Boston's housing problem

massmotorist said:
Right now the waterfront doesn't have enough sandwich shops to serve all of the patrons that will exist once it's built out. They also don't have enough fitness rooms and roof decks.

Should the government forecast the number of fitness rooms, roof decks, and sandwich shops that it believes should be required, and then mandate that the developer reserve that amount of space for them? Or should that be left to the market?

What makes parking any different from those examples?
Click to expand...

I wasn't advocating for mandatory minimums, or mandatory anything for that matter. Rather I was pointing out that in order to maximize profit(oh the horror!) developers would inevitably need to provide a parking component to attract the most (financially) desirable tenants/buyers possible.
 
Matthew said:
Requiring excessive number of parking spaces is another way of pushing costs onto others. Now I am forced to pay for all those parking spaces with higher rent, fewer opportunities, and a community strangled by traffic and asphalt.

Why do you think the suburban pushers are so eager to create and defend parking minimums? It's an immense subsidy, a way of making everyone pay for automobile infrastructure costs.
Click to expand...

Stop being so dramatic. This isn't the 1950s anymore. The high rent in Boston is a direct result of the high salaries and constrained housing supply.

Ask any real estate agent out there if a place with a parking spot is worth more and it is without question. It's because cars make life easier.

I went about a month without a car when I moved back here and it was terrible. I had to live my entire life around waiting for a train/bus, or walking. Getting a week's worth of groceries was a huge hassle. I could only see friends that lived within the immediate coverage of the T. Bringing my dog to the vet to get his shots was basically impossible (and I didn't do it until I bought a car for that reason) because I had to find a place that was open and Saturdays and within a normal walk from the T. I had to find a doctor that was taking new patients in a reasonable time period, which again, had to be a reasonable amount of time from where I live, again, this wasn't possible until I got a car. Living without a car sucks. Getting dry cleaning is a 30+ minute affair for a place that's a short walk away. Long day at work? with the T it was 10x worse because it meant that I had to travel at peak times through south station and park st.

Oh, and this was in September when the weather was nice. I (and plenty of others) have no interest in walking for 10 minutes just to stand at a T-stop when its 15 degrees outside.

Now I have a nice, comfortable 15 minute drive to work, I can easily grab my dry cleaning on the way home, I can actually buy a week's worth of groceries, my dog is up to date on his shots, and if I'm sick, its not a 45+ minute trip each way. If there's some kind of traffic issue, I can drive another route home instead of waiting for the "police action" thats holding up the red line to resolve itself. Is it more expensive to have a car? Yes, I pay $300/month in parking alone at work and home, plus when I drive downtown instead of taking a cab/the T. But I can also see my friends and family that live outside of Boston, I can drive to Market Basket in Chelsea, take a quick (25 minute instead of 80 minute on the T) trip over to revere beach on Sunday morning.

I've got no idea how much worse being carless if I had children would be, but I can imagine that it would be about 10x worse than my experience.
 
And you live in a much more suburban part of Boston than I do, and you work in a spot with good highway access and bad transit access. I get to do all those things without a car and without too much hassle. I buy groceries on the way home. The dry cleaners is a 5 minute walk away. My doctors are all near stations along the Green Line. Owning a car was a net negative for me, as I had to deal with the maintenance and parking hassle, the cost, and I was hardly using it at all. Thankfully I'm not forced to pay for a parking spot, technically -- although my rent costs do cover the developer's cost to maintain the unleased parking spaces and the lost opportunity costs.

As kmp1284 said, mandatory minimums are the problem. I don't mind developers choosing to build parking because they are trying to attract tenants. I mind zoning codes and commissions FORCING developers to build EXCESSIVE parking because they want SUBSIDIZED parking to be available.

As I cited above, this is a very real problem. I spoke to an actual developer this past week who is forced to build more parking than necessary in order to quell local NIMBYs. Luckily they did manage to negotiate the requirement down from 2:1 to 1:1, or else it would probably be completely unworkable.
 
Kahta, if you're so convinced the public wants cars, then why are so against removing parking minimums? What do you have to lose if you're so sure that developers will provide parking anyway?
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Kahta, if you're so convinced the public wants cars, then why are so against removing parking minimums? What do you have to lose if you're so sure that developers will provide parking anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most people want a car, regardless of where they live. Isn't getting a car around 18 a right of passage to adulthood here in the US?

But I do disagree with forcing developers to fulfill a parking quota, just saying that most people on the forum here are underestimating the number of people who would like a car.
 
KentXie said:
I'm pretty sure most people want a car, regardless of where they live. Isn't getting a car around 18 a right of passage to adulthood here in the US?

But I do disagree with forcing developers to fulfill a parking quota, just saying that most people on the forum here are underestimating the number of people who would like a car.
Click to expand...

They want a car or require a car because their income level means they live in a certain area that may not have public transportation?

EDIT: to add I just think it's hard to ascribe a broad brush to why someone "wants" a vehicle.
 
It doesn't matter what we're estimating, because we aren't proposing any kind of central control. We're proposing to dismantle centralized planning and leave it to the market. Developers build the parking spaces they think they need to sell their units. People can buy or lease space for storing their vehicles. Just like any other land use.
 
