Hey, there! Log in / Register
BRA approves large new residential complex in Andrew Square
By adamg on Thu, 08/11/2016 - 6:22pm
Architect's rendering.
The BRA board today approved a development off Old Colony Avenue and Dorchester Street that would transform a nearly 5-acre collection of small industrial buildings into 656 condo and rental units in buildings ranging up to 24 stories tall.
Some 110 units - 25 more than required - would be marketed as affordable.
The Washington Village development would also include 99,000 square feet of retail space - including a supermarket - as well as lots of trees and almost an acre of open space, much in a new park similar in layout to the Post Office Square park downtown. Several public streets will cross the property, creating an urban-village feel.
State Sen. Linda Dorcena-Forry, state Rep. Nick Collins and city councilors Bill Linehan and Michael Flaherty all strongly supported the proposal. Several residents also spoke in favor.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Near the MBTA Red Line
People take public transportation so there will be no need for parking.
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Translation
"I want other taxpayers to pay for all of their own personal parking while I get to monopolize the "free" parking that all the other taxpayers provide for ME and MY exclusive use for as many vehicles as I want. I will whine about this incessantly because I think that being here now means that I get special rights over other taxpayers, property owners, and renters. Then I'll bitch and moan about housing prices".
Right?
There are many people who
There are many people who live near transit yet continue to use a car. Not all jobs or shopping would be near the T even for people that live there.
Zip Car is your friend
So is paying for your parking.
Large chunks of personal property should not get a free ride. You have to pay for a storage unit in the cold storage place. Pay to store your personal vehicle.
Simple.
That's expensive and unrealistic for most
They don't always build enough parking. Most housing isn't near transit.
Many people already do pay.
Don't overbuild an area without also adding the other things that are needed.
Simple.
You can't pay if they don't build enough parking to pay for
This project aside, they don't often even build enough parking.
Don't expect the city to just build whatever housing you want just because you think it should.
How do you decide what is
How do you decide what is "enough?" Right now we're giving it away on the street for free. At that price it's basically impossible to build enough of it so that everyone will always be able to get a space.
If you consider that people will pay 5 times as much for a square foot of housing as they would a square foot of parking, it's hard to argue that parking is really what we should be building more of. If people want more places to park their car, they can pay for it. But guess what: Most people, if you tell them it's going to cost them $300-400/month to keep their car int he city (what it would cost if people were paying full construction cost for a garage space), just choose to go without.
No. The post was talking
No. The post was talking about including parking with the development.
If you don't include parking, then people will park on the street, adding even more congestion.
People don't go without cars just because you say so. Clearly, many people are bringing cars anyway.
And why is that a problem? Oh
And why is that a problem? Oh, right, because of the people who already park there for free and believe that it is their god-given right to be able to do so.
No. It's because they need
No. It's because they need to use a car to get to a job or other needs that aren't located near public transit. If they don't include enough parking with each building for these people, then they will have less parking on the street.
Right, and why can't those
Right, and why can't those people that need a car to get to work also pay for their parking, too?
They do pay for their parking
They do pay for their parking, when they include the units with the building.
I'm talking about the people
I'm talking about the people who already live here and park on the street for free. Why can't they pay?
The last point is, while
The last point is, while public transit offers many good things, it's not just realistic at all to not include parking in new construction because there isn't enough there, even if it makes housing more expensive. People don't have to only live in a single location or community.
If they incluide parking, then you are paying for it
A parking location attached to a new housing building is basically included in the price, either in the rent, or as part of the purchase price.
Many new housing units do not include designated parking, and that would make the most sense.
Car services like you mention are not located near all housing, and are not practical on a daily basis.
If they include parking with the building, then people who live there would have a place to park and pay for it.
Simple.
If you force developers to
If you force developers to build more parking than they would otherwise deem necessary, then you are asking those residents who choose not to own a car to subsidize the parking of:
- Those in the building that do choose to own a car and choose to park it in the building and
- Those in the surrounding neighborhood who are able to find spaces on the street for free because the car-owning residents of the building are not parking in them.
It's simple: If you force people to build parking that they would not otherwise build, you are indirectly subsidizing car ownership.
No one is asking anyone to
No one is asking anyone to subsidize anything, because it's a choice on if they actually move there. If they don't want to move to a building with parking, then they don't have to.
It's simply, if you don't build enough parking, people will still bring their cars and it creates a lack of parking space.
