Bird's eye view of proposed development - and existing tank farm.
The Boston Business Journal reports that two groups active in fighting gentrification have asked the Trump administration to hold up any federal housing funds for Boston because of what it says are inadequate efforts to involve Spanish-speaking residents in planning for the proposed 10,000-unit residential component of the massive Suffolk Downs project.
Sanders, running in the Democratic primary next week, immediately jumped into the fray over the project, which would replace the shuttered, 160-acre Suffolk Downs racetrack on the Boston/Revere line:
We need affordable housing for all instead of more gentrifying luxury developments for the few. I stand with the longtime residents of East Boston fighting displacement from the communities they have spent generations building.
Lawyers for Civil Rights filed the complaint for City Life/Vida Urbana and Green Roots, over the roughly 70% of the units that would be built on the Boston side of the land.
In addition to the residential units on the 160 acre site, developer HYM is also proposing roughly 5.2 million square feet of office space, roughly half in Boston, as well as a new mall and hotel rooms.
Revere Mayor Brian Arrigo got up in Bernie's grill:
OK Boomer.
In all seriousness- I agree that MA residents should have better access to all types of housing. That’s why we engaged in a year long community driven process and collaborated with many stakeholders to make one of the largest developments in MA history a reality.
And finally just to be clear - Suffolk Downs is 1/3 in my city. Being an executive means making decisions that require compromise - nobody got everything they wanted but the end result was a positive for the community.
Boston City Councilor Lydia Edwards jumped into the fray as well:
Good evening this is the district city councilor from East Boston. Don't worry @BernieSanders I have a PLAN FOR THAT!
So, yeah, you can probably guess who Edwards is supporting on Tuesday. But she continues:
Last May, I filed a comment with the Boston Planning and Development Agency asking the agency and developer to amend plans to address fair housing concerns and ensure that as we create a new neighborhood we build for all of East Bostonians. ...
I also introduced a zoning change to further fair housing and put racial equity in Boston's zoning code last April. We had a hearing in November and another one today.
Thomas O'Brien, HYM's managing director - and a onetime executive director of the BRA - responded as well, in a statement:
We agree that Boston needs more affordable housing. That’s why our plans for Suffolk Downs will create the largest amount of affordable housing ever created by a single project in Massachusetts. The project includes 10,000 new housing units, with 20% affordable overall, while creating 14,000 union jobs. And by redeveloping a shuttered horse racing track, we are adding to the communities of East Boston and Revere without displacing a single resident.
Suffolk Downs filings (includes two overviews in Spanish posted today).
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
displacement
By SC from JP
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 9:28pm
People live on the racetrack?
Don't let facts...
By Reason
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 9:38pm
Almost a completely underutilized site, but don't let that kill the narrative. From the coverage, you would think they were bulldozing entire blocks of triple deckers.
There's more than one kind of displacement
By adamg
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:55pm
Not taking sides here, but the West End isn't the only kind of displacement. By creating a new neighborhood of well off residents (even with the 20% affordable quotient, higher than required by the city), you potentially encourage people in surrounding blocks to upgrade and sell their properties or dramatically raise their rents, which leads to displacement, which spreads and pretty soon you've got an entirely new set of people living in the neighborhood. That's basically what happened in the South End (well, without the 10,000-unit mega-development next door), and is what's happening at the other end of East Boston (although there it's a mixture of both physical replacement of buildings and rapidly increasing rents).
I guess I get it
By fungwah
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:58pm
but by that argument, they'd be better off letting no one build there at all, lest whatever get built be something more popular than an abandoned race track and thus leading to higher property values in the area. Surely stopping all development isn't the answer here?
No. That logic doesn't stay
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 6:02am
No. That logic doesn't stay that there should be absolutely no building whatsoever. It does state that building housing for households of $200k/year+ exasperates, rather than helps the problem.
Uhh
By Ari O
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 11:00pm
The people in surrounding blocks are mostly a few single-family houses on the side of Orient Heights and … some gas tanks.
The South End and Eastie are getting more expensive in part because there aren't 10,000 units here for people to live in, and also, when someone can't afford the South End or Eastie, there's nowhere for them to go.
That area is already "gentrified."
By ScottB
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 1:18pm
Real estate listings on Zillow for the area around Orient Heights show almost nothing under half a million and the one listing at $350K is for a studio with less than 600 sq. ft. Eagle Hill and Jeffries Point are even worse, and a fair bit of that stuff can be a long hike or bus ride from the T. Need something more affordable? Try Chelsea, Revere, or Lynn... for now.
