Amazon HQ2 RFP

[cadetcarl]

Rover, I feel that you are missing some of the point. Some of the things that you, or people who share your philosophy, want appear to be in direct conflict with each other. In your perfect world where only the market dictates where everyone gets to live, what is your vision for the city and its streets?

I won't speak for anyone else but to me, the outcome is at first a totally sanitized, and then totally dysfunctional, and ultimately unattractive city. Leaving aside the value judgement of people in the service class it isn't workable for the people working at coffee shops, driving trains and buses, and doing the other things that keep the city running are pushed farther and farther away from where they do those things. Eventually it doesn't make sense for them to travel so far. What do you imagine will happen once they are totally priced out? Let's leave the language of dessert out of it. It's not about wanting the city to stagnate, or to award "unworthy" people homes you don't think they've worked for. If everyone who makes under a certain amount has to travel from beyond some critical distance away, at some point they won't do it anymore. And I haven't really seen a rebuttal that addresses this.

Now, to inject a value judgement, I think that while of course having a strong economy is the engine of a powerful city, it also needs a vibrant social and cultural life, and these are things you seem to be dismissive of because you can't assign a market value to them. I say that anyone can build an architectural machine for making money, anywhere: plop down some Starbuckses, some data centers, some corporate office parks, lay down some roads, build an airport and call it a day. This does not a city make, and this is not the future I want for Boston.

You can't put a price on the contributions the lower classes make to the life of the city, and we're not building housing at the rate we need to, and our transit is not improving at the rate we need it to. Absent support of those solutions, I think it's fair to see disagreement about the benefit of a whale like Amazon landing on our shores. The people it would price out are real people, not mere servants to tech and finance masters up the chain, and they contribute other things besides taxes they pay.

 

[Rover]

Rover, I feel that you are missing some of the point. Some of the things that you, or people who share your philosophy, want appear to be in direct conflict with each other. In your perfect world where only the market dictates where everyone gets to live, what is your vision for the city and its streets?

I won't speak for anyone else but to me, the outcome is at first a totally sanitized, and then totally dysfunctional, and ultimately unattractive city. Leaving aside the value judgement of people in the service class it isn't workable for the people working at coffee shops, driving trains and buses, and doing the other things that keep the city running are pushed farther and farther away from where they do those things. Eventually it doesn't make sense for them to travel so far. What do you imagine will happen once they are totally priced out? Let's leave the language of dessert out of it. It's not about wanting the city to stagnate, or to award "unworthy" people homes you don't think they've worked for. If everyone who makes under a certain amount has to travel from beyond some critical distance away, at some point they won't do it anymore. And I haven't really seen a rebuttal that addresses this.

Now, to inject a value judgement, I think that while of course having a strong economy is the engine of a powerful city, it also needs a vibrant social and cultural life, and these are things you seem to be dismissive of because you can't assign a market value to them. I say that anyone can build an architectural machine for making money, anywhere: plop down some Starbuckses, some data centers, some corporate office parks, lay down some roads, build an airport and call it a day. This does not a city make, and this is not the future I want for Boston.

You can't put a price on the contributions the lower classes make to the life of the city, and we're not building housing at the rate we need to, and our transit is not improving at the rate we need it to. Absent support of those solutions, I think it's fair to see disagreement about the benefit of a whale like Amazon landing on our shores. The people it would price out are real people, not mere servants to tech and finance masters up the chain, and they contribute other things besides taxes they pay.

This is a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody is saying the market 100% determines housing as I haven't seen anyone come out against affordable housing requirements yet or bulldozing housing projects for luxury housing.

What I fear you're missing is that there is no actual solution to what you're lamenting. Too many people on this board with socialist leanings think that if we just send Amazon packing the city will stay the way it is, and middle income people will not get priced out. Obviously that's absurd. Yet some are building this up as the solution to housing price appreciation and the accompanying dislocation of people. I'm not asking you to like that this happens. I'm asking you to accept that Amazon coming here is not going to change the plight these people are in, and also accept that I've yet to see a reasonable solution proposed beyond building more affordable housing which the city is trying to do. What else do you propose?

