Chinatown - Progress or Gentrification?

[TC]

Can someone give me an example of one development in Chinatown that has forced residents to leave?

The projects that have gone up (or are being proposed) are mostly on parking lots, abandoned property, and now big dig parcels. The one project that required demolition of existing residences (the metropolitan) is 50% affordable.

What exactly is the crisis? People being priced out of the market isn't a Chinatown phenomenon. Real Estate prices just finished a 15 year climb that effected everyone in Massachusetts.

I'm sure that someone can pull up a statistic that shows the median price of a home in Chinatown has gone up at a rate higher that the state's average, but that is due to the new developments being factored in. Take out the new developments and I bet the median is about even with the rest of MA. I'm fairly certain that nobody is paying a million dollars for a condo above a restaurant on Beech Street.

 

[atlantaden]

I believe that for Newton and ONLY Newton, low income housing would lead to an increased crime rate

Hmmmmm, insert Weston, Sudbury, Lincoln, Cohasset, Duxbury, and a hundred other towns for Newton in the above sentence and there you have the same sorry excuse why these towns fight not only low-income housing but AFFORDABLE housing in their towns. A few neighboring residents scare everyone into believing that affordable housing = low income housing which it isn't. Frankly, small pockets of low-income housing scattered about in wealthier communities would probably not have any impact on the crime rates of the towns. Poor people crave security and decent surroundings as much as anyone else.

 

[castevens]

Right but there's only one direction to go when you have the least crime in America

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I believe that for Newton and ONLY Newton, low income housing would lead to an increased crime rate

Hmmmmm, insert Weston, Sudbury, Lincoln, Cohasset, Duxbury, and a hundred other towns for Newton in the above sentence and there you have the same sorry excuse why these towns fight not only low-income housing but AFFORDABLE housing in their towns. A few neighboring residents scare everyone into believing that affordable housing = low income housing which it isn't. Frankly, small pockets of low-income housing scattered about in wealthier communities would probably not have any impact on the crime rates of the towns. Poor people crave security and decent surroundings as much as anyone else.

They might crave that but they are also statistically more likely to commit crime. stop kidding yourselves, guys. rich people dont break into houses to take jewelry or mug people on the streets. poor people do. rich people dont join gangs and shoot rivals, poor people do. rich people take care of their kids and do what they can do to prevent drug use. poor people are much less likely to.

stop the bs and nonsense and lets stick to the facts here.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Yeah, except as I recall, the massacre at Columbine High school in Colorado was committed by affluent kids from a gated community.

I think a moderate amount of diversity is healthy for a community. There has to be a balance.

 

[atlantaden]

rich people dont break into houses to take jewelry or mug people on the streets.

Right, they sit high in their offices on Wall St. or in corner offices and steal it; it's called white collar crime and they steal billions! Ken Lay was just one small example.

rich people dont join gangs and shoot rivals, poor people do.

True again, they just send other people's kids, mostly poor kids, to do the dirty work for them. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are perfect examples.

rich people take care of their kids and do what they can do to prevent drug use. Poor people are much less likely to do so.

Hmmmmmmmm, I would say that drug/alcohol abuse is just as rampant in Westwood High or Catholic Memorial as it is in some inner city school. The same with the University dorms of the Ivy League along with every other university and college in the US with the possible exception of BYU and some other conservative christian schools.

stop the bs and nonsense and lets stick to the facts here.

Please take your own advise Dude.

 

[nico]

I don't know about the rich people not using drugs comment, but...
I for one can't afford to live in the town I grew up in, so I live in Chelsea. I can't even afford to live in the neighborhood my immigrant grandparents lived in b/c white yuppies love ?ethnic? neighborhoods so much that they forget even as they talk about the neighborhood not being ?authentic? anymore, that moving in is what made the neighborhood less authentic. What should people do about that? Nothing at all.

We should be concerned with opportunity. Providing people with the opportunity for education and the opportunity to make a living (and that?s not making up jobs like police details, and endless road work). We should support development to allow supply to keep up with demand, and should be extremely careful when dictating that certain people get a discount. After that, it is up to us as individuals to do whatever we can to achieve our desired quality of life. If you can't afford something, you don't get it; at least not now. That's the incentive that drives capitalism.

