Boom Town

Do you think Boston is booming?

  • Total voters
    16
Boston really isn't comparable to Worcester, Hartford, Providence, etc. Boston is the "hub" of a major metropolitan area, which encompasses these significantly smaller cities, with infinitely more global significance than any of the fore-mentioned (it could be argued Hartford is outside of this metro area and part of NYC's, but I'd say its in the middle someplace and serves both on some level). The "Boston Area" is what really defines Boston.

And again, the industries that are building Boston are different than the ones building New York, Chicago, LA, San Fran etc. Universities and Bio-Tech companies don't build 80 story skyscrapers and don't use them. Yes, Boston is (or was) a major center of finance, and the towers are there to represent that, but Boston is a unique and valuable American city because of these distinctions which cities like Providence, Worcester, and Hartford aren't.

The buildings that are under construction are serving their industries and the city in a way that could classify this period as a boom. An 80 story tower going up in NYC or Chicago is a less significant event than one going up in Boston because, with NYC arguably being the commercial and financial center of the world, it is one of many similar structures in a city whose main industries call for such superstructures.

Could Boston use a Winthrop Square-like tower in the financial district? Sure, but it needs some in demand 18 story lab facilities in Longwood as much if not more, and not because Boston is a less vital, dense, or international city than the ones with the super-tall buildings, but because that is Boston serving its vital and international purpose and task. Boston's lifelines are expanding and booming, including many of the inhabitants of the financial district, and the buildings reshaping the skyline, many in a small way, represent that justifiable boom.
 
Boston is a small, old, dense, pretty, wealthy city: purring along rather than booming is just fine. And if my choice is between a boom and a trickle of bad architecture, I'll take the latter.

justin
 
Boston is starting to boom. When some of the taller buildings UC have steel up it will be more apparent. If Filenes, SST, Russia W., Winthrop Sq, SBW all go as planned it will be a significant boom.

Boston is still one of the great financial cities in the US even without a major commercial bank HQ.
 
The city to compare Boston with is San Francisco: similar population, similar types of business centers, similar lack of land availability for new building development, similar difficulty in getting building projects approved and permitted, similar NIMByism (San Francisco may be worse).

Trying to draw comparisons between Boston and New York is ridiculous and futile. (If you want to compare any boom in New York, then compare it with Shanghai. If Boston pales in comparison to NYC, NYC pales in comparison to Shanghai.)

Lets face it: the current boom, when its finished, will be Boston's last. All the major parcels that can be built on in the general downtown area will have been built on. And thats it.

If I had to guess where Boston will develop in the latter half of this Century, I'd put my money on the area between BU and Harvard's Allston campus.
 
It will take a while to build out the South Boston Waterfront and the rest of the Turnpike air rights. Also, if the Boston Herald ever goes under or decides to sell their land, that's quite a bit of property right next to downtown.

The entire Orange Line corridor from Ruggles south to Stony Brook also seems a natural for more development.
 
atlrvr, your last post is right on. I think that Boston is in fact a very big city when compared to all US cities with a pop greater than 300,000 people. I have been to most cities in this country, and we'll just say that most of them feel like big towns.

Yes, the comparison to NY has to stop. I have always hated it, because its ridiculous. You might as well compare Lowell to NY. There is only 1 NYC in this country. Even Chicago is closer in downtown size to Boston than to NYC. NYC was meant to be a city of constant boom in order to operate as the most important city on Earth. That is the goal, and I love NY for it, and I think it's great that I only live 200 miles away. I think that people that have an unwarranted inferiority complex against NY and should instead be thinking how lucky you are to live in such a great city like Boston that is so to it.
 
if the Boston Herald ever goes under

Ron, don't get me excited now :lol:
 
type001 said:
...I think that people that have an unwarranted inferiority complex against NY and should instead be thinking how lucky you are to live in such a great city like Boston that is so to it.
Click to expand...

Correction: I think that people that have an unwarranted inferiority complex against NY should instead be thinking how lucky you are to live in such a great city like Boston that is so CLOSE to it.

I haven't had my coffee yet :lol:
 
stellarfun said:
The city to compare Boston with is San Francisco: similar population, similar types of business centers, similar lack of land availability for new building development, similar difficulty in getting building projects approved and permitted, similar NIMByism (San Francisco may be worse).
Click to expand...

true but San Francisco has what I think is the greatest urban environment in the US of a major city.

stellarfun said:
Lets face it: the current boom, when its finished, will be Boston's last. All the major parcels that can be built on in the general downtown area will have been built on. And that's it.