Finally, life isn't fair. I would have preferred to be born wealthy. Didn't happen, but I don't cry about it. It is what it is. Regarding working/middle class people staffing up a city and giving it character, people do what they have to do. Maybe they get a roommate. Maybe they move to cheaper cities on public transit. Braintree is on the Red Line. Malden is on the Orange Line. Mattapan is on the Red Line. Revere is on the Blue Line. We're not talking Siberia here for people to find a place to live. Unfortunately you can't mandate people get to stay where they've been if they're renters. I may not like that either, believe it or not, but lets have someone come up with an actual solution instead of a ridiculous anti-good paying jobs platform.

 

[DominusNovus]

Anyone think we could use a catch-all 'Housing Market' thread in the general subforum?

 

[GW]

This is a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody is saying the market 100% determines housing as I haven't seen anyone come out against affordable housing requirements yet or bulldozing housing projects for luxury housing.

What I fear you're missing is that there is no actual solution to what you're lamenting. Too many people on this board with socialist leanings think that if we just send Amazon packing the city will stay the way it is, and middle income people will not get priced out. Obviously that's absurd. Yet some are building this up as the solution to housing price appreciation and the accompanying dislocation of people. I'm not asking you to like that this happens. I'm asking you to accept that Amazon coming here is not going to change the plight these people are in, and also accept that I've yet to see a reasonable solution proposed beyond building more affordable housing which the city is trying to do. What else do you propose?

Finally, life isn't fair. I would have preferred to be born wealthy. Didn't happen, but I don't cry about it. It is what it is. Regarding working/middle class people staffing up a city and giving it character, people do what they have to do. Maybe they get a roommate. Maybe they move to cheaper cities on public transit. Braintree is on the Red Line. Malden is on the Orange Line. Mattapan is on the Red Line. Revere is on the Blue Line. We're not talking Siberia here for people to find a place to live. Unfortunately you can't mandate people get to stay where they've been if they're renters. I may not like that either, believe it or not, but lets have someone come up with an actual solution instead of a ridiculous anti-good paying jobs platform.

You've consistently misread the people disagreeing with you and you continually deploy strawmen yourself.

You wrote:

"Yes, if your take is that people should be able to live in the same place they did decades ago without taking into considering the "fact" that times change."

But my whole point (and the point of those who agree with me) is that "times change," and social and economic policy should ameliorate the effects of that change. It has nothing to do with "fantasyland." It's a choice pursued in different forms by governments all over the world, including, before the current administration, this one.

You wrote:

"Renting is a choice. So is owning." These aren't choices if you don't have the money to make the choice. That's how our system functions. In the housing market, as in, to take one example, the courtroom, freedom accrues in proportion to wealth. More money = more choices, more freedom.

You wrote:

"Dealing with reality is always better than adopting some bizarre philosophy that the city should piss off 50,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of tax revenue so everyone can live where they are now."

But "pissing off" those jobs and tax revenue is sensible philosophy if you don't adhere to the dogma of maximal growth and laissez-faire economics. Those jobs will bring new residents, and the city, even if it builds housing at an accelerated pace, will become less affordable for the people currently living here (the people actually represented by our government). Myself and others would argue that the tax revenue isn't worth it.

You wrote:

"The problem is not everybody in this situation is the proverbial hard working parent holding down two jobs to make ends meet. Many people are happy to do the bare minimum to just live for the day. As there isn't a way to separate out the hard working go-getters from the slackers in housing preservation, I don't see how keeping Amazon away helps this situation. "

And you wrote previously that you won't miss the residents of old South Boston. As others have pointed out, you hold a capitalist fanatic's disdain for the poor and you clearly believe we live in a meritocracy, that most people who are poor and can't afford housing deserve it, and that the wealth each individual holds is generally a reflection of their hard work and character. This from someone who constantly admonishes his opponents about "reality"!

You wrote:

"This is all fantasyland nonsense. I'd expect it out of a group of broke college kids smoking dope and dreaming of Bernie Sanders as President. Why don't we just legislate that everybody gets to marry the person they're in love with as well without having to put any work into that either.

Look, lets get back to reality. If you choose to live off the land and do your own thing without having a boss, go for it. However, if you make that choice, you ARE NOT entitled to live in the highest rent districts in the city if you can't afford it, nor are we the taxpayers on the hook to keep you comfortable. You made a choice, so live with its consequences both good and bad."