Our government should concern itself with general well-being, health and safety, but subsidizing housing based on ethnicity is a bad idea. If someone in Chinatown gets a nice spot in a luxury high-rise that replaced an old industrial building on the fringe of what is considered to be ?their? community, than everyone who can?t afford the community they grew up in should get a nice spot there as well.

These supposed sympathies, politically correct to be sure but racist in fact are hindrances to the progress of both the City and the people to which the efforts/concerns claim to support and are often supported by the leaders of supposed civic groups with the agendas of a few in mind.

It should not be the government's business (especially seeing as how government's money would otherwise be private citizen's money) to decide where people live, especially when making exceptions to the rule and even more so when those exceptions are based on race; and this is what the Chinatown discussion is all about.

There mere mention of retaining the ethnic fabric of a community (in this context?while very sentimental) flies in the face of logic and everything we would otherwise stand for. What happened to the melting pot? I would argue that it exists in places like Medford and Malden; your disdained suburbia, where kids grow up with other kids from a vast mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds. So if people in Chinatown can?t afford to stay in Chinatown, as has been the case in countless other neighborhoods, I certainly have sympathy, but the best thing for everyone is for a move to a place they can integrate, and thrive. White flight, whether committed by Whites, Blacks, Asian, or Latinos occurs as a rule when economics allow. In this case it can occur in a reverse of the standard economic situation, but provide the same benefits.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I deleted the last few posts just to try to keep this thread from turning into a cat fight.

 

[Bobby Digital]

Dude your view of the world is clearly very limited and one sided. Not tryin to offend you, just calling it as i see it.

rich people arent immune to drug use, illegal activities, rape, murder, etc.

the rich just get away with it.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

A land squeeze in America's Chinatowns
In Boston, activists want to develop a site with affordable housing, but the city eyes offices and luxury condos.
By Carol Huang | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

Boston - The empty lots, the tangle of highways above and below ground, and the power plant may not look like much. But everyone agrees it's prime real estate.

Residents of Chinatown next door see the 20 acres ? called the "Chinatown Gateway" on zoning maps ? as their best chance to develop much-needed affordable housing and alleviate a severe housing crunch.

But the city's redevelopment authority has dubbed the area "South Bay"
and envisions a new downtown district with upscale apartments, hotels, and offices.

This struggle in Boston is the latest in a land squeeze that is changing the nature of Chinatowns across the United States. As America's downtowns become hip again, urban real estate is becoming so valuable that ethnic enclaves find it increasingly difficult to survive as the first stop for new immigrants, usually with few skills and no English.

Once a fixture in most major US cities, many Chinatowns have ceased to exist as magnets for new arrivals. San Diego's Chinatown is now a historic district. A coalition in Phoenix is trying to save the last remaining Chinatown structure from becoming a luxury apartment building. Four of the enclaves in the 10 largest cities ? in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia ? are now commercial areas. Dallas, which never had a historic Chinatown, designated a retail center as "Chinatown" in the 1980s. Other Chinatowns in Seattle, Detroit, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., are today primarily tourist spots.

"Because it's very valuable downtown real estate, [developers] would love to dismantle the housing and just build hotels and office buildings," says Paul Watanabe, director of the Institute for Asian-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

New York's Chinatown is one of the last historic enclaves to remain a thriving residential and commercial area, says Peter Kwong, coauthor of "Chinese America: The Untold Story of America's Oldest New Community." But it's also feeling squeezed.

Here in Boston, talks on developing the site could resume this fall. In theory, the city and Chinatown agree they want to create a mixed-income neighborhood with a park. But they'll have to do battle over the proportion of affordable versus market-rate housing.

Chinatown activists want to see plenty of the former, along with businesses that create jobs not just for corporate executives but also for working-class immigrants. Already, gentrification has meant increased rents in the neighborhood. More low-income residents are moving into increasingly cramped apartments. Small businesses have buddied up on space.

To fight the squeeze, Chinatown-based groups have become more organized and vocal. "It is probably the single most important development event that will have the biggest impact on Chinatown's future," says Lydia Lowe, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association.

The city wants the new district to accommodate its low-income neighbors but also attract high-end businesses and residents who generate revenue.

Height is another sticking point. For Chinatown, it means more traffic and less sunlight. Developers like tall buildings because they can charge more for a view from the 35th floor and have more space for subsidized units.

