning laws that have not had the effect they were intended to. Setbacks requirements and minimum lot sizes were enacted to assure that the historic and rural character of our towns was saved. They were also enacted to prevent sprawl. Instead, they've been the catalyst for low-density sprawl in the Boston area (and other areas). By not allowing people to build in higher densities in suburban areas, we've forced people to build and buy McMansions and lower density homes which spread the population so thin over a large area of land instead of at higher densities over a smaller area of land (with the exception, of course of Boston and its immediate surrounding towns).
People around here love to criticize Los Angeles for its sprawl, but what they don't realize is that Boston's metro area covers the same land area as LA's, it's just lower density. Sprawl is a HUGE problem in the Boston area, it's just a lower density.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't preserve our historic districts by limiting the type of development that takes place around there, but we need to change our zoning laws. Combined with transit improvements, changes to zoning regulations can really help prevent more of the McMansions and Low-density sprawl that has consumed much of Eastern Massachusetts. This can also help us emphasize and preserve the historic areas that shape our region. Utilize the best of yesterday for the needs of today; that's something we can do in Massachusetts.
I don't care for the McMansions anymore than anyone else, but there is nothing you can do about it. Plus, lots of people don't want to live in old homes that have poor insulation, lack of modern amentities, and lack of upgrades. The market determines what people decide to buy what type of home. Eventually the old homes get too expensive and hard to maintain and new homes come in. In 100 years those same homes that are new now might be considered historic. I love history, but also realize that things change and nothing can stay around forever. If someone has the money to tear down an old house and put a new one in, then that is their choice. I don't always agree with it, but will agree people can make their own decisions.
New transit and all the "do this" and "do that" to Boston would be nice but I don't want to pay for it. Not after all the waste of the big dig and how nothing in Boston can get done correctly or without kickbacks. I don't understand either why other cities such as Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, etc. can't become new modern day cities. Why does it have to be Boston that is put up on the pedastal. We can't continue to live in the past all the time.
I'd also like a definition on sprawl from someone, because in my opinion you could argue sprawl from any city whether you build up or out. People are going to live where they want to so I don't think the government should force them to live somewhere. Even if you grow other cities up that area may become expensive and people will decide to locate further outside where more land or cheaper land is. This is normal and happens everywhere. The older cities were the main ones that built up first because people didn't have cars to use. Now, living 30 miles from where you work isn't a big deal.
Pre-development here - of course only the smart kind.
But I would say that in response to LeavingMA: Although people would like to live where they want they will be increasingly forced to move back to the cities. It will simply be an economic necessity. Energy will become so expensive and/or rare that we will be forced to live on top of each other. It is so much more energy efficient to live close to where you work, in a smaller living space on top of each other with less heating and cooling costs and construction expenses. A lot of us will not like it but we or our children will have to move. So lets try to make our cities nice again and sustain that growth. And you don't really need too much government intervention for that. See what happened to the cars. For years the government tried to come up with new pollution standards. But it was not until gas cost $4 that people changed their habits and started to demand different cars, buy smaller cars and drive less. Supply and demand will work for the cities as well.
Pre-development here - of course only the smart kind.
But I would say that in response to LeavingMA: Although people would like to live where they want they will be increasingly forced to move back to the cities. It will simply be an economic necessity. Energy will become so expensive and/or rare that we will be forced to live on top of each other. It is so much more energy efficient to live close to where you work, in a smaller living space on top of each other with less heating and cooling costs and construction expenses. A lot of us will not like it but we or our children will have to move. So lets try to make our cities nice again and sustain that growth. And you don't really need too much government intervention for that. See what happened to the cars. For years the government tried to come up with new pollution standards. But it was not until gas cost $4 that people changed their habits and started to demand different cars, buy smaller cars and drive less. Supply and demand will work for the cities as well.
I agree with the supply and demand aspect and that what I was trying to say. That people will live where they can afford and how they want to if they can afford it. Just let the market determine if people want to live in high-rises or out in the suburbs and not have their neighbor on top of them.
The government shouldn't be saying where and what people should be living in.
I agree with the supply and demand aspect and that what I was trying to say. That people will live where they can afford and how they want to if they can afford it. Just let the market determine if people want to live in high-rises or out in the suburbs and not have their neighbor on top of them.
The government shouldn't be saying where and what people should be living in.
The government, in a more indirect way, does and has said where people will live for as long as there's been a USA. The government granted huge tracts of the best land to railroads in the 1800s and people moved west to those areas because they had access to back east, for the people and the crops or products they wanted to sell back to the eastern market.
Starting particularly in the 1950s, the whole idea of suburbia that is now entrenched in the American mind only became possible because government invested massive sums in building roads, specifically the interstate system, to make it possible for people to get to these far-flung locales without having to take a road like Route 117 the whole way from Leominster to Waltham.
Developers would not have built, and people would not have bought, suburban houses with big lots if there had not been the government-built roads to get there, a public policy of taxing gasoline much less here than in other countries, and a public policy allowing mortgage interest to be deducted from taxable income. None of these things was organic or inevitable. Outside the USA there was more transit-centered development and people live closer to the center of the cities, and in somewhat smaller homes, because that is what was available.
Government policies have a lot to do with what people can afford and what works for them. If areas near train stations are rezoned for mixed use with high-density residential buildings, a large investment is made in the train system, less is spent on new roads, the gas tax is increased significantly, and credits are given for those who take the train or live in high-density places, people will make the decision to move to high-density places. And all of that will be no different than people moving to suburbia because a series of policies made that affordable and practical. Government policies have always been the backdrop to the decisions made by market actors, as have extrinsic factors like the rise in energy prices the last few years.
I watched a few South Shore towns struggle with their opportunity to become more dense and develop themselves differently given the huge opportunity of the new Greenbush train line that opened last year (or the year before). The prejudices against this kind of development run deep. At heart most people don't want to open up their communities to development, which to them means outsiders. It's frightening to them.
I think as more time passes these attitudes will change. In fact, from the beginning of the Greenbush process to the end, attitudes did change considerably among local people to development around the train stations, but unfortunately it was too late to affect the building plans. In the beginning, in Cohasset, for example, there was huge opposition to letting the train stop in the village. A few years later the town gov't asked for a whistle stop in town, but it was too late in the planning process. (Whether it was really too late or the MBTA was punishing the town for its long-term opposition, we'll never know.)
This train line had been running for many years before it was ripped out in the late fifties/early sixties. The whole thing is a headscratcher.
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.
