I'm still waiting for Arch21 to blame Obama for this.
Moderators:
Moderators:
Heres a timeline. the First sign of development was 2007 that's 14 years after he becomes mayor. That's sad no matter what party you are. I don't go on this forum for commentary. I go on here for status updates, links and pictures. There is only so many times you can read how shiny a building is.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/about-us/timeline
It pains me to say it (or even to think it) but if the choice for Boston development is "too slow" or "too fast" I'll go with "too slow".
Of course, they shouldn't be the only choices.
By the way -- anyone have anything current on what is happening at Copley
Copley Place high-rise, facing opposition, stalls
Cranes and skyscrapers are springing up all over Boston, but a massive development proposed for Copley Place still isn’t any closer to breaking ground after almost seven years of planning.
The project, a 52-story tower and an expanded Neiman Marcus department store, was scheduled to receive approval Thursday by the Boston Redevelopment Authority but was pulled from the agenda at the last minute because of continued neighborhood opposition. The developer, Simon Property Group, has repeatedly clashed with housing activists over how many of the tower’s residential units would be priced as affordable.
The tower would have 542 units of housing, of which 76 would be affordable. Community groups have been pressing for a much higher percentage, and the BRA elected to hold off approval because of the opposition.
...
Feel free to move this post to a more appropriate location:
Is there any requirement on the quality of the "affordable" housing? Developers' bottom lines are being seriously harmed by requiring more and more "affordable" units, and this is yet another disincentive for building in Boston, continuing to artificially restrict supply, much more than an unrestricted market would.
So: is it possible for a developer to build the affordable units off-site, or at a lower quality/cost, so as to get a building built?
Developers' bottom lines are being seriously harmed by requiring more and more "affordable" units, and this is yet another disincentive for building in Boston, continuing to artificially restrict supply, much more than an unrestricted market would.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm genuinely curious: Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this? Can you show that a less restricted market wouldn't cater even more to the wealthiest buyers and renters? Are there studies that show or even suggest that affordable housing requirements drive prices higher than unregulated markets?
GW:
Here is a link to a paper by economists that are way smarter than I am:
The Effect of Supply and Demand Factors on the
Affordability of Rental Housing
That's some kid's undergrad thesis/senior project.