Boston 2024

If only we could get rid of all the poor people, Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan would be great.

:rolleyes:
 
Proposition Joe meet kmp1284. This is his thing. He doesn't understand why people call A Modest Proposal satire.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
If only we could get rid of all the poor people, Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan would be great.
Click to expand...

Eventually they'd leave as the neighborhoods come up much like in Jamaica Plain, parts of Dorchester and Charlestown but I'm only really talking about those who actively cause trouble; the people perpetrating the violence, the dealers, etc. I have no beef with the harmless old winos on the stoops and the families who've either never moved beyond it or have found their way there through a shitty set of circumstances.
 
Proposition Joe said:
Wow, this is a horrible. You do realize that you aren't supposed to be purposefully advocating for things like gentrification right? And also that this post is like the perfect example of dog-whistle racism?

The increased demand for dense, urban living environments shouldn't have to push anyone out of their homes or destroy any current communities. Boston has plenty of areas where it can become more dense without pushing anyone out, there are plenty of economic and housing policies that can be enacted to protect current residences, and if space in Boston is an issue there are plenty of municipalities in the area that are within a reasonable distance for rapid transit connections and capable of taking in more residences with dense, urban development.

Ignoring these things and letting entire neighborhoods get gentrified out would do immense harm to the city of Boston, the region, and the commonwealth.
Click to expand...

let's stop pretending that we're "destroying community" - when neighborhoods become more desirable. The places with high crime are also highly unstable neighborhoods (as in, largely rentals with high-turnover) - they could greatly benefit from SOME stability, and that means more owner-occupied properties who also have the both the financial means and the will to invest in the neighborhood. Of course this needs to be balanced with ways of making housing more affordable for NEWCOMERS - but as long as we're not demolishing entire neighborhoods no one is getting "forced out" if they own their property - more like they're selling out.
 
kmp1284 said:
And there's a problem with that? Some of the densest housing stock in this city is located in ugly, violent neighborhoods that with a little nudge could easily be the next big thing. Absent their lowest common denominators, the whole area around Franklin Park/Grove Hall(Seaver, Humboldt, Blue Hill, Washington, Warren, etc.) could be quite appealing to working, middle class-type people.
Click to expand...

I don't see much problem with this sentiment, other than it being worded a little brashly. Nothing is racist or inaccurate here.

The whole "keep things affordable for lifetime residents" is just cover for NIMBY's. You can't change the cost for property owners (their cost is locked-in) and trying to invent some right-to-stay for renters who happened not to move around at the detriment of renters who have moved around is patently ridiculous. If you want to lock-in cost and stability, you buy your home. Those who have chosen not to do that shouldn't get any special treatment just because their mailing address has been Boston (or wherever) longer than mine.

Those who can't afford to buy... well no one said life was easy or fair. The city has affordable housing programs. Inclusionary affordable housing is a great thing - lowering poverty density means lower crime and breaks the culture of violence and educational ambivalence that pervades slums.

You can call it gentrification, I call it de-slumming, and none of it is "forced."

As I finishing typing this post, I wonder what in the world it has to do with the Olympics. I guess that makes me part of the problem...
 
I've gotta stick on the side of the 'pro-gentrification' posters here, though I much prefer to see neighborhoods evolve naturally, like the North End did. That way, the cultural legacy and the individuals that make up the communities maintains continuity, even as their conditions improve. The problem, of course, with this specific discussion is that the Olympics, for all their positives, are the antithesis of natural evolution for neighborhoods.
 
I did not intend to derail this thread into a debate about the merits of gentrification... I am sorry.

If you actually read what I said I was concerned that an Olympics will have a London-like effect on the Boston rental market. There will be no long term gentrification of a neighborhood. The long term benefits of gentrification will not take place and instead a bunch of people who are vital to the function of the city (and yes, they are vital even if we do not appreciate it at times) will be pushed further out from the city core and out of existing rental stock for people who can afford 2..4x the rent for a month or two.
 
meddlepal said:
I did not intend to derail this thread into a debate about the merits of gentrification... I am sorry.

If you actually read what I said I was concerned that an Olympics will have a London-like effect on the Boston rental market. There will be no long term gentrification of a neighborhood. The long term benefits of gentrification will not take place and instead a bunch of people who are vital to the function of the city (and yes, they are vital even if we do not appreciate it at times) will be pushed further out from the city core and out of existing rental stock for people who can afford 2..4x the rent for a month or two.
Click to expand...

I think it would be unlikely that the Olympics would result in much gentrification in any case. Unlike London or Chicago, Boston has no neighborhood where the Games can be located with a significant amount of blighted/empty land and an established low-income/minority population. Beacon Park doesn't, South Bay doesn't, and the Everett Waterfront doesn't, and those are the 3 sites we've mentioned on this thread so far.

Franklin Park just isn't a viable site for many venues, since its landscaping is by Olmstead and is therefore sacrosanct - no Chicago-style "we'll put the park back when we're done" BS. It's ok for events which can occur in it as currently constituted, like archery or shooting, but not for big construction projects. Plus, its access sucks.

Most new construction for a Boston Olympics would be located in industrial districts, middle-class neighborhoods, college campuses and vacant or reclaimed land. The city's "blighted" areas are just too built up to be useful without complete demolition, which is obviously not an option.

FWIW, London and Beijing's Olympic slum clearance was quite by-design - it was a stated goal of each project from the start. Not every Olympics need have those impacts.
 
