Blame these, at least, on Beacon Hill, not City Hall.
And Wu seems to be doing more to encourage housing development/affordability in the city than any mayor I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Thoughts:
How much do these folks get payed again to sit around and debate each others’ self destructive motion motions?
There’s no way this can be true from a housing perspective, right?
I think we’re in similar places life-wise. I might be a bit younger. What your saying definitely rings true.
I actually got lucky with my current landlord. Our rent is lower than average and hasn’t gone up (knock on wood). However, if I want to buy a house someday then I’ll probably need to...
But when discussing “keeping the 20-something’s around”, we aren’t worried about freeing up units for the existing community. Rather, we want there to be enough units for new graduates as they move off campus and join the community. More on-campus housing doesn’t necessarily fix that.
There are...
These photos are changing my mind about whether (if possible) it might not be cool to keep the smoke stacks around post-redevelopment for purely aesthetic reasons.
Do all big cities in the US have some similar quasi-government agency in charge of development planning? If not, and if the city council doesn’t own it in those other places, then what other systems are there?
Wonder what the possibility of seeing that school bus yard at Washington/Cass redeveloped within my lifetime is?
Regardless, this will be huge in terms of stitching the South End and Roxbury back together.
So the main benefit of leaving the board intact would be using them to purchase land?
Can you expand on this a bit? What was so bad about the original proposal?