General Boston Discussion

Would really like to see Boston approach 1 million. Would result in increased ridership on the T, more taxes from the additional residential and it would help the pockets of the city that sometimes feel like ghost towns.
 
Last edited:
Interesting New Yorker profile on Michelle Wu, focused on her housing/development policies. The money quote in my opinion, finally a mayor that gets it:

"This new City Hall is so confident in its policies that it can seem unmoved by public opinion. Homeowners resent Wu’s quest for density. Real-estate corporations expect the special access they’d enjoyed under previous mayors. But, as she told the audience in Hyde Park, the city is pushing forward with rezoning and development, 'whether you’re going to like it or not in every situation.'"

 
Interesting New Yorker profile on Michelle Wu, focused on her housing/development policies. The money quote in my opinion, finally a mayor that gets it:

"This new City Hall is so confident in its policies that it can seem unmoved by public opinion. Homeowners resent Wu’s quest for density. Real-estate corporations expect the special access they’d enjoyed under previous mayors. But, as she told the audience in Hyde Park, the city is pushing forward with rezoning and development, 'whether you’re going to like it or not in every situation.'"


I don't feel like she's done much of anything? I don't get the love for her at all. She seems mostly like she's been keeping momentum going where she can but I have yet to see any bold or interesting changes under her regime compared to the Walsh-era.

Hopefully this post doesn't start a nasty political argument. I don't think she's a bad mayor or undeserving of the position, but I really haven't gotten the hype either.
 
What bold changes occurred during the Walsh era? Nothing against him but he was mayor during a building boom, so buildings got built... ok. Wu is pursuing comprehensive, permanent change in the city's zoning code to allow greater density by right in the places that desperately need it. And, she's pushing it through despite significant NIMBY opposition (see PLAN: Charlestown).

What she's doing is far more difficult and transformational in the long-term than anything Walsh ever attempted. Yes, it takes more than 2 years to see the results, but Wu's housing and zoning policy is the most pro-development agenda Boston has seen in a long time. ArchBoston of all places should be able to understand that!
 
I don't feel like she's done much of anything? I don't get the love for her at all. She seems mostly like she's been keeping momentum going where she can but I have yet to see any bold or interesting changes under her regime compared to the Walsh-era.

Hopefully this post doesn't start a nasty political argument. I don't think she's a bad mayor or undeserving of the position, but I really haven't gotten the hype either.
I don't live in Boston, but I've been impressed by her actions and talk. She has a series of videos on Instragram where she commutes with a different Boston resident every week to hear their frustrations with transit in Boston. Politics are difficult, but at LEAST she appears to care and listen to the average Boston resident. I certainly don't agree with everything she has done, but I think a good example of her listening is the North End outdoor dining issue. If it were me......I would have EVERY street be dining and remove EVERY car. LOL However, Mayor Wu is trying to balance the residents who live in the North End with business owners. I think she makes logical decisions based on the evidence or arguments for and against a specific issue. In my opinion, that's what a politician should do.
 

What other areas are low hanging fruit to be pedestrianized and closed to cars with limited traffic impact? Right off the bat there's the Copley Connect block on Dartmouth St, all of Newbury st, Causeway St in front of North Station, Main St in Kendall Square, part of Harvard Sq.

These areas are packed with people most days of the week, so what is the point of having a bunch of cars jammed in there where nobody can get anywhere quickly? Just make it emergency/delivery trucks only, and have dropoff/pickup areas on either end of the closed st.
 
Thomson Place in Fort Point would be perfect for this but the Trader Joe's shoppers would lose their minds. For me permanent pedestrianization of Hanover St in the North End is the obvious answer, but you're inviting a Fatwa if you ever mess with parking over there. Maybe part of the mini grid in southern Fenway?
 
What other areas are low hanging fruit to be pedestrianized and closed to cars with limited traffic impact?
One small spot I've noticed lately: this stretch of Bow St around Harvard Square doesn't seem to serve any traffic function whatsoever. You can't drive down Bow St because it's split into one-ways going opposite directions. Any trip you might take there could be done on the immediately adjacent Mt Auburn. This street only seems to exist as a surface parking lot and should be turned into a pedestrian plaza.