Aside from demonstrating your tendency to insult your opponents, here are all your bad reading habits in a nutshell. No one here is proposing a Jeffersonian agrarian utopia. We're talking about the degree of government intervention in the market. (I might actually favor a socialist system in the abstract, but that's not what anyone here is proposing.) We live in a mixed system already. The principle of government amelioration is accepted by almost everyone. It's a question of degree. And if you look at more interventionist governments in Europe, you'll find their populations are better off financially and more economically mobile.

You wrote:

"I haven't seen anyone come out against affordable housing requirements yet or bulldozing housing projects for luxury housing."

There are several people on this forum who believe just that, including your less coherent twin, Odurandina.

You wrote:

"Too many people on this board with socialist leanings think that if we just send Amazon packing the city will stay the way it is, and middle income people will not get priced out. Obviously that's absurd. Yet some are building this up as the solution to housing price appreciation and the accompanying dislocation of people."

Again, no one is saying that denying Amazon a second headquarters here will solve the problem. We're saying that it will help prevent the problem from getting worse.

Finally, you wrote:

"I've yet to see a reasonable solution proposed beyond building more affordable housing which the city is trying to do."

If you read around the forum you would find them (solutions, I mean: there's no one solution), but here you go.

Locally: build and require much, much more affordable housing (the city's effort to date is unimpressive), distribute it throughout the city and it's outlying areas; raise taxes on the rich, on second homes, and on absentee owners; mandate on-campus housing for students at large and wealthy universities; restrict AirBnB to owner-occupied units; streamline the proposal and approval process for developers; revamp zoning in favor of height and density; expand public transit.

Nationally: move toward socialism.

 

[tangent]

I think your heart is in the right place. The problem is not everybody in this situation is the proverbial hard working parent holding down two jobs to make ends meet. Many people are happy to do the bare minimum to just live for the day. As there isn't a way to separate out the hard working go-getters from the slackers in housing preservation, I don't see how keeping Amazon away helps this situation.

I think the person "happy to do the bare minimum to just live for the day" is nothing to disparage. If they aren't willing to do the minimum to be self sufficient then that is where I would draw the line. If they aren't able, as many aren't, then I also think that is nothing to disparage.

In high cost of living areas like Greater Boston it is actually far too hard to save money and give yourself and your family financial stability beyond the paycheck to paycheck. Too hard.

I am fairly libertarian in my philosophy of government, but I recognize that successful cities need to plan for the general welfare of all their people to a far greater degree.

 

[tangent]

Anyone think we could use a catch-all 'Housing Market' thread in the general subforum?

eh... I think it is fine to have a short tangent as it relates to the housing and cost of living for HQ2. High cost of living is often cited as a downside of Boston's HQ2 bid. I don't think it is a fatal flaw considering it is in part a sign of success that people want to live here and it is driving up demand. Just one of those good things that have unintended consequences where the down sides need to be better addressed.

The solution is as easy in concept as it is hard in practice... Make more places that people want to live, without wrecking the places that people already like to live.

 

[Rover]

Locally: build and require much, much more affordable housing (the city's effort to date is unimpressive), distribute it throughout the city and it's outlying areas; raise taxes on the rich, on second homes, and on absentee owners; mandate on-campus housing for students at large and wealthy universities; restrict AirBnB to owner-occupied units; streamline the proposal and approval process for developers; revamp zoning in favor of height and density; expand public transit.

Nationally: move toward socialism.

Most of your post is tilting at windmills so we'll have to agree to disagree. Lets take your solutions one by one.

1) More affordable housing - everyone is on board with this, but who builds it? Requiring much much more = squeezing developers? Sounds good but what if they stop building due to high land acquisition costs? Distribute around the city makes sense and is doable.

2) Raise taxes on the rich, 2nd homes, absentee owners - Feel good but most likely unworkable for reasons we've already covered when most of us blasted that ridiculous Globe editorial last week.

3) on-campus housing - city is already doing this but of course a worthwhile effort.

4) streamline development process - totally agree, but not clear how that keeps existing middle class renters in their homes.

5) revamp zoning - also agree, but also not clear how this accomplishes keeping existing middle class renters in their homes.

6) expand public transit - AHA! Finally you're onto something. People can commute in from cheaper places to get to the city. Hmmm...where have I heard that before? That's right, it was one of my suggesting from an earlier post today.

All these are fine with various degrees of probability as to if they'll actually happen, but you have to realize you're only putting off the inevitable. Prices will still go up, jobs will still locate here, and lower income people will have to find a cheaper place to live. That's not going to change, so why not reap some tax benefits from an Amazon being here to fund several of your priorities particularly transit and city financed affordable housing?