If *every* new building is
If *every* new building is required to be built with parking, then people looking for housing don't really have a choice, they have to rent a place with parking, even if they do not own car, because every new place will include parking.
It's simple: If people aren't willing to pay for the parking, developers shouldn't build it. We shouldn't *make* developers build expensive, off-street spaces so that the free, on-street spaces won't get used. That's not fair to the people who buy into the new building and don't want to own a car, and it drives up the price of new construction.
There's plenty of housing
There's plenty of housing that doesn't have parking already.
The need for transportation is more important that some people's indignation that their building doesn't have parking spaces.
It's simple: many people are willing to pay for parking, especially if it's already included with the building as part of rent or fees.
The solution is not to limit transportation to jobs just because some people feel housing is too expensive.
If you don't want to pay for a building that doesn't have parking, then move to one of the many that doesn't already.
And again, if there is really
And again, if there is really all of this demand for buildings with parking, why would we need to force the developers to build it? Why can't all of these people who "need" parking (even though they're living right across the street from a train station) also pay the full market rate for their own parking spaces?
The problem here is the street parking is way too cheap. It should cost enough that people who rarely drive have to think twice before storing a car on the street.
There's plenty of demand, as
There's plenty of demand, as shown by all of the full parking lots, places with a lack of street parking.
You would need to force developers to include parking because they don't make as much money on them as they do housing units. A huge number towns, suburbs, and cities do this because they recognize not including parking results in shortages.
If it's too cheap then charge more, or include parking with the buildings, the zoning requirements for many places already requires.
"There's plenty of demand, as
"There's plenty of demand, as shown by all of the full parking lots, places with a lack of street parking. "
1) If you look around on Google Earth you will see that about half of all of the visible off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood are unused. And that doesn't even count the garage spaces you can't see.
2) It's hard to accurately judge the demand for something that is heavily subsidized. Ask people to pay for the parking they use and you'll be amazed how many people suddenly decide they don't need it so badly after all.
"You would need to force developers to include parking because they don't make as much money on them as they do housing units. A huge number towns, suburbs, and cities do this because they recognize not including parking results in shortages."
Think about how absurd this argument sounds if applied to something besides parking or housing: Somewhere around 50 million people want to own a huge, luxury SUV with all of the latest safety features, but most people think that $60,000 is too much to pay for a car, so in response, the government mandates that the government build 60 million luxury SUVs (just in case some people want two, or need to lend one to a friend). But here's the problem: Building SUVs is expensive, and there aren't 50 million people who can afford to pay $60,000 for a car (and some people don't even want a big SUV).
So what happens? Two things at the same time: 1) The car manufacturers sell the cars at a huge discount, but they're not willing to discount them THAT much because they're wary of losing money on each one that they sell, and 2) Tons and tons of these luxury SUVs sit on the lot, unsold.
And then of course there's the question of how car manufacturers would be expected to pay to manufacture a car that no one is buying. Now if it's just one manufacturer, that company might actually go out of business (after all, Toyota can't just raise prices for the Corolla as long as Hyundai is still selling cheap cars), but if ALL manufacturers are required to build lots of extra luxury SUVs, then the manufactures are able to defray the cost by charging more for all of the OTHER cars that they build, and because they're all doing it, everyone is going to be raising their prices at the same time.
I know this seems incredibly stupid and irrational but this is EXACTLY what we're doing right now with parking spaces in Boston. We're forcing developers to build a product that not many people want to pay for and a substantial portion of it is going unsold. We rationalize it in the name of protecting the precious on-street parking, but that's a fool's errand because it's impossible for developers to compete with free and as long as the parking is free, there will never, ever be enough of it, no matter how many garages we build.
oh, man
Google Earth is not an appropriate indicator for parking needs.
It's not ideal (because
It's not ideal (because presumably most of their pictures are taken during the day when people are more likely to be away at work) but it's better than nothing. Thankfully, it's not the only thing we have to go on. In the few neighborhoods in Boston that have actually conducted parking surveys (Dudley Square for example) usage, even during peak hours, was rarely more than 80%, which would be consistent with the car ownership stats for the neighborhood. I think it's reasonable to assume that in the areas within 1000' of a train station, car ownership rates would be lower.
Holy crap, project much?
I just read a juvenile but understandable laugh at the city and the developers plans
Have no frigging idea how you projected all the nonsense in your post.
Lighten up, Francis.
Good grief.