"We're looking for a truly mixed-use district," says Sue Kim, project manager for the Boston Redevelopment Authority's South Bay Planning Study.

The primary owner of the land, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, is in debt for its huge Big Dig project and would like to turn a profit.

Urban development will ultimately win out, and as part of that trend, Chinatown will become a tourist destination, predicts Michael Liu, a research associate at the Institute for Asian-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

"The question is, who will this new Chinatown benefit?" asks Mr. Kwong, the author. "Making Chinatown a tourist destination ... is not something to be handled by the location population."

One sign of the times is a new Japanese-style restaurant on the northern border of Chinatown. The wood d?cor is fresh, the music Western, the chopsticks cute, and waitresses outfitted in kimono-like tops with black slacks and a polka-dot bandana over their hair.

The style appeals to the non-Chinese clientele that increasingly surrounds the neighborhood, says Judy Chow, a manager whose company owns the place.

"Chinatown is the best place to live when you first come," says Ms. Chow, who came here as a new immigrant in 1984. But business is business. "There are a lot of offices around here," she says. "We want to tap into that market."

Link

 

[bosdevelopment]

I believe that for Newton and ONLY Newton, low income housing would lead to an increased crime rate

Hmmmmm, insert Weston, Sudbury, Lincoln, Cohasset, Duxbury, and a hundred other towns for Newton in the above sentence and there you have the same sorry excuse why these towns fight not only low-income housing but AFFORDABLE housing in their towns. A few neighboring residents scare everyone into believing that affordable housing = low income housing which it isn't. Frankly, small pockets of low-income housing scattered about in wealthier communities would probably not have any impact on the crime rates of the towns. Poor people crave security and decent surroundings as much as anyone else.

People in Weston don't want affordable development because of one reason only: the property values of abbutters decrease. tremendously. That's why people fought tooth and nail against a recent "affordable" housing development right off of route 30, where the average townhouse was selling for 400k, but the homes going up down Highland Ave were going on the market for 5kk.

 

[AdamBC]

The primary owner of the land, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, is in debt for its huge Big Dig project and would like to turn a profit.

I don't see why they feel they have to destroy a neighborhood to turn a profit. Besides, the Big Dig was colossally mismanaged. There is no way to turn a profit on that boondoggle.

 

[atlantaden]

People in Weston don't want affordable development because of one reason only: the property values of abbutters decrease. tremendously. That's why people fought tooth and nail against a recent "affordable" housing development right off of route 30, where the average townhouse was selling for 400k, but the homes going up down Highland Ave were going on the market for 5kk.

Affordable housing is so different from town to town since, from what I understand, the affordable price is based the median home price in that town therefore affordable housing in Weston, Lincoln, and Sudbury will be much higher than affordable housing in say, Sharon, Needham, and Franklin where the prices will be lower and even lower for Brockton, Randolph, and Revere. IMO, towns that refuse to allow affordable housing in their town should be denied any state funding for schools or anything else. Lack of affordable housing is a real problem for the state and it's economy.

 

[bosdevelopment]

People in Weston don't want affordable development because of one reason only: the property values of abbutters decrease. tremendously. That's why people fought tooth and nail against a recent "affordable" housing development right off of route 30, where the average townhouse was selling for 400k, but the homes going up down Highland Ave were going on the market for 5kk.

Affordable housing is so different from town to town since, from what I understand, the affordable price is based the median home price in that town therefore affordable housing in Weston, Lincoln, and Sudbury will be much higher than affordable housing in say, Sharon, Needham, and Franklin where the prices will be lower and even lower for Brockton, Randolph, and Revere. IMO, towns that refuse to allow affordable housing in their town should be denied any state funding for schools or anything else. Lack of affordable housing is a real problem for the state and it's economy.

That's what Greenwich Connecticut does.

 

[singbat]

I believe that for Newton and ONLY Newton, low income housing would lead to an increased crime rate

Hmmmmm, insert Weston, Sudbury, Lincoln, Cohasset, Duxbury, and a hundred other towns for Newton in the above sentence and there you have the same sorry excuse why these towns fight not only low-income housing but AFFORDABLE housing in their towns. A few neighboring residents scare everyone into believing that affordable housing = low income housing which it isn't. Frankly, small pockets of low-income housing scattered about in wealthier communities would probably not have any impact on the crime rates of the towns. Poor people crave security and decent surroundings as much as anyone else.