 

[Coyote137]

I agree about a separate housing thread, given how often this debate comes up in numerous other threads (isn't some of this what's been debated in the 1 Dalton thread?).

 

[GW]

Most of your post is tilting at windmills so we'll have to agree to disagree. Lets take your solutions one by one.

1) More affordable housing - everyone is on board with this, but who builds it? Requiring much much more = squeezing developers? Sounds good but what if they stop building due to high land acquisition costs? Distribute around the city makes sense and is doable.

2) Raise taxes on the rich, 2nd homes, absentee owners - Feel good but most likely unworkable for reasons we've already covered when most of us blasted that ridiculous Globe editorial last week.

3) on-campus housing - city is already doing this but of course a worthwhile effort.

4) streamline development process - totally agree, but not clear how that keeps existing middle class renters in their homes.

5) revamp zoning - also agree, but also not clear how this accomplishes keeping existing middle class renters in their homes.

6) expand public transit - AHA! Finally you're onto something. People can commute in from cheaper places to get to the city. Hmmm...where have I heard that before? That's right, it was one of my suggesting from an earlier post today.

All these are fine with various degrees of probability as to if they'll actually happen, but you have to realize you're only putting off the inevitable. Prices will still go up, jobs will still locate here, and lower income people will have to find a cheaper place to live. That's not going to change, so why not reap some tax benefits from an Amazon being here to fund several of your priorities particularly transit and city financed affordable housing?

"Most of your post is tilting at windmills so we'll have to agree to disagree."

Definitely. But where I quoted you and responded in detail, you ranted, insulted, and misunderstood. I appreciate that your response this time is slightly less silly, but you should work on your people skills, or migrate your efforts to Skyscraperpage, where I think you'll fit in better.

1) Again, not everyone is on board with this. And developers build them, as does the city. Paid for by streamlined development process, the costs saved by better zoning, and higher taxes.

2) It really isn't unworkable. I can't speak to the Globe editorial (I didn't read it) but higher taxes and more services work quite well elsewhere. I'd favor a nationally-biased system as opposed to one that is locally run, but we've got to start somewhere.

3) The city is not already doing this. Some colleges have done it (UMass), but BU put West Village 3 on indefinite hold and NU's new dorms won't even cover the new students it's adding. The schools need to be forced to do this. We're talking tens of thousands of bedrooms here.

4) By making construction cheaper, which encourages more development, which counters the rise in housing costs

5) By making construction cheaper, which encourages more development, which counters the rise in housing costs

6) Yes, you mentioned this before. So have hundreds of others on this forum, going back years. What's your point? That you had one good idea?

I'm really not sure why you think you're mainlining reality here (your B minus in Econ 101, or a few snippets of Fox Business News?), but no, prices don't always go up and people aren't always pushed out. That's just what usually happens because elites run the show and people like you, when pressed, don't really give a sh*t about people worse off than yourselves because you think they deserve it.

 

[rjacobs]

Anyone think we could use a catch-all 'Housing Market' thread in the general subforum?

Yes. Desperately.

As much as I enjoy reading slight variations on the same damn debate in seemingly half of the various building/project-specific threads, it'd be nice to keep it in one place.

Housing Market discussions are worth having, but time and again they derail any substantive discussion of the actual project that the thread is ostensibly about.

 

[shmessy]

Well considering that Trudeau personally lobbied Bezos back in February, it seems like the respectful thing to do to let him know ahead of time. Allows Trudeau to celebrate a win in Vancouver and take the sting off a coming loss in Toronto.

So, in that case, has anyone at Amazon alerted Toronto to stop proceeding?

 

[Rover]

But where I quoted you and responded in detail, you ranted, insulted, and misunderstood.

I appreciate that your response this time is slightly less silly...

What's your point? That you had one good idea?

I'm really not sure why you think you're mainlining reality here (your B minus in Econ 101, or a few snippets of Fox Business News?),

people like you, when pressed, don't really give a sh*t about people worse off than yourselves because you think they deserve it.

While we're talking about housing, what's that saying about people who live in glass houses?

but no, prices don't always go up and people aren't always pushed out. That's just what usually happens because elites run the show and people like you, when pressed, don't really give a sh*t about people worse off than yourselves because you think they deserve it.