That must be why there's
That must be why there's hardly any cars even though there's a bunch of condos near parking then. People still bring cars. You also assume only people who work and shop along the red line would live there. That's not necessarily true either.
And you're assuming that just
And you're assuming that just because you see cars, that's how everyone gets around, but there are actually quite a few more transit commuters than you seem to realize.
They bring cars and a lot of
They bring cars and a lot of people use them.
Yes, and also a lot of of
Yes, and also a lot of of people don't use them. In some neighborhoods 75 percent of people don't drive, but you will still see cars on every street. What's your point?
You will see cars on every
You will see cars on every street because sometimes they do use them. If they don't use the spots, then they can make a decision on if its worth the cost. It's not realistic to expect everyone to use public transit all the time since it's not located near everyone.
"it's not located near
"it's not located near everyone"
This is a moot point because we are discussing development that is near transit.
However
You keep talking about forcing EVERY developer, not just developers who are proposing construction near transit.
The goal posts, they keep moving.
Yes. Also, there's plenty of
Yes. Also, there's plenty of people who live near transit and still use cars.
Yes, and those people should
Yes, and those people should be paying full-freight for the privilege, even if they live in an old building with no driveway and park on the street.
...because they are
...because they are displacing people like myself who need to live near transit because we don't want to or cannot afford to own a car.
The market already makes
The market already makes those units more expensive, so it's not a clear financial advantage.
You not wanting a car does
You not wanting a car does not mean parking shouldn't be included with units near transit. Housing is already more expensive near transit anyway, so you wouldn't necessarily save money.
You insisting on living in an
You insisting on living in an expensive desirable location, as you say, near transit is irrelevant to the transit needs of the region. Currently, that includes parking spaces with new construction. You could save money by moving to a slightly different location, it's your choice not to move. If you move to a less expensive location, you could still afford a car, or afford rents in a place that has transit. You not owning a car is a choice, and while there are benefits to using transit, it's not an option for everyone all the team, even if they live near it. There are many places that include transit. Not all places near transit are as expensive as the most desirable areas anyways including other towns. Housing is expensive for a variety of reasons.
Transit needs?
I don't think you can include subsidized parking spaces in "transit needs of the region." Subsidizing cars in thickly settled areas is inimical to the transit needs of the region. It imposes an artificial tax on people whose lifestyle choices otherwise help the transit needs of the region, making a transit-positive choice more expensive.
Builders within walking distance of transit hubs should be allowed to sell all the parking spaces they build separately from the units, floated on the market. Let the people choose.
Yes! Very well put. AND they
Yes! Very well put. AND they shouldn't be made to build any more than they want to.
Are you nuts?
Is EVERYTHING on the Subway line? Maybe I'd like to go golfing or go to Walmart. Everyone should have a space living there if they want one.
Then pay for parking
Everybody pay for parking. Public parking too. Scarce resources need to cost money
Pay for your driveway
Or STFU.
I do pay for my driveway
It is on my property, which I pay for.
People who rent pay for parking in driveways in their leases.
Wow. Anon IQ levels are dropping ... And I won't STFU.
No you don't
Your mortgage on that house you bought in the 90s is lower than what people are paying for a parking spot nowadays. So once again, either pony up an additional $500 or so a month like you're telling others to do and we'll listen to you or STFU.
Um, this is how buying
Um, this is how buying property works: You assume a certain amount of risk by plunking down a few hundred thousand dollars of your own money on something that MAY LOSE VALUE and in return, the cost to you of being able to use that thing is relatively fixed. No one is stopping you from doing the same, and benefiting when parking spaces are worth $1000/month in a few years.
Not quite
This is the usual do as I say bullshit - I got my car and my parking space that cost me next to nothing, but I don't want you to have a car so I can have open roads for my preciousness bicycle.
You're not thinking this
You're not thinking this through. Even if SwirlyGrrl owns a space outright and has paid off her mortgage, by not renting it out for $500 a month (or whatever) she is still giving up that money in exchange for having a place to park her car. This is called the "opportunity cost" and it is every bit as valid a form of expense as it would be for her to pay someone else $500 to store her car on their property.
Except that "opportunity cost
Except that "opportunity cost" isn't the only factor people consider when renting out their space. Not everything is about money.
Still a bogus supposition
I pay interest on my mortgage, and I pay taxes based on the value of my property, which includes my driveway.