Not building has consequences too
By SC from JP
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 11:09pm
People also upgrade / sell / condo-ize / raise rents when a dire housing shortage causes a ton of upward pressure on prices. That’s what’s happening in, well, pretty much every single neighborhood in Boston and the surrounding towns.
So if we’re going to try to shoehorn some hypothetical second-order effects into the (previously well-defined) meaning of “displacement,†let’s at least consider that the alternative is no better, and probably worse.
Just to be clear, there's not
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 6:04am
Just to be clear, there's not a dire housing shortage. There's a dire affordable housing shortage.
If your a millionaire you wont have trouble finding a condo in one of the many new luxury buildings.
no
By SC from JP
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 8:07am
Millionaires don't have trouble finding housing because real estate is auctioned off to the highest bidder and they can outbid everyone else for whatever's for sale.
I don't understand how people look at 1000 sqft 3-decker units going for $500k+ and conclude "well it would be way cheaper if not for these other new buildings over here." That's not how it works, at all.
Actually It Does Work That Way
By BlackKat
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 8:44am
Those three decker units went for $100K just 20 years ago, before the neighborhood was fully gentrified. You can't say it's just inflation because everything else doesn't cost 5x as much over that period - and wages certainly have not quintupled either. While the new buildings are not the only cause, they are certainly a factor.
Hmmm what’s changed about the
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 8:58am
Hmmm what’s changed about the Boston area from 20 years ago that would trigger a housing supply issue.
Let me try to guess
By Ari O
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 11:20am
20 years ago (well, 18, the 2000 census) Boston's population was stable. It had fallen by 30% from 1950 to 1980 (801k to 562k) and had grown by 2% each decade since, and was at 589k. The city and nearby region had enough housing for about that many people (somewhat less available in the city given decreases in household sizes as well as urban "redevelopment" of dense neighborhoods like the West End in the '50s and '60s) so there was about enough supply for demand. So if you wanted a floor of a three-decker in Dorchester or JP or Rozzie, there was market equilibrium. If you wanted a fancy-schmancy row house in Back Bay, you had to pay: there has always been less real estate in Back Bay than people who want to live in Back Bay, so prices have always been high.
What's happened since then?
The city has grown by 18%. We've gone from 2% growth per decade to 1% growth per year, and it's only accelerated: the city has grown by 12.5% since 2010 alone, nearly a tenfold increase in the rate of growth. Housing stock has not kept up, not in the city, and certainly not in nearby cities and towns which could absorb some of the demand. There are more people who want to live in the city than homes available so, surprise, surprise, prices have gone up. And when there is a limited supply of something, prices don't go up linearly, they spike. Elasticity is a thing, and the elasticity of demand for housing is very inelastic: there are no substitute goods for housing (well there are, but they require moving out of the area).
Let's put it this way: let's say that Massachusetts drivers use 1 million gallons of gas per day. And let's say that there is a gas shortage, and all of the sudden there are only 900,000 gallons of gas available, a 10% decrease. Do prices rise by just 10%? No, because the demand for gasoline is quite inelastic. People can't just get a much more fuel efficient car, or stop driving to work or to pick up their kids at school. Prices probably double before 10% of people find other ways to get around.
This is what has happened with housing, but the other way around. 10% more people have moved in, but there isn't more housing. And like putting gas in their car, people need a roof over their head. The options are to pay a lot of money for housing, drive a long way to get to/from the jobs and services they need, or go homeless. A few people have the resources to the former. A lot of people do the middle option, hence the congestion issue. And yes, some people are forced into the latter group.
Or, we can pretend that there has been no change in the supply/demand equation and the evil developers of ye olde three-deckers (who all died a century ago, by the way) have conspired to raise the prices. Or whatever.
once again
By SC from JP
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:03am
Real estate is sold in a blind auction and almost always goes to the highest bidder.
It's time for me to give up trying to explain the implications of this in a market where buyers vastly outnumber sellers, so I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure it out.
Not exactly
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:18am
Cash sales are preferred by many sellers - such as when you have three siblings who grew up in a home but all all live out of state now and have to get the cash to settle the probate.
Most of what is called "gentrification" isn't the result of people buying in - it is the result of elderly people passing on and then having the courts put terms and conditions on the sale of the property that favor flippers and developers.
Those units went for a lot less 20 year ago because...
By ScottB
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 2:13pm
"well it would be way cheaper
By Elise
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 12:22pm
"well it would be way cheaper if not for these other new buildings over here." - that's exactly how property prices work. That's why rents go up across entire neighborhoods. When people with money move in neighborhoods become "desirable", more restaurants open because of the influx of wealthy customers, and as rents rise poorer people are pushed out - raising a neighborhood's perceived "desirability" even more. This is the same reason property owners get so upset about neglected houses and vacant lots - adjacent property has enormous effect on their property value.
