City Hall Discussion - Redevelopment - Preservation - Relocation

kz1000ps said:
The Dudley Square concept sounds interesting. Alas, I've been in Boston for a little over two years now and I have yet to go there and explore. Shame on me, but anyway I need to get down there and see for myself what a City Hall could do for that mini-hub.

I'm just not crazy about putting it out on the waterfront.. that place appears to be a total loss, and I'm guessing architecturally it would add to that disaster (one more blockbusting building to sterilize the pedestrian experience), so I say let's put it in an area where it's one-use program will do the least harm.
Click to expand...

I agree with kz. All the talk about the waterfront holding the Fed. court house, a new FBI building and a new city hall is causing me to worry a bit. The South Boston waterfront area is criss-crossed with tunnel openings, bridges, highways and heavy industrial sites (around the terminals). The convention center footprint is already huge, as will be the new mall. The Back Bay and the South End are successful neighborhoods in part because of the concentration of buildable land that is not interrupted by large single-purpose government buildings and that actually encourages the kind of buildings that attract pedestrians, commerce and enjoyment. Just look at Government Center, with its vast expanse of useless pedestrian-level real estate: 1-3 Center Plaza, JFK, Paul Rudolph's building, city hall, etc. Even the Sears Block, which was supposed to have a lot of plaza-level activity, has become predominently office/business oriented.
 
I've been to dudley and its terrible. the IDEA would be to transform the area, but what happens if it backfires? City Hall is in the ghetto and that would be a real embarrassment to the city. At least SBWF is safe choice.
 
I hate to sound PC, but one person's ghetto is another's paradise. A ghetto is simply a socially and sometimes economically, homogeneous area. City Hall is presently located in a kind of "government ghetto" what with the federal bldg., the court houses (3 of them), school committee headquarters, and the state office buildings. There has been tremendous economic change in Roxbury in the past 30 years, and all indications are that it will continue. Having City Hall in the Dudley Sq. section may bring lots of support system development: restaurants, shops, hotels, etc., which will add to the diversity of the area. I'm not supporting Dudley Sq. exclusively, but it is one of many locales for a new City Hall that is, indeed, on the T and bus lines. If there is not enough land to build, then build up. Lot's of cities have tall city halls. I kind of wish we were able to get our hands on the old Post Office Sq. courthouse. I still think the waterfront would be a waste of prime real estate.
 
I hate to sound PC, but one person's ghetto is another's paradise. A ghetto is simply a socially and sometimes economically, homogeneous area

So, Weston, Lincoln, and Sudbury are ghetto's?
 
A "ghetto" was originally a place where Jews were required to live. More broadly, it's any place with a predominant ethnic group. So, until recently, Southie was an Irish ghetto, the North End an Italian ghetto. The Jewish ghetto was once Mattapan but is now Brookline and Sharon.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
And in todays parlance, a ghetto is where poor blacks are relegated.
Click to expand...

yeah, lets be realistic here. ghettos are shitty high-crime areas with a large preponderance of minorities and crappy schools. namely, roxbury and dorchester.
 
This is all true. A ghetto is no longer a place where the Nazi's forced the Jews to live in impoverished conditions (e.g. Warsaw circa WWII). It is a poor, slum of a neighborhood (or entire town, depending on where you are *cough cough,* New Bedford). It is defined by (many of) it's inhabitants complete and utter lack of compassion and value for human life. Usually high in terms of crime rate, vacant and low income housing (and liquor stores and pawn shops).

Essentially. Shit holes. very undesirable locales.

One comment i will disagree on, is someone mentioned that they are for Blacks. I'm not going to go calling that racist, but it's not entirely true. It's easy to get that impression, because Ghettos are usually defined by the predominant ethnic group there (e.g. blacks), but it's not simply black. There can be Spanish ghettos, Puerto Rican ghettos, Korean ghettos, etc. (some would even say Southie at one time was an Irish ghetto). But today, they are simply poor, vacant, distressed neighborhoods sometimes with a dominant ethnic group.

