General Boston Discussion

Bos77 said:
Yea, and the message it sends when it's torn down for a parking lot and then police station.

We all grow up with our biases of what is, or isn't a good neighborhood. What we fail to think about in our casual ignorance of that place or people are the outside forces that caused the rot to begin with - and that those same forces could lift the community up again (and do not by choice). As a suburban kid who grew up in the 90s, I never used to understand the anger of West Enders, or why Boston was so combustible in the early 70s, but I get it now. It was a city under siege from all sides, so my neighbors could benefit. How does one carry on, when your home and your community are valued less than a parking lot, or a ribbon of asphalt for suburban drivers?
Click to expand...
I blame a lot of the devastation of large sections of Boston in the 1950s/60s on the unrestrained use of eminent domain, a tool which enabled Boston and the State to take over and level vast neighborhoods with little or no public input. The Washington Park area of Roxbury, the West End, the GC area, the NY City Streets area, South Cove, and others were destroyed at the Government's whim. The low-income people living there did not have the financial resources or political clout to stop the rampage. If it wasn't for Cambridge's unified opposition to the Inner Belt, and the political clout of Tip O'Neill and others at the time, the Inner Belt, SW Expressway, and NW Expressway all would have been built through Roxbury, Cambridge, and Somerville.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
Great post and an important subject that, unfortunately, is not just something that happened decades ago but is still very much happening. The poor continue to be warehoused in new proposed public housing developments that are cramped and isolated (i.e. the proposed Jefferson Park low-income housing development in North Cambridge as one example), while the well-to-do continue to live in their secure upscale enclaves. A lot has not changed since the 1950s and 60s in that regard, and in some ways has gotten worse due to the increasing income disparity between the wealthy and the poor.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point there half-way, Charlie.

Where I don't follow is: You get what you pay for. If I can only pay $5,000 for a car, I don't expect the government to swoop in and give me a BMW. You get what you pay for.

Where I do follow is the income disparity part. Our society, through income tax and estate tax policies has, for decades, widened the gulf between rich and poor. What IS encouraging on that situation now is the "Great Resignation" of the past year has forced corporations to restructure and pay workers far better than ever before. These demographics (Baby Boomers retiring at tidal wave levels and much smaller succeeding generations having far better wage leverage for all job openings) may very well start turning that tide. We should be REWARDING work, not punishing it.

Hopefully, better pay and more dignity for work will translate into more of the currently downtrodden classes gaining the ability to fish, instead of being patronized (and kept dependent on local pols) with handouts of fish. THAT is empowerment.
 
I actually agree with you. I'm fairly conservative in my politics and believe the best solution for income disparity in this country is to free up the economy, loosen restrictions and thereby give people more freedom to get better jobs and livelihoods. I grew up poor, neither of my parents even finished high school (not unusual back then), but I was able to go to college, get a BS degree and a masters degree, and have a good career in civil engineering. So yeah, hard work is the answer, but a free society as well is required so that the hard work will pay off. My main point in my above post was the elitism I see these days from the upper classes to the poorer class, The Jefferson Park low-income housing proposal in North Cambridge is really bothering me, more than it should, but then again, I did grow up there so it cuts close to home, literally. I see a bureaucratic elite that just warehouses the poor into these dense developments, and it's wrong. Will these poor ever escape from this place? When I was a kid, yes, the poor could move up out of the projects, because housing was affordable back in the 1950s and 60s, and so was everything else, and upward mobility was entirely possible. Now I think people are much more stuck where they are. Not me personally; I've done well, but I see the place I grew up (the projects) as a dead-end now for people instead of the stepping stone it was decades ago.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I actually agree with you. I'm fairly conservative in my politics and believe the best solution for income disparity in this country is to free up the economy, loosen restrictions and thereby give people more freedom to get better jobs and livelihoods. I grew up poor, neither of my parents even finished high school (not unusual back then), but I was able to go to college, get a BS degree and a masters degree, and have a good career in civil engineering. So yeah, hard work is the answer, but a free society as well is required so that the hard work will pay off. My main point in my above post was the elitism I see these days from the upper classes to the poorer class, The Jefferson Park low-income housing proposal in North Cambridge is really bothering me, more than it should, but then again, I did grow up there so it cuts close to home, literally. I see a bureaucratic elite that just warehouses the poor into these dense developments, and it's wrong. Will these poor ever escape from this place? When I was a kid, yes, the poor could move up out of the projects, because housing was affordable back in the 1950s and 60s, and so was everything else, and upward mobility was entirely possible. Now I think people are much more stuck where they are. Not me personally; I've done well, but I see the place I grew up (the projects) as a dead-end now for people instead of the stepping stone it was decades ago.
Click to expand...