When I bought my property makes no freaking difference whatsoever. I wanted off street parking, I pay for off street parking. Any statement that I don't pay for my property is both false and patently stupid.
But I'm beginning to see why this is an issue for you - you have no freaking clue how any of this stuff works and you keep doubling down on the ignorance. People like you who don't have even the most fundamental concept of mortgages, financing property, etc. are the ones who get ripped off by lenders - there's another born every minute. I guess that is what happens when you grow up in a state where they don't require Personal Finance in high school.
First of all, you are talking
First of all, you are talking to a different anon. Second, this state has the best public education, and that means better than whatever state you moved from.
You are far to quick to arrogantly respond to basic points.
The point I was making is that it's not all about money, and that still matters.
Nobody in this thread has
Nobody in this thread has claimed they must be provided with unlimited FREE parking except your imaginary strawman. I think most people who drive in the city understand that in busy areas, you're expected to pay for parking. The unit is being built without parking period, which considering there's a supermarket there, seems a little counterintuitive.
Sorry, just to be clear here:
Sorry, just to be clear here: What is it that people are worried will happen if a supermarket does not build enough parking?
Oh, right, they're worried that the customers of that supermarket will park on the street. And why do the neighbors care about that? Could it be because those neighbors believe that their right to park on that street is important? And how much does that street parking cost again? Ah, yes: Nothing.
Or it's just that they would
Or it's just that they would like for there to be enough parking.
Enough for what? So that
Enough for what? So that everyone can have two spaces for free? And who will pay for all of this parking? And how will we get all of these cars in and out of the area?
No, they include them with
No, they include them with the buildings. People pay for them when they rent or buy the condo. That way you avoid the street parking issues.
You keep changing the terms of the argument, no one said two free spaces for everyone.
"You keep changing the terms
"You keep changing the terms of the argument, no one said two free spaces for everyone."
That is what the current zoning code dictates. Or maybe you were just thinking it should be "two free spaces for anyone who already lives here in the existing housing."
I am mainly hung up on the fact that you seem to think that anyone who already lives in the neighborhood should be entitled to park on the street for free, and anyone new who moves into the neighborhood should have to pay for a parking space in an off-street garage (whether or not they actually own a car). This two tier system that strongly favors incumbents (and substantially drives up the price of housing because of all that parking that needs to be built) seems grotesquely undemocratic to me.
"That is what the current
"That is what the current zoning code dictates. Or maybe you were just thinking it should be "two free spaces for anyone who already lives here in the existing housing."
Wrong. They are not free. They are included in the rent, purchase price, or fees.
"I am mainly hung up on the fact that you seem to think that anyone who already lives in the neighborhood should be entitled to park on the street for free,"
That wasn't even said in my posts. You are just making up strawmans because you can argue the preexisting point.
Why??
"Everyone should have a space living there if they want one."
I want an ice cream cone. Can the government provide me one?
Stop with the free government hand-me-outs!! If you want to park, pay for it. Every resident parking permit should cost the market rate.
Can't afford it? Oh well, welcome to American capitalism.
..and you don't need a car when you have:
1. Zip Car
2. Uber
3. Taxis
4. Your feet
5. Hubway
6. Your Bike
7. MBTA Bus
8. MBTA Subway.
- The Original SoBo Yuppie
You forgot
All the time in the world to be inconvenienced by the fickleness of the T, the Uber/Taxi driver, your health, the weather (and if in winter the city provided sidewalk has been taken care of private property owners) ...
Right
Because traffic is so very predictable when everyone wants their precious individual car.
It has been for me
I live in the city and I drive. To and from work. My commute is 20-30 minutes in the morning compared to 60 minutes via T. The afternoons depend upon whether there is a Sox game, and even then it is predictable.
So yes, it is predictable for me.
But this is now anon-said, ABBQ-said. No one can prove the other's story incorrect.
It also gets steadily worse
It also gets steadily worse as more people move into the city unless vast quantities of money are spent to widen roads and intersections.
For your commute
I may have found a sweet spot in where I live and where I commute to in the last 12 years (covers 3 different employment locations): I haven't noticed an appreciable change. But this is my situation, I can't speak to others's.
Give it time. The traffic you
Give it time. The traffic you experience WILL increase unless we can convince new residents not to drive everwhere.
Boy
You like having the last word, don't you?