However, no Ghetto is devoid of the ability to be rescued. Parts of Harlem, NY for example are a lot cleaner and more desirable (in fact, My uncle lives in a luxury condo on 119th and Madison, he's white and still alive. it's been 4 years and it's actually quite nice.). They can be saved. Dudley Square (if it even is "ghetto"... i wouldn't know, never been) can most likely be saved with the right amount of attention. from the looks of it, a city hall would be a nice way to start a renaissance of sorts. It seems like it could be turned into what could be called an "eclectic" neighborhood featuring decent restaurants, stores, and entertainment. Granted it won't be Newbury Street, but putting city hall there won't be wasting waterfront space, and it'll be centrally located on transit hubs. in the long run, it doesn't seem like a terrible idea.
 
Lrfox said:
This is all true. A ghetto is no longer a place where the Nazi's forced the Jews to live in impoverished conditions (e.g. Warsaw circa WWII).
Click to expand...

To be precise, it was mediaeval Venetians who forced their Jews into the 'Ghetto', a neighborhood in northern Venice named for the word for 'foundry' in the local dialect.

justin
 
justin said:
Lrfox said:
This is all true. A ghetto is no longer a place where the Nazi's forced the Jews to live in impoverished conditions (e.g. Warsaw circa WWII).
Click to expand...

To be precise, it was mediaeval Venetians who forced their Jews into the 'Ghetto', a neighborhood in northern Venice named for the word for 'foundry' in the local dialect.

justin
Click to expand...

Thanks, truly the route of the word. I don't mean to be racist but in Mass and in many Northern cities ghetto is synonymous with poor black area. Especially given the fact of red lining, forcing poor blacks into one area.
 
Thank you for clearing up the root of the word, I did not know that at all. I wasn't trying to state the root of the word, just an earlier example that i thought of.

While most Ghetto's especially in Northern Cities (Boston is considered to be one of the most racially intolerant cities in the country) are associated with poor blacks, not all of them are. Fall River has a Cambodian ghetto, and New Bedford has a VERY Guatemalan ghetto (in fact, over 100 of them were caught by the feds working illegally in a factory last month). I guess it's safe to say that for the Most part, they're associated with blacks, it's a bit too much of a generalization to say that "ghettos are for poor blacks, period"(and I'm all for generalizations if they're somewhat accurate, after all, stereotypes wouldn't exist without some truth).

My point was, based on the limited knowledge i have of the area, City hall at Dudley Square doesn't sound like a bad idea. they [the square and the city hall] could benefit off of each other.
 
I'm out of here ...

Haha. I edited this post. I just don't care enough about someone writing a bunch of baloney. So, revised:

Dorchester has some good parts and some bad parts. That's city living!
 
ahahaha @ imangry. good stuff

go to savin hill and tell me thats ghetto. there are plenty of good parts of dot too.

and seriously, we all know what a ghetto is i dont need 15 explainations.
 
Lrfox said:
While most Ghetto's especially in Northern Cities (Boston is considered to be one of the most racially intolerant cities in the country) are associated with poor blacks, not all of them are. Fall River has a Cambodian ghetto, and New Bedford has a VERY Guatemalan ghetto.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the black association only exists in the major cities of the north. In small and medium sized cities the correlation of blacks and ghetto areas ceases to be so regular. Burlington, VT, where I attended college, has a very run down section of the city that is predominantly white. Fall river is, what, 90,000 for a population? Though large, I think it is still too small to have witnessed the same history as the major manufacturing centers of the north and west, like Boston, chicago, L.A., etc. where blacks migrated to in large numbers from the south to seek better employment and subsequently were relegated to a very inferior inner city status while whites flocked to the beginnings of what later became suburbia. I have noticed in cities under 150,000 there usually are not concentrated ethnic or racial ghettos unless you get into public housing for waves of immigrats that all come here from other countries at the same time. off topic, I know, I'll stop before dude accuses me of being too smart or invading boston topics again.
 