On what planet are we talking about? What thriving city has both kept housing prices down despite economic growth and has also prevented people from being pushed out? New York? SF? LA? DC? London? Toronto? The only quasi-solution I've seen is the availability of unlimited land ala Austin and maybe you'll agree that's not an option here?

 

[JumboBuc]

Anyone think we could use a catch-all 'Housing Market' thread in the general subforum?

We have multiple "Housing Market" threads but these discussions still end up in the project threads.

Frequently project-specific discussion brings up points that spill into general housing discussions, and then once those general housing discussions get inertia they're hard to sequester off.

I propose the following rule: "If your discussion addresses the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, then it doesn't belong in a project thread."

 

[KentXie]

Expanding public transit is a great idea until you realize most TOD development still price out the lower and middle income. The fact of the matter is, the whole free market concept doesn't solve anything. You build public transit, land value goes up in the surrounding area, developers pay more money for the land, developers build market rate and luxury apartments to recuperate the higher cost, lower income residents gets pushed further away from public transit. To break this, you need government intervention to ensure that affordable housing is mixed into the development but elites think any type of intervention is "socialism" *rolls eyes*

 

[jass]

Expanding public transit is a great idea until you realize most TOD development still price out the lower and middle income. The fact of the matter is, the whole free market concept doesn't solve anything. You build public transit, land value goes up in the surrounding area, developers pay more money for the land, developers build market rate and luxury apartments to recuperate the higher cost, lower income residents gets pushed further away from public transit. To break this, you need government intervention to ensure that affordable housing is mixed into the development but elites think any type of intervention is "socialism" *rolls eyes*

This is only true because good transit is so scarce. High demand, low supply, prices go up.

Build good transit everywhere, and everybody is happy

 

[KentXie]

This is only true because good transit is so scarce. High demand, low supply, prices go up.

Build good transit everywhere, and everybody is happy

If only everywhere is like Japan. We can't even increase gas tax to fund public transit.

 

[Coyote137]

If only everywhere is like Japan. We can't even increase gas tax to fund public transit.

Thanks to Geoff "Dickface" Diehl.

 

[DominusNovus]

If only everywhere is like Japan. We can't even increase gas tax to fund public transit.

Japan is a very unique case.

 

[fattony]

This is only true because good transit is so scarce. High demand, low supply, prices go up.

Build good transit everywhere, and everybody is happy

Agree.

Chicago is a good example. They don't have the same housing escalation as many places despite having a great economy. The reason is that they have a huge supply of housing across a vast transit network. Obviously, the most desirable neighborhoods of Chicago are eyepoppingly expensive, but huge swaths of transit accessible city remain affordable. So what is different about Chicago?

Chicago has plenty of homes and transit coverage RELATIVE to the number of high paying jobs there. Those homes and transit lines were built at a different time when Chicago's economy was different. Boston has nowhere near the required amount of housing and transit coverage RELATIVE to the number of high paying jobs here. Thus Boston is far from any kind of economic equilibrium. Every new home that hits the market (including renovations) has plenty of buyers with deep pockets competing. The issue is that we build desirable homes (e.g. transit accessible) more slowly than incomes rise (through both wage growth and adding new higher paying jobs).

Things in limited supply always go to the highest bidder. Chicago's large relative supply (due to past factors, not so much current policy) means that after the rich are satisfied, there are still some transit accessible homes for lower income strata. Public policy can oppose those economic forces, but only so much. We can and should publicly support affordable housing, but we have to address the root cause with fundamentals - increase supply or reducing demand. I have no idea how to reduce demand.

 

[GW]

While we're talking about housing, what's that saying about people who live in glass houses?



On what planet are we talking about? What thriving city has both kept housing prices down despite economic growth and has also prevented people from being pushed out? New York? SF? LA? DC? London? Toronto? The only quasi-solution I've seen is the availability of unlimited land ala Austin and maybe you'll agree that's not an option here?

Point 1: I'm responding in kind, chief. You insulted me several times, so I've given up on politeness.

Point 2: Oh my god you have so much trouble reading. I am not arguing for a policy of sustained growth. I don't care about sustained growth. But if you want a rough example, try Tokyo, which combines a strong social safety net with rapid home construction.

About staying on topic, I think it's particularly hard with a thread like this, as opposed to one about a single building.

But on that note, I'll bug out of this conversation and go outside.