General Boston Discussion

You have to build projects next door to major transit hubs (like Tremont Crossing at Ruggles to at least 400~450'). Build like Seattle and Vancouver. 284' instead of just shy of 400' is epic fail, and a classic example of a neighborhood and 1 or 2 councilors conspiring to effectively, shoot themselves in the foot. The 100' lost off each tower, and additionally, the hotel space would have paid for scores of additional housing units–that now, will not be built. ...and a huge opportunity lost.
 
Wasn't sure where else to post this (seems there's no general North End thread):

City to break ground on North Square Reconstruction Project.

Also, there's a call to artists for public art:
http://www.publicartboston.com/content/north-square-public-art-project-deadline-14

NSQ.jpg


Article:
https://northendwaterfront.com/2017/10/north-square-reconstruction-groundbreaking-october-11th/
 
Equilibria said:
I've got no idea where to put this, but a specific page from this company was posted on the Omni Hotel thread. There's a lot of interesting unbuilt stuff here.

https://www.tangram3ds.com/3d-visualization/mixed-use-market/
Click to expand...

Cool. I wonder if all of those unbuilt renders (e.g., the Kenmore Square Gensler building) are scrapped projects or if any of them are still coming.

Interesting too that they have tenant-specific renders (e.g., Digitas office renders in Hub on Causeway) that were presumably used by brokers.
 
JumboBuc said:
Cool. I wonder if all of those unbuilt renders (e.g., the Kenmore Square Gensler building) are scrapped projects or if any of them are still coming.

Interesting too that they have tenant-specific renders (e.g., Digitas office renders in Hub on Causeway) that were presumably used by brokers.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes me think that some of these are still coming - these aren't really "unbuilt" as much as they are drafts (unless you look at the arcologies...).

We know that something is coming at that Kenmore location, for instance. I'm also curious about the "Confidential" one that's clearly South Station for Hines. It resembles what they've proposed on one end, so I wonder if a bigger proposal is coming if they ever get the first phase off the ground.

We dodged a bullet on the Hub on Causeway residential tower, according to this.
 
btownboss4 said:
Bostonians as a whole aren't obsessed with anyone, that's where the nickname "the Hub of the Universe" came from not because Boston is actually the Hub of the Universe but because Bostonians cared so little about the world outside there City. During the Cold War there was a joke that if NYC was nuked the Boston Globe would publish a headline like "Boston Man dies in NYC nuclear blast"
Click to expand...

iAMtheVVALRUS said:
I remember a few years back a friend of mine from NYC was shocked that I didn’t know about NYC’s proposal to ban sugary beverages. New Yorkers are smug enough to think that everyone within a 1000mi radius of “the city” must be intimately aware of the goings on there. In a general sense, however, Boston couldn’t care less.
Click to expand...

MarketStEl said:
When I lived there, I heard a somewhat more elaborate joke on that same theme.

It concerned a Boston matron who had never left the city. ("Why should I travel when I'm already here?" was one of the "Bostonisms" displayed in supergraphics on the wall at "Where's Boston?", a popular multiscreen film shown to tourists in the 1970s and 1980s.)

Her relatives in Iowa had repeatedly implored her to pay them a visit so she could see the country and their home. She finally relented and took a train out to visit.

When they picked her up at the train station, they figured she would have all sorts of things to say about her trip. "How was your trip?" they asked. "What did you see? How did you come here?"

"Via Dedham," was her terse reply.
Click to expand...

"Two Boston Women Dead in Volcanic Eruption"

subhead over the lead column: "Japan Destroyed."

:)
 
I nominate this thread to be the dumping ground for all manner of discussion about rents, regulation, and residential in general. Let's keep it respectful but here we are probably allowed to be wider-ranging in topic.

To continue a thought from the 1 Dalton thread:

I don't think infill is a strong enough housing policy for long-term regional stability. I'd like to see more cities in the US explore a return to public housing as a paradigm, learning from the mistakes of the post-war years. I mean this formally and economically. I'd rather the state try and maybe fail to change people's lives for the better than to concede that the market isn't going to do it and that's just the way it is.
 
cadetcarl said:
I nominate this thread to be the dumping ground for all manner of discussion about rents, regulation, and residential in general. Let's keep it respectful but here we are probably allowed to be wider-ranging in topic.

To continue a thought from the 1 Dalton thread:

I don't think infill is a strong enough housing policy for long-term regional stability. I'd like to see more cities in the US explore a return to public housing as a paradigm, learning from the mistakes of the post-war years. I mean this formally and economically. I'd rather the state try and maybe fail to change people's lives for the better than to concede that the market isn't going to do it and that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Really? Public Housing to be built by the State? Why? I don't accept that it is the Taxpayers' responsibility to provide housing. I believe that the population should be self-sustaining and provide for its own food, clothing & shelter. Of course there are exceptions for mentally ill homeless people who cannot fend for themselves, a very small percentage of the population.