Re: I'm out of here ...

IMAngry said:
Haha. I edited this post. I just don't care enough about some imbecile writing a bunch of baloney. So, revised:

yeah, lets be realistic here. ghettos are shitty high-crime areas with a large preponderance of minorities and crappy schools. namely, roxbury and dorchester.
Click to expand...

Dude, you continually impress me with your fucking stupidity, naivety and ignorance.

Dorchester is a neighborhood of 60,000 residents. Can you even find it on a map? Have you even been through there? The neighborhood isn't a "ghetto". The name doesn't fit the reality.

The name doesn't fit any neighborhood in Boston.

Roxbury has pockets of crime, of course. However, to label the whole entire neighborhood a "ghetto" is stupid. Again, have you even been there? Ever driven through there?

You seem to thrive on making ignorant comments, raising people's ire, then defending yourself. What's up with that?

Has it ever occurred to you that you don't know shit about stuff?
Click to expand...

I thought DOT had closer to 95,000 residents? Was it ever a separate city? I was driving into Boston one time last Spring after looking for a place to live in Brookline, on the West Roxbury line, and I headed past some hospitals, then hit a really run down section of the city, where there were a lot of tripple deckers (but the housing stock was varied) and there were very few white people, it seemed to be populated primarily by African Americans, and there was duct tape holding some front doors together, some windows were barred, and there were no services (like gas stations or convenient stores...etc...) any idea where this could have been? it didn't seem like a ghetto as has been defined above, but it sure wasn't kansas anymore, Toto.
 
Yes, Patrick, Dorchester does have about 90,000 residents. It was, indeed, a separate city until annexed by Boston. Formally a Yankee stronghold like Boston, and filled with farms and industry since the founding of Boston in 1730 (the oldest water mill in America and the first chocolate mill, is in Lower Mills, Dorchester), it remained fairly sparsely populated until the 19th C. Eventually Dorchester Ave. was cut through as a toll road (ever wonder why it's so straight??!) A "street car" suburb, it grew tremendously due to the extension of public transportation (the only trolley that goes through a cemetery is in Lower Mills) and the invention of the triple decker, which gave all residents plenty of air circulation, a front and back porch, and room to grow. The history of Dorchester is unique; the first public school in the American colonies is said to have been in Dorchester (though the honor is disputed by Boston's first schoolhouse on School St.). With the waves of Irish immigrants in the 19th C., Dorchester became known for it's Catholic parish-named neighborhoods. In fact the polling district lines were the same as the parish lines. Thus one used to identify his/her neighborhood by parish names: St. Gregory (the oldest), St. Peter, St. Anne, St. Mark, etc....even if one were not Catholic. Dorchester was annexed by Boston as a means for the city to grow, and as a way for neighboring towns to take advantage of central services. Roxbury, Readville, Dorchester, Allston, Brighton, Mattapan, Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Hyde Park, Charlestown, and West Roxbury were all independent at one time and annexed around the same time. Notably absent is Brookline, which juts into the land-mass of Boston. Brookline refused to be annexed and thus remains an independent town. Lots of information can be gleaned from the Arcadia Book Publications found in larger book stores on various town and cities.
 
Padre Mike said:
since the founding of Boston in 1730
Click to expand...

1630

Mattapan was never an independent town (it was part of Dorchester)
Readville was never an independent town (it's part of Hyde Park)
JP was never an independent town (it was part of Roxbury, then was divided between Roxbury and West Roxbury when the latter broke off from the former)
Roslindale was part of first Roxbury, then West Roxbury
Allston was never an independent town (it was part of Brighton)
 
Thank you Ron! Of course you are correct. Writing from memory has it's limitations (getting too lazy to check resources)! Your informative note indicates how very complicated the development of neighborhoods in Boston has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top