I've always been moved by the account of your childhood and journey out of the projects, Charlie. That ohas affected my thoughts regarding the whole "teaching someone to fish instead of simply giving them a fish" parable. If I may be so forward, my wild guess is that there was someone, or some people - - perhaps a teacher, coach, mentor - - who helped you to accelerate to (as the space mission people put it) "exit velocity". Correct me if I'm way off-base here (and in respect, I mean to tread very carefully here), but I'm guessing you were someone who benefited from one of those mentors. My guess is "winning that lottery" makes all the difference in the world and is the Delta between you and scores of kids who didn't make it out. Our society hasn't done enough. And much of what is has done, has been ineffectual.

THIS is where municipal policy can up its game:
1) Expand what Mayor Wu just did with those first 3 free bus routes (help prospective fishers get to the damn pond). Last week's news should be celebrated as a milestone.
2) MIXED income projects, instead of shunting (enabling prospective fishers to live at the pond). What you wrote is powerful about the "shunting". Ease the development hurdles for high rise residential as long as 25%+ of a building is affordable or subsidized.
3) More mentorship programs (fishing teachers)

Just as it is written that the average human uses less than 10% of one's full brainpower, we are wasting (cruelly) human potential.

.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
I actually agree with you. I'm fairly conservative in my politics and believe the best solution for income disparity in this country is to free up the economy, loosen restrictions and thereby give people more freedom to get better jobs and livelihoods. I grew up poor, neither of my parents even finished high school (not unusual back then), but I was able to go to college, get a BS degree and a masters degree, and have a good career in civil engineering. So yeah, hard work is the answer, but a free society as well is required so that the hard work will pay off. My main point in my above post was the elitism I see these days from the upper classes to the poorer class, The Jefferson Park low-income housing proposal in North Cambridge is really bothering me, more than it should, but then again, I did grow up there so it cuts close to home, literally. I see a bureaucratic elite that just warehouses the poor into these dense developments, and it's wrong. Will these poor ever escape from this place?
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused. You say that you're conservative in your politics, but wasn't it conservative policies in the 80s under Reagan that started the snowball rolling which lead to today's wealth gap? Folk (at least in this country) who describe themselves as "conservative" usually aren't the same ones who care about propping up poor people.
 
Blackbird said:
I'm a bit confused. You say that you're conservative in your politics, but wasn't it conservative policies in the 80s under Reagan that started the snowball rolling which lead to today's wealth gap? Folk (at least in this country) who describe themselves as "conservative" usually aren't the same ones who care about propping up poor people.
Click to expand...

Liberals aren't either. Their policies have been patronizing to keeping the poor down and dependent on the system. Handouts versus a hand up. Some surmise the goal has been to develop a captive voting base. I'm not sure that was the intent. But it sure has been the result. Keep the poor dependent and just ok to survive but not to thrive.

Conservatives have, for the most part, been cold-hearted and simply selfish.

Conservatives (no sympathy) AND Liberals (fake sympathy) have been wrong all along. We need a 3rd way - INTEGRATION both spatially and economically. Mayor Wu's move to start making some T routes free is, hopefully a harbinger of things to come. Promote mobility and access to the tools to learn how to fish. Break down the walls holding people back.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Liberals aren't either. Their policies have been patronizing to keeping the poor down and dependent on the system. Handouts versus a hand up. Some surmise the goal has been to develop a captive voting base. I'm not sure that was the intent. But it sure has been the result. Keep the poor dependent and just ok to survive but not to thrive.
Click to expand...

Have they? In the case of Charlie, he would’ve grown up in the era of Johnson’s War on Poverty right? Besides Romneycare (and subsequent Obamacare) have welfare programs in the US really expanded so much since the 60s?

“Handout” rhetoric feels like something spread by conservatives in an attempt to convince people that trickle-down economics aren’t why so many people are stuck in poverty.
 
Blackbird said:
Have they? In the case of Charlie, he would’ve grown up in the era of Johnson’s War on Poverty right? Besides Romneycare (and subsequent Obamacare) have welfare programs in the US really expanded so much since the 60s?

“Handout” rhetoric feels like something spread by conservatives in an attempt to convince people that trickle-down economics aren’t why so many people are stuck in poverty.
Click to expand...

If you read my post, you would clearly see I am anti-conservative. No one could be so blind as to miss:
"Conservatives have, for the most part, been cold-hearted and simply selfish. Conservatives (no sympathy) AND Liberals (fake sympathy) have been wrong all along..."

The fact that you made the conclusion from THAT is odd, but characteristic of a true believer.

There needs to be a 3rd way. Limousine Liberal handouts don't work. Selfish Conservative misanthropism doesn't work either. Hand ups do. Someone with empathy would want to enable escape from dependance, not preservation of dependence.