Making roads larger just
Making roads larger just induces demand. The solution is not not overbuild, despite what some think about the need to endlessly build housing as if that's going to make it cheaper without causing these other problems. Not all housing that can be built needs to be built just because some believe there should be more.
There's a fundamental
There's a fundamental difference between induced demand for roads and housing: There is a nearly endless ability to keep adding housing capacity as long as we are willing to build taller buildings, but roads can really only get so wide before no one wants to live near them anymore. This is also why induced demand is rarely cited as a reason not to expand mass transit.
You said widen the roads.
You said widen the roads. That's the example you gave, and the response explained why it was wrong. You are changing the argument.
Then you changed it a second time by talking about transit instead of roads.
No, you don't need to keep adding housing capacity if you encourage other places to grow or recognize that endless expansion doesn't need to be a goal. Not everyone needs to live in every desirable location.
It also is possible to induce demand in housing, especially in desirable areas where building more encourages more speculation and doesn't lower prices.
"You said widen the roads.
"You said widen the roads. That's the example you gave, and the response explained why it was wrong. You are changing the argument."
I think you're somewhat misunderstanding how "induced demand" actually works. It is definitely possible to increase the capacity of a road by widening it, it's just that in most suburban neighborhoods, the *main* constraint on the number of cars attempting to use the road is the amount of time people are willing to sit in traffic.
Southie is different because there are other constraints on the number of cars that can enter and leave a neighborhood. One of those constraints is the number of available parking spaces. In the "induced demand" scenario, it is assumed that developers will just keep building new parking spaces until the road is once again saturated with cars, but in the case of Southie it is completely plausible that the number of parking spaces (and therefore cars) in the neighborhood may not increase (at least by much) if we play our cards right.
"No, you don't need to keep adding housing capacity if you encourage other places to grow or recognize that endless expansion doesn't need to be a goal. Not everyone needs to live in every desirable location."
Tell that to the person who had to move from Ohio to Boston to find a job. And what other places would you be talking about exactly? The suburbs? Now you're back in the boat of having to expand road capacity again.
"It also is possible to induce demand in housing, especially in desirable areas where building more encourages more speculation and doesn't lower prices."
I would love for you to explain to me, in economic terms, exactly how you think this works. Double points if you can provide some examples of it actually happening.
As for examples of it
As for examples of it actually happening, a lot of the new housing is not occupied and used as investment. The more of that gets built and sold, the more of it is encouraged by the market. That is what has occurred in other locations in other regions as well.
Maybe if some of that money
Maybe if some of that money we're spending building parking garages were spent on our transit system instead...
different pots of money
Private monies (primarily).
Public monies.
Yes, that's right. We wouldn
Yes, that's right. We wouldn't exactly be the first city to allow developers to pay a transit tax in lieu of building parking.
That transit tax doesn't seem
That transit tax doesn't seem like it would raise nearly enough money for the kind of expense that would be needed to bring transit to areas that don't have it. There only new development if there's room for it.
Consider that a parking space
Consider that a parking space can add anywhere from $30-120k to the construction price of a unit (not to mention lost opportunity cost of units that can't be built) I think you could raise more than enough money from such a tax. Plus the fact that if you choose to build parking instead, you still have to build all of the road infrastructure to accommodate those cars, so you would be saving money there that could also be spent on transit.
No, you couldn't, because
No, you couldn't, because construction is eventually finished on a particular project and is not something that you can continually get taxes from for regular maintenance. The costs of other transit projects are well documented.
That some people want cheaper housing in certain locations does not mean that there isn't a need for parking even if it makes housing more expensive when it's included.
And delivery!
Delivery comes in handy too. Love ordering cases of TP and other staples. Free Shipping at Target with $25 order.
Yes - people should have a parking space if they want one
The two best options I know that guarantee you a parking spot in an urban environment are
1) Rent a parking spot from a local garage or business
2) Each apartment comes with a deeded spots under the building or next to it
As for free parking? Get a permit and ride around the block a zillion times until you give up and down near Pleasure Bay.
Many new buildings do not
Many new buildings do not have deeded parking spots for each unit of housing. There are also not always paid parking spots in every location.
Virtually every neighborhood
Virtually every neighborhood in Boston (save perhaps the North End, Beacon Hill or Back Bay) has a copious supply of unused private spots. It's just a question of how much you're willing to pay. One thing is for sure: The price per square foot is well below what you'd pay for a similar unit of housing.