Much of Boston's charm comes from being able to blend old and new. I know its difficult, but I feel like that should be able to Boston's Olympic goal moreso then London/Beijing. Obviously security concerns loom large, but I think having facilities blended into the area (by both necessity and design) could make for long term success and incentivize the city, metro and state to focus on connecting these areas that will need better connectivity to the core and each other for long term success. North, South, West. Depending on who wins a casino vote today, Suffolk Downs would be a prime area for future events, so drop East in there.
 
choo said:
Much of Boston's charm comes from being able to blend old and new. I know its difficult, but I feel like that should be able to Boston's Olympic goal moreso then London/Beijing. Obviously security concerns loom large, but I think having facilities blended into the area (by both necessity and design) could make for long term success and incentivize the city, metro and state to focus on connecting these areas that will need better connectivity to the core and each other for long term success. North, South, West. Depending on who wins a casino vote today, Suffolk Downs would be a prime area for future events, so drop East in there.
Click to expand...

Choo -- imported [with spelling corrections] from the Casino Page as it was considered Gentrificated

davem said:
This is a thread about casinos, I'm pretty sure there is another floating around about redeveloping the tracks. There is already a thread about the olympics. If someone wants to start a thread about locations for soccer specific stadium that would be cool too, but let's keep this one related to the casino proposals, eh?

That being said, +1 on BetonBrut weighing in, or anyone in eastie on what they think is next.
Click to expand...

AS was pointed out by several -- these are all coupled -- especially after the failure of the referendum

So real quick here's my Olympic Proposal:

1) Main stadium East Boston on the Blue Line
2) several additional subsidiary facilities on the site of Both Suffolk and Wonderland
3) Olympic Village and several other venues at Mass Pike Alston Interchange
4) Harvard Stadium & Gillette Stadium for Soccer
5) various University Gyms & other event facilities for fencing, rhythmic gymnastics, etc.
6) Boston Gahhhhdn for the finals of Gymnastics & Basketball
7) rowing on the Charles
8) sailing on the Harbor
9) Equestrian in Hamilton -- where else
10) Other events diverse locations within Greater Boston and even beyond [modern Pentathalon, shooting, archery]
 
whighlander said:
So real quick here's my Olympic Proposal:

1) Main stadium East Boston on the Blue Line
2) several additional subsidiary facilities on the site of Both Suffolk and Wonderland
3) Olympic Village and several other venues at Mass Pike Alston Interchange
4) Harvard Stadium & Gillette Stadium for Soccer
5) various University Gyms & other event facilities for fencing, rhythmic gymnastics, etc.
6) Boston Gahhhhdn for the finals of Gymnastics & Basketball
7) rowing on the Charles
8) sailing on the Harbor
9) Equestrian in Hamilton -- where else
10) Other events diverse locations within Greater Boston and even beyond [modern Pentathalon, shooting, archery]
Click to expand...

I get that Suffolk Downs is a large piece of property that may soon become available for something like this, but it's surrounded by industrial land and its road access is pretty bad from Downtown - anyone staying there would be essentially forced to take the Blue Line, which sounds like a good idea until you consider that the IOC insists that athletes and volunteers have dedicated lanes of road access to all major facilities.

Add to that the fact that the property sits on a runway centerline at Logan, meaning a the very least constant low-flying aircraft and at the most massive disruption to airport operations if it's deemed too much of a security risk to have aircraft that low over the stadium, and I don't think Suffolk Downs is as good a site for the Olympic Stadium as it seems. Equestrian stuff, maybe (they have all the facilities to care for horses), and perhaps some logistical facilities, but I don't think its the best stadium site.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the person who takes the IOC tour group out to an abandoned race track in 6 years, surrounded by swamp and dirty fuel tanks, and tries to tell them that it's the best we could do. I certainly wouldn't want to do that if the Revere portion of the site has a large gambling facility on it.
 
Neither the Charles nor the harbor would be viable for rowing and sailing nor is there a suitable facility or the available land to build one in Hamilton for equestrian.
 
How is Olympic rowing different from what they do at the Head of the Charles?
 
statler said:
How is Olympic rowing different from what they do at the Head of the Charles?
Click to expand...

This was actually discussed a bunch of pages ago on this thread - basically, the piers of the bridges in the Charles form an illegal impediment. The closest Olympic-grade rowing course is at Lake Quinsigamond in Worcester.

Likewise, the Marathon route is apparently not a legal marathon in international competition because it has hills and isn't a loop.
 
statler said:
How is Olympic rowing different from what they do at the Head of the Charles?
Click to expand...

In Olympic rowing they utilize a 2000 metre, non-staggered six lane straight course which simply cannot be set up anywhere on the Charles. I'm not positive on this but there's probably too much current also. Lake Quinsigamond would be the only possibility in the region, plus it would serve to spread the wealth around a bit to outlying communities.
 
The Mystic is justttttt under 2000 meters from the Tobin to the Alford St Bridge. If the finish chute could go under the main span of the Tobin it would work. Not as sexy as the Charles however...
 
davem said:
The Mystic is justttttt under 2000 meters from the Tobin to the Alford St Bridge. If the finish chute could go under the main span of the Tobin it would work. Not as sexy as the Charles however...
Click to expand...

If it isn't going to happen in the Charles, I don't see why it shouldn't be on the fully accredited course in Worcester. It's plenty pretty out there, and there's complete precedent for the rowing course (like the whitewater course) to be far from the central venues.
 
... I know of some great land in East Boston that could handle housing, track & field, and everything else!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top