KentXie said:
I'm pretty sure most people want a car, regardless of where they live. Isn't getting a car around 18 a right of passage to adulthood here in the US?

But I do disagree with forcing developers to fulfill a parking quota, just saying that most people on the forum here are underestimating the number of people who would like a car.
Click to expand...

And some people want ponies. But it comes down to what they're willing to spend money on. We have government intervention -- decades worth of it -- contributing to the downfall of our cities, propping up of suburban lifestyle, and dismantling of walkable/transit living.
 
bbfen said:
They want a car or require a car because their income level means they live in a certain area that may not have public transportation?

EDIT: to add I just think it's hard to ascribe a broad brush to why someone "wants" a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There are many reasons one may want a car and the lack of public transportation is certainly a big one. For example, for me, I want a car because that opens up job opportunities to workplaces that needs one. Those jobs tend to be less competitive as those without a car would not choose to work there. And even if the job is located near a train station, it could incredibly inconvenient. Last year I interviewed with Constant Contact in Waltham. If I remember correctly, the trip requires me to take the Green Line from NEU, to downtown, transfer to the Red Line to (I forgot which stop) and then take a bus that doesn't come frequently. The estimated travel time is 2 hrs each way. TWO HOURS EACH WAY. That comes out to four hours of total travel time per day. Driving would take only 30 minutes each way.

Other reasons are for convenience reasons. For example, if I have grandparents who has trouble getting around places or kids that needs to be picked up from school and then dropped off elsewhere, it is better to own a car.

Also, if I want to go on a trip, let's say a ski trip to the mountains, besides Wachusetts, there are no public transportation available.

If I have a college kid, having a car makes it more easy to move furniture to and from the dorm.

If I bought a lot of grocery or did quite a bit of shopping, it's easier to carry it in a car than taking a bus or train.

The list goes on. Cars are not the symbol of a suburban lifestyle.
 
Yeah, not having a car for just for me (we share one but he drives to his two jobs, I take the T) is really hurting my prospects of employment in architecture which are slim to begin with.

I interviewed for a position in the sketchy wharfs of Charlestown out of desperation. There was a bus stop like a half a mile away, but I wouldn't have dared to walk alone at night in that area.
 
Are these reasons worth a subsidy? And secondly, are they worth welfare that is given in a way that creates further sprawl?
 
Matthew said:
Are these reasons worth a subsidy? And secondly, are they worth welfare that is given in a way that creates further sprawl?
Click to expand...

No, but I'm just stating those reasons because it seems many forumers are underestimating the demand/need for cars in an urban environment.

Hell, even though there will be a Wholefood at Charlestown within walking distance of my house, my parents will be driving all the way to Chelsea because Market Basket is much cheaper.
 
Our estimation either way is irrelevant. The whole point is that nobody need estimate ahead of time what the demand will be. Instead, it should be left to the market, like any other commodity. No central planning in this regard.

The current approach is for central planners to vastly overestimate the demand and force a lot of dead-weight space to be carried by developers and communities. I have heard NIMBYs tell me that the parking spaces are there for the off-chance that there are many visitors to someone's home. In their mind, there ought to be no circumstances for which there is too much parking supply. It's simply unbelievable, but people don't think about it because they expect parking to be given to them for free. So why not take as much as possible? The costs are hidden, or spread out.
 
Speaking of dead weight. If only that approach could be taken with the affordable housing requirements. Those undoubtedly do more to hinder development than parking requirements do.
 
"Report highlights Orange Line opportunities."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/malden/n...ights-Orange-Line-opportunities#axzz2GrC5Ija8

Approximately 709,900 residents reside within a half-mile of an Orange Line station, representing 23 percent of the region’s population and 28 percent of its households, the report states.

There are nearly 300,000 jobs near Orange Line stations, encompassed in employment centers including downtown Boston, Back Bay, and the Longwood Medical Area. Educational institutions alone employ over 4,000 individuals in the campuses along the Orange Line.

Nearly one third of workers living in the Corridor commute by public transit, rising to nearly 50 percent at the north and south ends of the corridor.
Homeowners in the corridor drive substantially less than their counterparts elsewhere in the region — 27 miles per household per day in the corridor versus 49 miles per household per day region wide.

As illustrated in the report, new growth along the corridor would include more housing, employment, educational, cultural, recreational and transit opportunities for the people who live along the line.

Using developmental data supplied by municipalities and community development corporations (CDC) in the corridor between April and October 2012, MAPC was able to predict the number of housing, jobs and ridership in the coming years.

Their data shows up to 7,300 new housing units between 2012-2020 and up to 15,549 new housing units between 2020-2035.
Click to expand...
 
aaaaaa said:
Governor Patrick plans ambitious overhaul of state’s troubled public housing, By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff, 09/01/13




Link.
Click to expand...

Another reason why I love this guy... he's done everything that no one else would do.
 
This is nothing more than a back door bailout of multiple authorities which didn't manage to have distressed projects federalized.
 
Thankfully, we have something resembling a free-market system in Boston. Should prices soar, that will incentivize further development more strongly.
 
Further development is already strongly incentivized. Are you hoping that at some point it breaks through the zoning/red-tape stranglehold?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top