Are you saying that the State must build a modern form of what I grew up calling "The Projects"?

Moto
 
We sure did learn a lot from the age of public housing from the post-WWII era through Johnson's Great Society to its unceremonious twilight during the Regan-era.

The problem we face is the widely differing weight assigned to lessons learned, and the methods of value-analysis used to better understand and apply them. How to put those lessons into action for the betterment of society is a job for someone a lot smarter (and wiser) than anyone currently in elected office. Alas, the move has been to uses aspects of these lessons to shore up political ideologies that only serve those in power (on the Right and the Left)...
 
Last edited:
Yes Moto, I mean public housing, and you may call it the projects if you want. I do.

I believe it's possible to want the general public to fend for itself but I also observe that this is not, and has never been the case. I observe that the state executes a great many functions for the benefit of the general public. I think having different opinions on which functions should be the domain of the state is one of the fundamental purposes of politics.

I do not think the state must build public houses; in the ideal world everyone would be able to afford a place to live. In this sense I do not think the state must build a military because there might not be any need to defend itself. I observe that we do not live in that world. I think we live in a world in which the state, or society, prefers certain outcomes, and may step in to induce them directly or indirectly.

I think one such outcome is vibrant cities and regions with stable economies, which require people at all levels of income in our current economic system. It is not sustainable to bus your entire service sector from two hours away because housing is more affordable there.

I do not regard being accused of wanting public housing as an insult; there are failures in the past that I don't want to gloss over but there are places in the world doing this right now to great effect. The term "projects" is only pejorative if you look for the worst examples. And anyway they're not free; I just happen to think that the number of people who are having a hard time "fending for themselves" to use your terms is much larger than a very small percentage of the population.
 
Well certainly there are literally 1,000s of potential building sites in Boston proper that could be used for publically-built housing, especially with the State's powers of eminent domain. I would hope that the model used is better than, say, the Symphony-Towers style of design on Mass. Ave. from the late '70s.

if you accept that land acquisition is not an issue, I would think that the political landscape currently in power in Boston & Massachusetts (i. e. Democrats like Marty Walsh & RINOs like Charlie Baker) would be ripe for accomplishing such housing without much opposition. In other words, there's never been a better time than now to get this done.

The cost of construction is an issue & always has been: i. e. the cost to build housing units exceeds the market rents so the formula needs subsidy either on the cost side or the expense (rent) side.

My opinion is that we're better off with deed-restricted owned units not rental units. Other parts of the country have named this "employee housing" such as Aspen, CO. There, each market-rate development is also required to build a number of employee housing units sold to qualified persons & resold with deed restrictions.

Boston has similar requirements as you know but they are rentals not owned. So One Dalton & 30 Dalton have some "affordable" rental units & the developers also paid into a housing trust for the City to build additional units.

In my professional career, I have been exposed to the inner-workings of this program and I can tell you that the City of Boston DOES NOT execute its side of the deal very efficiently.

food for thought.

Moto
 
Public housing does not work. All it does is concentrate poverty in one place and effectively create ghettos.

The current solution of including an affordable component in most projects is better. Mixed income housing does not have the concentration of issues that public housing does.
 
cadetcarl said:
I nominate this thread to be the dumping ground for all manner of discussion about rents, regulation, and residential in general. Let's keep it respectful but here we are probably allowed to be wider-ranging in topic.

To continue a thought from the 1 Dalton thread:

I don't think infill is a strong enough housing policy for long-term regional stability. I'd like to see more cities in the US explore a return to public housing as a paradigm, learning from the mistakes of the post-war years. I mean this formally and economically. I'd rather the state try and maybe fail to change people's lives for the better than to concede that the market isn't going to do it and that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Thats fine with me thats what I made the thread for: was when something (about Boston) doesnt fit somewhere else, you can have a general discussion in here.
 
tysmith95 said:
Public housing does not work. All it does is concentrate poverty in one place and effectively create ghettos.

The current solution of including an affordable component in most projects is better. Mixed income housing does not have the concentration of issues that public housing does.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you build mixed income "public housing" though?
 
LED the Hancock:



You could even have words scrolling across this box and even up the sides if you want, pretty cool!









I also think they should add ground floor retail, so the building is part of the back bay not a statue behind a rope with a sign that says do not touch. LED lighting and ground floor retail would be amazing for the area and city overall. Lighting the Hancock Yellow for Bruins games, Blue for pats...etc would be really cool to match the Pru, 888 Boylston as well. Then youll most likely have it over at the hub on Causeway so theyll be no mistaking whats going on in the city that night. I think it would be badass if the skyline was yellow so you knew the B's were playing that night.
 
Last edited:
Call me crazy, but I don't like the colored lights on the Hancock.
 
Na its not crazy, just seein how itd look. I bet in real life it would look pretty good but maybe not. Who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top