They might crave that but they are also statistically more likely to commit crime. stop kidding yourselves, guys. rich people dont break into houses to take jewelry or mug people on the streets. poor people do. rich people dont join gangs and shoot rivals, poor people do. rich people take care of their kids and do what they can do to prevent drug use. poor people are much less likely to.

stop the bs and nonsense and lets stick to the facts here.

Dude, can't go with you there.

as you may remember I live in Lincoln. I have also lived eight or so years on Beacon Hill, a year on the Pond in Woods Hole, a year in Cambridge, 15 years in Rockport and two years in Manchester By The Sea -- in short: qualified to talk about privileged communities in MA. I've also lived in dumps in Lower Alston, Field's Corner, and Somerville south of Winter Hill -- to say nothing of various hallways and front porches around Greater Boston.

right now I live up the street from three tiers of "affordable" and actually affordable housing. the spread is clustered around the commuter rail. a low end condo enclave. just beyond that a cluster of odd ball (and generally elder's) apartment housing on one side of the tracks, along with some duplexes etc. And on the other side of the station a set of modern, but worn low end, apartments behind what passes for a supermarket. there has to be about 3 or 4 hundred total units of unrestricted quite affordable housing within what would be about 3 city blocks--and with T access and parking... sign me up.

my wife and i wandered over to a yard sale in one of the apartment complexes last weekend and saw a couple of older, non-Caucasian women in Walmart jerseys and lawn chairs apparently selling off their extra stuff before clearing out -- it wasn't great stuff at all, there wasn't much of it, and they were probably no better off then we were 12 years earlier when we were both in grad school loaded with debt and eating ramen with the heat off.

however, to get over there we had to leave a house (not ours) with an indoor pool, a squash court, and lit tennis courts out back without locking the door (that's fixed now...) no worries though -- guess what, there's a negative crime rate (i.e. you can drop a twenty and some helpful soul will help it get back to you). but that's definitely not because there's no poverty in Lincoln -- its less visible and there is less of it than Boston, but it is here.

I can vouch for a basically crime free status for all of the upscale areas I've lived in -- except Beacon Hill (which is easily the wealthiest and in some ways least connected with any affordable areas).

And each of those areas has hundreds of units of low end and low cost rental housing. Even housing with vinyl siding and cars on blocks out front. (Possible exception of Woods Hole which is too small to even have hundreds of potholes let alone apartments). Even Beacon Hill in the late 90s you could get a decent 1-bed apartment for $650 a month + electric without even paying a RE broker fee, if you didn't mind the "pets".

There is absolutely no reason to conflate low cost, working class, poverty, affordable with crime, or even necessarily reduced value for surrounding property owners.

in fact, you could make a case for a mix of housing that includes significant amounts of affordable units actually increasing property values for higher end units under well managed conditions. the most obvious case for that is the need for all income groups to have access to affordable facilities with cost effective service staff.

I could probably go on with this topic at length -- as someone else pointed out, MA has a crying need for more affordable housing (done well, hopefully). But let me just take a swipe at this:

rich people dont join gangs and shoot rivals, poor people do. rich people take care of their kids and do what they can do to prevent drug use. poor people are much less likely to.

Objectively wrong on two counts:

-- Rich people are as fond of gangs, clans, and similar associations as anyone else, see: South Africa before the end of apartheid, the oil fields of the Niger Delta, Russia's recent behavior towards its oligarchs, the upper fractional percent of wealth-holders in several Latin American nations, etc. Lucky we don't *see* more of that here in the US, but there is an underlying reason a hyperbolic story like Grosse Pointe Blank exists...

-- every strata of society loves its kids in equal measures and works for their success in life -- all you have to do is look at the struggles and cross generational cultural issues common to immigrant families to get a no-brainer example of this. and the rich fall down on this front as often as the poor do.


I'm liking your recent postings more than the earlier ones, but, I gotta stay it, you need to get out more...

 

[sidewalks]

off topic

Okay we're obviously off topic here but the discussion is interesting. I find it fascinating and somewhat amusing to watch people bend over backwards to allay liberal/white guilt. When your references begin to include white south African gangs and gross pointe blank I think you've begun to reach a little too far afield. There is nothing objective about the statements that you've made.