Mayor Wu is on the right track towards breaking down the walls of dependence with the beginning of that free bus route idea. I enumerated 2 other policy needs ( more mixed income housing and more mentor outreach programs). You, evidently, concluded that is a Conservative bent. You can attach whatever partisan prism you want. Anyone with a reading comprehension will see it for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Me, I'm neither a conservatives nor a liberal. Both political sides have their proxies in the media pushing their propaganda, most of which is just phony hype designed to increase media ratings and divide the working class along racial and other lines. Besides, the terms "liberal" or "conservative" can be parsed a dozen different ways on any given issue, and to me they are just counter-productive meaningless labels.

Regarding the affordable housing issue, I realize public housing and Government rent supplements are a necessary interim measure, but the Government should be enabling lower income people to afford a home or condo. What I propose is to give residents of public housing the option of actually purchasing their unit, with robust Government assistance to make it affordable. Then the occupant would have pride of ownership, and the quality of life in public housing developments would be greatly improved. Or for low income people not living in a public housing development, just provide them with funding to buy a home or condo.
 
Similar to Ode to Brutalism; should there be an Ode to POMO? I drove by 1 Bowdoin Square the other day and thought to myself that's a goner once the blue line extension starts. That will be torn down for storage of materials. Should it be remembered here before it is forgotten?
 
dhawkins said:
Similar to Ode to Brutalism; should there be an Ode to POMO? I drove by 1 Bowdoin Square the other day and thought to myself that's a goner once the blue line extension starts. That will be torn down for storage of materials. Should it be remembered here before it is forgotten?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any plans that would require the taking of this building for the BLX to Charles project. The project ROW limits would be confined to the existing streets and sidewalks,
 
Ironically, actually at risk with the RBX would be the Bowdoin headhouse itself. It's a poorly designed headhouse and nobody's favorite piece of brutalism, but it was designed by Josep Lluís Sert.
 
The EGE said:
Ironically, actually at risk with the RBX would be the Bowdoin headhouse itself. It's a poorly designed headhouse and nobody's favorite piece of brutalism, but it was designed by Josep Lluís Sert.
Click to expand...
I kind of like this one, though when it goes it won't break my heart. It has a definite sixties look, which I generally like.

800px-Bowdoin_station_headhouse_from_the_south%2C_April_2017.JPG
 
So I was looking at the Wikipedia article on city populations from the 2020 census, which has skyline photos of each city, and I looked at the photos from #1 (New York) to #24 (Boston). Out of the 24, Boston shares the distinction with Fort Worth of having only 1 picture, and the picture being under 1000 pixels along both dimensions. All other cities have multiple pictures, and with the exception of Philly, at least one picture in the set is over 1000 pixels along one or both dimensions. It's as if Wikipedia were the Hitchhiker's Guide the entries would be "Fort Worth: Harmless" and "Boston: Mostly Harmless".

This is a pattern I see over and over, especially with articles answering questions like "Which Cities Have the Most X" or "The Best Cities for X" etc. In a lot of cases, I'd say Boston is in the top 10% for X but is never mentioned in the article. The only articles of that sort where Boston gets consistently mention are about walkability or bad traffic, so I put up this post to hopefully get some feedback from aB members on why that happens.

Note that I'm asking about ordinary commonplace things intended for the general public and not about things like "Which cities are the best for treating cancer with advanced CRISPR techniques". Thoughts, anyone?
 
I think your last sentence is the answer. Boston is famous for a lot of great things but not necessarily things the average person/internet writer cares a lot about. To compete for talent, Boston needs to be able to do both: best cities for treating cancer with advanced CRISPR techniques and best cities for boozy brunches/best shopping cities/best [insert x] food scene. What is frustrating is the city has accomplished the hard part in creating a world class business and innovation ecosystem but frequently gets hung up on the cultural side.
 
True. Plus I think a lot of the US population thinks Boston lacks glamor. It has a lot of history but it doesn't have a lot of glamor, so the people who write those articles choose cities they consider more glamorous instead.
 
Java King said:
World's Top 10 Beach-Transit Connections: The Best Cities Where You Can Take Rail To the Beach! - YouTube

Boston is number 7 ahead of Sydney, Australia!!! I find a lot of these type of lists where Boston ranks very high in walkability, transit, restaurants, livability, green space, etc.
Click to expand...

I find a lot of these types of lists too. The problem is that for every one of these lists that include Boston I find 5 or 10 or 15 lists (depending on subject) that I think should include Boston but don't. It's as if someone is writing a "Top 10 cities for X" list and eleven cities qualify Boston is the one that's going to get dropped. I admit that's just a gut feeling, but things like Wikipedia's single tiny photo of Boston vs. the extravagant photo albums of other cities tends to support that feeling.

I guess my ego was just bruised by the shabby inferior treatment the Wikipedia article gave Boston that I had to come here to vent. Sorry for the distraction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top