Incorrect about South End
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 8:51am
Adam, that's not how the South End gentrified. The South End saw very little new housing production from the 80s through early 00s but rapidly gentrified anyway. People with money did buy up the brownstones and renovate them but none of that was caused by new housing around them. You had deflated real estate prices in an area close to downtown, it was inevitable. Those renovations brought on higher demand to live there as the perception of the "area improving" took hold, which raised prices in the absence of new supply to offset it. Study after study of actual research shows that not building new housing, even market rate, exacerbates gentrification in communities. What you are describing is an incorrect if widespread belief about the causes of gentrification not based in evidence.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear
By adamg
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 10:36am
Yes, you're right about the South End. I was reacting to the statement that Suffolk Downs isn't gentrification because no buildings are being torn down, and saying that, in fact, gentrification can occur just with existing buildings - like in the South End (or along Centre Street in HP).
In the case of Suffolk Downs, no residential buildings are being torn down, yet it could spur gentrification beyond its property lines.
It could hypothetically
By ScottB
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 2:29pm
But it's not really next to anything that's affordable now. Orient Heights and Beachmont aren't cheap, and there are pricey-looking rental units already built and going up across Revere Beach Pkwy from Suffolk Downs. Can't really gentrify the oil tanks or Belle Isle Marsh, either (although I could see the oil tanks disappearing in a couple of decades).
It was largely the gays in the 70s, 80s & 90s
By Friartuck
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 3:56pm
Who gentrified the SE and were, for the most part, peacefully cohabiting with all sorts of mixed income and other demographics in the neighborhood.
Ultimately, AIDS robbed us of this generation and their relatives/estates etc started selling for then unheard of prices as developers were simultaneously swooping in. The moderate income gays who lived in the hood were then also priced out and hence we have Dorchester and a bit of Southie today.
And dont forget the thousands of jobs...
By Reason
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 7:26am
And don't forget the thousands of jobs that will be created with construction, then offices filled with people WORKING. But hey, I'm sure Bernie and his bros can find a private developer to build thousands of affordable housing units in one of the most expensive states, with highest barriers to entry, and sky high construction costs. Oh and not make a reasonable profit for their investors.
Gotta low it when a career politician weighs in on development, having never built anything. Classic
He's built plenty
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:21am
As a laborer before he turned into a politician.
Don't knock him for not doing his homework when you yourself haven't bothered to read anything beyond propaganda.
Career
By SamWack
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 1:47pm
I lived in Vermont before I moved to the Boston area a little more than 40 years ago, and Bernie was already a familiar name in Vermont politics, though in those days he was a perpetual loser. He finally became mayor of Burlington in 1981. He's 78 now, so he's spent half his life in office. I call that a career.
Yes, let’s never forget the job creators
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:47am
Never forget the construction guys who get work for a few months to a year or so. Or you know, those more “permanent†office jobs that are more likely moved from one location to the new construction.
What about the rest of us slobs who might not be skilled laborers?
temporary jobs
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 6:11pm
Are not reason enough to support construction anytime anywhere with no consideration for the neighborhoods and stakeholder communities affected (that does not include out-of-state investors pumping oil money into EB).
Probably not a popular question, but..
By jl326
Mon, 03/02/2020 - 1:29pm
I wonder how much extra in construction cost it is to use union labor (both rates and # of personnel) than without. Building cost per housing unit is not cheap around here.
Not sure
By Stevil
Mon, 03/02/2020 - 2:15pm
But I asked a union carpenter that was striking/protesting what their hourly rate was and whatever he told me I remember saying "that's like double what a BPS teacher makes" and walking away. BPS teachers make $100k per year ($50 per hour at 2000 hours per year) now on average for current reference.
Typical union foremen carpenters (in Eastern MA)
By boo_urns
Mon, 03/02/2020 - 3:42pm
Wage rate is generally around $48-50/hr. It's not quite double when you fully allocate fringes. Go to p. 46: https://www.mass.gov/doc/new-england-regional-coun...
Also, not sure where you're getting $100k/year average for BPS.
Couple of sources:
https://jobs.teacher.org/school-district/boston-pu...
https://btu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Salary-...
The grid certainly lists $100k as a possibility, but not "average."
actually $102k for Boston teachers
By Stevil
Wed, 03/04/2020 - 3:30pm
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/teachersalaries.aspx
Third highest in the state - $800 behind concord/carlisle at number one and $400 behind Lincoln/Sudbury at #2
Fair comment on the fringes.