Many of those units are not
Many of those units are not available for people that do not live there. Including parking with housing is a zoning requirement for many places because they recognize not everyone can use transit.
I am really excited by this.
I am really excited by this. Literally 95% of the buildings that they will be replacing are currently vacant. This is nothing but good news for this area.
There still won't be much
There still won't be much else there. New housing is welcome, but not too much in one location.
Except it's not being built in a vacuum
There are proposals all up and down Dorchester Avenue even before the BRA finishes its zoning upgrade that would make it easier to build housing along the street.
But there's little planning
But there's little planning for the entire area, but instead just a bunch of individual projects getting approved.
Poppycock
The BRA is planning and developing 100 acres (yes, 100 actual acres) between Dot Ave and the train tracks. You think each portion of that is designed and built in a vacuum?
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/planning-initiatives/fort-point-district-planning-(100-acres)
edit: Adam, a little help? Those morons put parentheses in their URL (and should be shot out of a cannon for same) and I can't get the link to form properly through the parser.
edit2: Thats the wrong parcel anyway. Still looking for the Dot Ave master plan.
edit3: Here's the Globe talking about it, anyway.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/12/01/so...
And here is the BRA project
And here is the BRA project site.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/planning-initiative...
Excellent
What a good proposal. Thanks for bringing some facts into the discussion.
I know, right?
How dare he. ;-)
As if all these meetings
As if all these meetings resulted in good well planned neighborhoods in other parts of the region. There are many cases where that wasn't true.
Facts, please.
Facts, please.
The West End.
The West End.
More knowledge of the history of the area please. Just saying "facts please" isn't an argument.
Oh give me a break. You're
Oh give me a break. You're applying the result of a failed 1950's revitalization experiment to the development of unoccupied land. I know plenty about the history of the area, thankyouverymuch. What I don't know is how the West End backs up what I assume is your (anon, not verified) argument that :
We're not talking about razing a neighborhood here. In fact, it's the exact opposite: building a neighborhood where there is none.
Care to lob another softball? I'm not the one making unsubstantiated assertions.
It's not entirely empty space
It's not entirely empty space there. Your own facts aren't even correct.
You can also look at plenty of other well known and commonly talk about areas that were well planned. If you are as well informed as you say, then you should know what they area.
The areas of South Boston were mostly empty and underdeveloped, those weren't well planned, and that was much more recent.
Even if it is empty space, that doesn't mean the finished result doesn't deserve study.
You can also look at plenty
Show me one.
The first correct thing you've said. And if you look at my link to the BRA above, you can see all of the project planning and studies that they've published. Do you have an actual issue with their plan? Did you even read the link? What are you arguing about?
"Show me one."
"Show me one."
You ignored the one that was already mentioned, the south boston formerly empty areas, despite having many meetings and plans involved.
Post should have said "not" well planned.
"Did you even read the link? What are you arguing about?"
You posted a link as if it was all the evidence that was needed. Good to see you disagree.
Also, I glaringly omitted a
Also, I glaringly omitted a response to your "empty space" comments. Here it is: so what if there are some businesses there? No one* lives there, nobody is getting displaced for this, and if the businesses owned that land, this project would be a non-starter in the first place. Developers own those parcels and developers gonna develop.
There are some great business there that are going to have to find new digs, no doubt. Grand Ten, the Welch Gym, and others. But the bulk of that land is 1) empty; 2) D&D Towing, and honestly those shady bastards can take a hike; 3) Marr Cranes; 4) a giant warehouse; and 5) a lot for parked tractor trailers.
Are you honestly telling me that that use, listed above, is a better use of that land than a new freaking neighborhood with thousands of housing units, not to mention untold numbers of new retail and commercial spaces? Really?
*There is one block of housing (bounded by Humboldt Place, Dorchester St, Dexter St and Elery St), on land that the tenants do not own. There may also be 2-3 more apartment buildings, again, on land that they do not own. It's hard to tell from the satellite view which buildings are commercial and which are residential. For the purposes of my argument, 100 or so residents simply do not make critical mass.
"Here it is: so what if there
"Here it is: so what if there are some businesses there?"
Shifting the argument. You said it was basically completely unoccupied. It isn't.
"is a better use of that land than a new freaking neighborhood with thousands of housing units, not to mention untold numbers of new retail and commercial spaces?"
Strawman. No one said it wasn't. There always a debate about how much should be built given parking and traffic.
Also, it's relevant because
Also, it's relevant because that was a planned result.