If I had to guess where Boston will develop in the latter half of this Century, I'd put my money on the area between BU and Harvard's Allston campus.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Newmarket Square in Dorchester(do we need meat packing and sprout farming in the heart of the city?).
Also there are more development opportunities along Dorchester Ave. Ten years ago the owner of a scrap metal yard on Dorchester had plans for a large residential development on his site until the market crashed. Rutherford Ave in in Charlestown can be developed.
The sites probably won't be that desirable until downtown expands more in their direction over time.
 
yes, comparing boston to new york is silly (although i do think having new york next door benefits the city, forcing constant self-evaluation etc as someone said). but in terms of its cultural and economic resources it's better compared to san francisco, Philadelphia or Seattle. also, does Boston want to be a boom town? Or in what sense of the word? Does Boston want to be like Vegas? (the Colorado river is going, going, gone)
The word was just used to catch glances; that Boston is economically healthy and can compete as a good place to live and work is what's really important. To the extent that existing land use restrictions/attitudes/tax policies make Boston more difficult to live in, this is a problem (of course, existing restrictions and attitudes also preserve the things that set it apart) ...
And Boston could never be like Vegas or Houston. It doesn't have home rule laws, and shouldn't. In terms of services the city has no advantage over neighbors that encourage developers to seek annexation (one exception in dedham apparently, although it's not a question of services). Most buildings are older than 20 years old and people have a sense of the past.
And why are Bostonians so cynical? People talk about other cities on this board as if they don't have problems. How about the quintessential 20th century boom town of Los Angeles? Where to start, 1992: the end of the cold war (LA was and is the center of the defense industry) and the largest riots in US history, 1993: the most damaging wildfire in the state's history, 1994: northridge quake. In the late 90s LA tried to improve its image by pumping millions into downtown Hollywood. The Kodak Mall (yes the Oscars are held in a mall) survives on subsidies; Hollywood is dead as ever. The economy has recovered but it's nothing like the 'boom' the city was used to: we seem to be at capacity. The city has the most overcrowded housing units in the country and a housing crisis that makes Boston's look, well, more manageable. zoning keeps housing units from going up almost anywhere, and there's not so much land out there on the fringe to be developed. The city has now pumped millions into downtown, but it's a drop in the bucket (who wants to live downtown anyway? People from new york?). historic designation laws allow areas of 1930s mission-style homes to become protected (nimby strategy), as neutras in the hills are treated as tear-downs. California had domestic out-migration for the first time in 2000 (identity crisis). But the press and most angelenos I know usually choose to revel in everything that makes the city great. They even seem to be over their various neuroses induced by everyone around the country who equates LA with, well, 'gross', and have learned to celebrate the aesthetics of 5 story freeway interchanges (they really are beautiful, if only congested, heh).
My point is, if the problems facing southern California happened in MA, MA would pull a Masada. I realize the poor attitude is part of the local character, but, it's not charming.
Oh, and Boston is small.
 
Ron Newman said:
BarbaricManchurian said:
Las Vegas is a true boom town, because they have over 70 high-rises under construction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if we really wanted to live in a place like Las Vegas or Dubai, we'd move there.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Boston should be a boom town in the style of Las Vegas, I'm just saying that Las Vegas is in a boom and Boston isn't.

a630 said:
yes, comparing boston to new york is silly (although i do think having new york next door benefits the city, forcing constant self-evaluation etc as someone said). but in terms of its cultural and economic resources it's better compared to san francisco, Philadelphia or Seattle. also, does Boston want to be a boom town? Or in what sense of the word? Does Boston want to be like Vegas? (the Colorado river is going, going, gone)
The word was just used to catch glances; that Boston is economically healthy and can compete as a good place to live and work is what's really important. To the extent that existing land use restrictions/attitudes/tax policies make Boston more difficult to live in, this is a problem (of course, existing restrictions and attitudes also preserve the things that set it apart) ...
And Boston could never be like Vegas or Houston. It doesn't have home rule laws, and shouldn't. In terms of services the city has no advantage over neighbors that encourage developers to seek annexation (one exception in dedham apparently, although it's not a question of services). Most buildings are older than 20 years old and people have a sense of the past.
And why are Bostonians so cynical? People talk about other cities on this board as if they don't have problems. How about the quintessential 20th century boom town of Los Angeles? Where to start, 1992: the end of the cold war (LA was and is the center of the defense industry) and the largest riots in US history, 1993: the most damaging wildfire in the state's history, 1994: northridge quake. In the late 90s LA tried to improve its image by pumping millions into downtown Hollywood. The Kodak Mall (yes the Oscars are held in a mall) survives on subsidies; Hollywood is dead as ever. The economy has recovered but it's nothing like the 'boom' the city was used to: we seem to be at capacity. The city has the most overcrowded housing units in the country and a housing crisis that makes Boston's look, well, more manageable. zoning keeps housing units from going up almost anywhere, and there's not so much land out there on the fringe to be developed. The city has now pumped millions into downtown, but it's a drop in the bucket (who wants to live downtown anyway? People from new york?). historic designation laws allow areas of 1930s mission-style homes to become protected (nimby strategy), as neutras in the hills are treated as tear-downs. California had domestic out-migration for the first time in 2000 (identity crisis). But the press and most angelenos I know usually choose to revel in everything that makes the city great. They even seem to be over their various neuroses induced by everyone around the country who equates LA with, well, 'gross', and have learned to celebrate the aesthetics of 5 story freeway interchanges (they really are beautiful, if only congested, heh).
My point is, if the problems facing southern California happened in MA, MA would pull a Masada. I realize the poor attitude is part of the local character, but, it's not charming.
Oh, and Boston is small.
Click to expand...