Suffolk Downs
By Eastie Girl
Sun, 03/01/2020 - 6:05pm
High end housing units which Eastie is getting a massive amount of drives up rents. It’s not that folks are being evicted from Suffolk Downs except for the grooms folks who were seasonal. And for the record, Revere did not want a lot of housing.
ahhhh yes
By John-W
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:35pm
the obtuse, "no one actually lives on the property I'm building on so there's no effect anywhere else" argument.....otherwise known as ..
[img]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/4-11am-imnottouchi...
Bernie's staffer really knows Eastie!
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:50pm
If they did, they'd know that the only people displaced at Suffolk Downs were a few degenerate gamblers in Members Only jackets. Not like you'll see Bernie pressing the flesh at Jeveli's this weekend. He'll be a little busy being deified on the Common this weekend by half of Allston and Somerville.
water displacement
By Refugee
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 12:06pm
Sea level rise will put the area underwater, anyway.
Former groundskeeper here
By anon
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 9:42pm
And no i am not Hispanic, but , I put a lot of work in there and it would be nice if we the former employees get ahead of the line or at least a serious consideration into obtaining housing. I know I've earned that much.
Huh?
By Stevil
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 11:23pm
Did you not get paid for that job?
And for the record, Bernie Sanders is not a Boomer. Crazy old socialist coot, maybe, but most assuredly not a Boomer
Don't Be Mean
By BlackKat
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 8:46am
Because you know they never got paid what they should have been paid for their jobs. Thus they are owed something in a fair society. I don't understand why you don't like socialism, which is an attempt to make society fairer.
Actually they were probably overpaid
By Stevil
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 12:56pm
At least by one measure. They went out of business (although, granted, that was probably a far greater function of falling demand than mismanagement of the business). Maybe they should have been paid more - but a) over the last 10 -20 years of the life of the biz, they probably couldn't afford it and b) you can go find another job that pays better if you are not paid fairly.
How do you know what he was
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:12pm
How do you know what he was paid and what he should have been paid? You’ve proven time and again that you flunked economics 101. But hey, free stuff for the stupid and lazy right?
Because
By jl326
Mon, 03/02/2020 - 2:03pm
Socialism doesn't work
And for a lot of people
By boo_urns
Mon, 03/02/2020 - 3:44pm
Neither does capitalism. Socialized services ensure that everyone gets access to things (like public schools). It's a frivolous exercise to argue with someone who is just going to label something as "socialist/bad" disingenuously, though.
missing the connection...
By Reason
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:57am
I am failing to see the connection between old Suffolk Downs and the new development team. They purchased the site, and are developing it. Why should former employees get preferential treatment for a completely unrelated endeavor?
If I worked at a supermarket, and it is now a hotel, should I get a discount room?
Liberal logic is so interesting to me.
Liberal logic
By hux
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 12:35pm
I doubt even most liberals think this is logical.
He's part of the Silent
By Talkin' 'Bout A...
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 10:47am
He's part of the Silent Generation.
I used to work for HBO
By Old Groucho
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 6:32am
I worked countless unpaid hours, who knows how many sleepless nights worried about budgets and deadlines, and was never more than a blip on the screen during the credits.
Where's MY own tv show?
If you worked countless unpaid hours ...
By perruptor
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 9:02am
You were a fool. Billion-dollar corporation, and you're volunteering your time to them?
It'a called advancing ones career
By Old Groucho
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 10:20am
by going above and beyond.
Did I have to? Absolutely not.
Was it my choice? Of course.
I did it because I cared.
Caring about the work I did and the people who depended on me drove me to do more than punch in, punch out and go home. I was driven. Ya know, what the Red Hats call bootstraps and all that.
Also, you missed my point completely.
Affordable housing
By anon
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:22pm
Why not get federal funding and build a housing project there? There's nothing currently on-site, so nobody would get angry and all the neighborhood activists would be happy.
But wait...the good voters of majority-minority Boston decided to replace their long-time Congressperson with one that has made enemies across the political spectrum...
You must be really tired after waking up from your 30-year nap
By adamg
Thu, 02/27/2020 - 10:57pm
Even aside from looking at who's in charge in Washington now, there hasn't been any major federal funds for new subsidized housing in a long time. Has nothing to do with who represents the neighborhood in Washington.
Or maybe you've been awake the whole time and just object to black people in positions of power.
Sorry
By anon
Fri, 02/28/2020 - 12:22am
Intended to write about transportation funding and the link to affordable housing. If the T were expanded to serve more further-out areas more frequently, there would automatically be more housing stock, more affordable housing stock, and less displacement.
And the only objection to Pressley would be the fact that Capuano was supposedly next in line to an influential position on the Transportation Committee. Now, the 20-year timer starts again.
Pages
Add comment