And though I am a deep believer in the immigrant struggle and ethos, your statements about all socioeconomic groups and cultures fighting equally hard for the welfare of their children strikes a false note in my opinion. Ask any teacher who has worked in both inner city schools and suburban schools and they will likely describe for you two radically different levels of involvement and dedication to student and child welfare. The term 'helicopter' parent has been coined in reference to many suburban parents who oversee every aspect of their child's education and social development. I'm not saying this is a positive social development, but it does show an extraordinary level of devotion to a child's welfare. I don't believe that the same thing can be said of nearly the same amount of parents in poorer communities. From what I have perceived, there are certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce cycles of poverty and certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce the success of upper middle class families. These are learned cultural behaviors but it seems to me that they do exist and it is somewhat naive to pretend that they don't.

 

[nico]

He said "-- every strata of society loves its kids in equal measures and works for their success in life"

The key words are "love" and "works for their success" Behaviors may be decidedly different, but it is hard to measure the love and the desire for children to succeed across different economic classes.

I would be interested to see how you could back up the claim/assumption that there exists a greater level of "devotion" among suburban parents. I have no data one way or the other, only anecdotal evidence...but it would be interesting to see.

 

[singbat]

Re: off topic

Okay we're obviously off topic here but the discussion is interesting. I find it fascinating and somewhat amusing to watch people bend over backwards to allay liberal/white guilt. When your references begin to include white south African gangs and gross pointe blank I think you've begun to reach a little too far afield. There is nothing objective about the statements that you've made.

what makes you think i'm white or liberal? just wondering? got an opinion on my gender?

what's not objective about the references to those high powered small groups with murderous track records? I'm taking NYT reporting, etc. at face value. if it's the international flavor (i.e. not apples to apples), sorry, that's where my head is at. I have no doubt someone with more of an domestic urban social policy bent could hit closer to home.

I stuck GPB in there for fun, but also by way of saying that behind every myth is a kernel of truth. and America definitely does have a set of conspiracy myths around powerful ruthless people acting in shadowy "gangs" to control assets, social groups, politics, etc. perhaps beneath the layers of paranoia there is some small truth there? could be.

 

[singbat]

Re: off topic

Okay we're obviously off topic here

but we're having fun, right? Van can always move us into another thread...

I'm not saying this is a positive social development, but it does show an extraordinary level of devotion to a child's welfare. I don't believe that the same thing can be said of nearly the same amount of parents in poorer communities. From what I have perceived, there are certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce cycles of poverty and certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce the success of upper middle class families. These are learned cultural behaviors but it seems to me that they do exist and it is somewhat naive to pretend that they don't.

i have quite a bit of experience with relatively to very poor Chinese, Vietnamese, Bulgarian, Ugandan, and UK immigrant families, and some involvement with Indian immigrants. my experience says you are off-base. you haven't seen "hovering" parents until you've met a Chinese family with young children (its so good Hollywood has a whole sub-genre around the subject). and i've never encountered anything quite like the reach of a Ugandan family sending its children to live in the US even though the parents couldn't come with just to get them into a better school.

 

[KentXie]

Re: off topic

From what I have perceived, there are certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce cycles of poverty and certain behaviors that contribute to and reinforce the success of upper middle class families. These are learned cultural behaviors but it seems to me that they do exist and it is somewhat naive to pretend that they don't.

What you percieve is the amount of money, not behavior. Poorer families can't always afford good education like private schools and such that wealthier family can. As you can tell, public school in Boston is horrendous but its the only choice poorer families have. Having money gives wealthy families' children the ability to join better colleges, jump start on their own businesses, and etc. What you percieve is only part of the those who are in poverty who join gangs and commits crimes, etc. These stem from the lack of proper help from school to give kids the proper education they need. Others try the best to make it into the world and trust me, it's not that damn easy. Many of you believe that it is easy to be successful. The answer is no, its not. Determination and good education may not get you the life you desire. Especially in Boston where jobs are scarce and housing prices are ridiculously high. And addition to that, many of the wealthier kids become successful through connection that they recieve from their parents' jobs or their friends. Immigrant parents don't have the luxury of having connections to high-paying companies and jobs. It's not just behavior that causes this cycle.