But in LA, they don't have nearly as much NIMBYs and zoning laws as Boston. You can build anything you want pretty much anywhere (except maybe for height). With that, the housing prices will resolve themselves with lots of new construction. But with so much regulation in Massachusetts, the housing prices will stay high because there won't be much new construction because of NIMBYs and onerous regulations. The housing prices may really drop once people start leaving Massachusetts in droves (already doing that, and there's a slight decrease in prices) and no one moves in because of the high housing costs (less demand = lower price).
 
BarbaricManchurian said:
Ron Newman said:
BarbaricManchurian said:
Las Vegas is a true boom town, because they have over 70 high-rises under construction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if we really wanted to live in a place like Las Vegas or Dubai, we'd move there.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Boston should be a boom town in the style of Las Vegas, I'm just saying that Las Vegas is in a boom and Boston isn't.
Click to expand...
The boom in Las Vegas is in forcelosures. One in every 30 homes in Vegas was in some foreclosure step in April, 2007. Miami had a boom in condo towers too, I think over 30,000 new condos were on the boards. Now constructed condo towers sit empty. (In 2005, Miami had 11,000 units under construction, 23,000 approved, and 30,000 in the preliminary or application phase.)
Click to expand...
 
^^^
In Dorchester and other poor parts of Metro Boston they also have a lot of forclosures because of the subprime mess, don't know if it's 1 in 30 though.
 
BarbaricManchurian said:
^^^
In Dorchester and other poor parts of Metro Boston they also have a lot of forclosures because of the subprime mess, don't know if it's 1 in 30 though.
Click to expand...
Statewide foreclosure rates June 2007

Nevada: 1 in every 175 homeowners is in foreclosure
California: 1 in every 315
Colorado: 1 in every 317
Florida: 1 in every 347
Mass: 1 in every 841
NH: 1 in every 1275
RI: 1 in every 1549
NY: 1 in every 1740

http://www.realtytrac.com/ContentManagement/pressrelease.aspx?ChannelID=9&ItemID=2811&accnt=64847
 
If there's room in NYC for a boom today, then there will be room in the future for a boom in Boston. It may seem like we're running out of space, but that's hardly the case. You don't need vacant land to develop, and we've got plenty of prime low level industrial developments all over Greater Boston.
Ron's mention of the Herald lot is one prime example (for my money the best example). I've thought about this space for a while now. With downtown expanding into Chinatown, and talks of building over the pike, does the struggling Herald really need to sit on such a valuable property? Does anyone know how the footprint of this lot compares in size to the gov't cntr lot? The space is huge and while it would be connected to whatever is developed over the pike, (and then of course Chinatown which is full of potential for future development) it wouldn't be nearly as difficult to develop.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, I think you could avoid NIMBY problems at the Herald. It's bound by 93 & 90 on two sides and industrial on the Harrison Ave and Traveler St. sides.
 
I think Toronto is in a pretty good boom, too. I see bunches of condo towers sprouting all around when I went there and they seem to fill up pretty quick.
 
^^^ Right on. I noticed the same thing when I was there the last time. Very nice condo towers on the edges of the Financial District.
 
Toronto also isn't shy about plunking down 30-story condo towers in the midst of single family home residential neighborhoods (see Eglinton Ave.) It's even extended a new subway line into such a neighborhood to encourage extremely high density construction. It surely helps that the city balked at spending billions on its own Big Dig, allowing it to afford such transit improvements, but there must be some other factor (lack of a comparable NIMBY culture? draconian zoning laws?) that allows it to build such out-of-scale developments.
 
[But in LA, they don't have nearly as much NIMBYs and zoning laws as Boston. You can build anything you want pretty much anywhere (except maybe for height). With that, the housing prices will resolve themselves with lots of new construction.]

Well, you should say "as many NIMBYs" and, for your information, LA had the first use zoning in the country in 1908 (NYC had the first area zoning). and then there are ninety-nine years of additional regulations on top of that. And NIMBYs exist everywhere, EVEN New York, EVEN California, hell I even heard a rumor that they exist in TEXAS. So my only response to this is nope, no not really, no. [/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top