You said "facts please" in response to a post that said just having a plan doesn't mean the results are automatically ideal and can't improved. The response was an example of a plan that is widely considered not to be a good one.
Also, usernames are not relevant at all to this topic. It makes you look like you are grasping for anything to respond with.
Just having a plan doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing. It's more complicated than posting links.
Clearly usernames are
Clearly usernames are relevant because I don't know if I'm arguing against one uninformed idiot or several.
There have been many areas of
There have been many areas of the city that have not been well planned despite these sorts of meetings.
A lot of it is just buzzwords.
Good luck ......
Need to get rid of the dirty junkies leaving the station for methadone mile .
Is the BRA the designer of
Is the BRA the designer of all these ugly buildings too? Why do these things always look exactly the same in the renderings?
Because: Prefabs.
Prefabs. They're made with ready-made mass-produced materials, (for instance, the heavy use of panels applied to the facades of buildings.) Many buildings these days are built around prefabs because it makes the construction process faster and cheaper. This also makes the buildings look the same since they have to more often cohere to dimension restrictions and such to be able to use them. It's kinda like how all the houses in suburbs look the same with slightly different layouts -- they were all built from the same kit of parts. Today's available kit of parts for medium sized structures is what you see all around Boston now.
Ditto for triple deckers
All from the same plans, with pre-cut pieces.
Look at old photos when they were just built, entire multiple acre tracts all alike!
They're gonna loooove living
They're gonna loooove living there the first time the Up Academy lets out and the rowdy pack of kids comes by. It's impossible to miss them. They're the reason for so many T cops at Andrew station every afternoon in the school year. Boston PD has had to respond to Dot St plenty for them and their behavior. Lots of noise, fighting, nonsense.
Do you work from home?
Most people won't be around - they will be at work at that hour.
People who live in suburbs and are at home experience the rowdy after school thing, too.
South Boston New Development Haiku
Southies will be mad
They will clutch their pearls and say
Not in my backyard
Do you think this would have
Do you think this would have an impact on the value for current condo owners. 600 units seems like a lot
Do you think this would have
Do you think this would have an impact on the value for current condo owners. 600 units seems like a lot
Current Condo Owner Haiku
I couldn't care less
Six hundred is not enough
Must build more and more
It's not going to be
It's not going to be overbuilt just because you think there isn't enough.
Southies?
Southies?
Silly I know, but It fit the haiku
"Southies": Someone who lives in South Boston, but is not a yuppie. Not a homeowner either, so they are not in any sort of position to benefit from the newcomers and therefore couldn't cash out the family triple decker a lot of $ to move to the S. Shore, Flah-ruh-duh, or NH, and are really fucking bitter about it. Shanty Irish as opposed to lace curtain. Example: the two drunk, mom's-basement-dwelling-in-their-30s brothers who beat up and peed on the sleeping Mexican guy as a weird offering to Donald Trump. As far as I know, this slang word originated right here on U-Hub as I have never heard anyone use it "IRL". Also, I guess any Mass native can legitimately be called a "Southie" regardless of where the come from so long as they have never ventured away for a period longer than 72 hours (and that's stretching it), spend at least $30 at Dunks every week, spend at least $50 on scratchers/Keno/quick picks every week, buys butts in bulk from a crooked statie, has their own personal bookie, and most importantly must GET REALLY OFFENDED AND BUTTHURT when they hear the word "Southie" to refer to a person and not the Boston neighborhood.
One of the few reasons to
One of the few reasons to leave would only be to see how much better it is here than the states all the transplants come from.
Thanks for defining! I was
Thanks for defining! I was confused and thought you forgot an apostrophe. You should submit that to urban dictionary!
Some people apparently like
Some people apparently like to traffic in tired stereotypes.
For sure
Some of my neighbors are guilty of trafficking, distribution and retail sale of that stereotype, for sure.
When look for stereoptypes,
When look for stereoptypes, you will find them. Other people just manage to get on with their day without making fun of working class people, unlike you.
No, they they are just
No, they they are just working class. That isn't a problem for most people.
You spent way too much time
You spent way too much time thinking and typing about that. The average resident here is far better educated from public schools, even the working class, than those in most other states.
Discussion closed
Nobody is saying anything new and we have one anon (who sounds like the same anon who basically made me close an earlier discussion about water conservation) just endlessly rebutting every. single. comment. Moderation is a virtue sometimes.