That plaza could also be extended a block east, where there are more restaurants. That would be an extremely minimal disruption to traffic, and totally worth doing. But these pictured couple of blocks of Bow St could be turned into a pedestrian plaza with no traffic penalty whatsoever.
1711562256084.png
 
UHub reports on a recent Boston City Council meeting re: the dissolution of the BPDA and bringing planning functions in-house at the City:

 
Anyone know why the Old Hancock spire has been dark recently? Feels like it's been out about two weeks now, not even the FAA beacon is lit. (Mods, please move if this is the wrong thread to query.)
 
UHub reports on a recent Boston City Council meeting re: the dissolution of the BPDA and bringing planning functions in-house at the City:


Thoughts:

The debate was punctuated by quick timeouts so that Council President Ruthzee Louijuene could confer with a council attorney and City Clerk Alex Geourntas on procedural matters - especially after Mejia introduced a motion on the motion to withdraw Coletta's motion to pass the matter and councilors expressed confusion on what yes and no votes would mean on Mejia's motion motion.

How much do these folks get payed again to sit around and debate each others’ self destructive motion motions?

But FitzGerald said that while the BPDA could stand some improvements, in particular in the way it oversees large development projects, on the whole, it's done a wonderful job creating a new Boston, through a 20-year building boom the likes of which the city hasn't seen since colonial days.

There’s no way this can be true from a housing perspective, right?
 
Interesting New Yorker profile on Michelle Wu, focused on her housing/development policies. The money quote in my opinion, finally a mayor that gets it:

"This new City Hall is so confident in its policies that it can seem unmoved by public opinion. Homeowners resent Wu’s quest for density. Real-estate corporations expect the special access they’d enjoyed under previous mayors. But, as she told the audience in Hyde Park, the city is pushing forward with rezoning and development, 'whether you’re going to like it or not in every situation.'"


"Finally a mayor that gets it"
Let's face it--- Wu is a puppet for Washington DC elite serving the interests of the federal govt rather than the people of Boston. And lets not forget, she's not even a native of Boston, MA. Most politicians returned home after their terms in govt, unlike, Obama settled in Martha's Vineyard which he calls that home.

Few politicians understand finance and how it can enslave society with debt that's why the average American relying on govt assistance programs to put basic food on the table.

Having been part of the Boston fabric since the 70's I've seen the city evolve. Back then, despite being rough, Boston had character and sense of community.
MBTA--- was a good system back then (Hardly got upgraded to help the city progress)
Highways--only clogged during rush hour peaks.

Now all the unique areas are just corporatized and the cost of living continues to skyrocket. Everything being built around Boston concerning residential is just corporate residential BOX that wants $3,000-$4,000 dollars a month vs 2-bedroom house which you were able to rent back in the 70's and 90's for $500-$800 with a backyard, deck, plenty of backyard space, most neighbors knew each other.

Taxpayers got sold a lie by the Federal/State Govt officials. Bad deals and Bad policies have truly set our once free country into a debt slave camp.

It's sad to see how the once unique/accessible city of Boston evolved into a corporate box/political soulless elite city.
 
MBTA--- was a good system back then (Hardly got upgraded to help the city progress)
Highways--only clogged during rush hour peaks.

Blame these, at least, on Beacon Hill, not City Hall.

And Wu seems to be doing more to encourage housing development/affordability in the city than any mayor I’ve seen in my lifetime.
 
Hey man, with your deep roots in Boston I’d encourage you to run for mayor and maybe tell Wu to go back where she came from. Just come out and say it.

The myopic view of “the Boston of MY childhood was the real one” is some of the most naked ahistorical thinking that exists. Boston was radically different in 1790. It was radically changed in the 1860-1890 period, it was radically changed in the depression/War Boom period, and it radically changed when people left in the 60s/70s. The city was cheap back then because everyone who could afford to leave did, not because there were brilliant policies to address middle class Bostonian cost of living. Apologies the world is changing faster than you’d like, I hear there’s cheap “authentic” housing in Worcester.
 
"Finally a mayor that gets it"
Let's face it--- Wu is a puppet for Washington DC elite serving the interests of the federal govt rather than the people of Boston. And lets not forget, she's not even a native of Boston, MA. Most politicians returned home after their terms in govt, unlike, Obama settled in Martha's Vineyard which he calls that home.

Few politicians understand finance and how it can enslave society with debt that's why the average American relying on govt assistance programs to put basic food on the table.

Having been part of the Boston fabric since the 70's I've seen the city evolve. Back then, despite being rough, Boston had character and sense of community.
MBTA--- was a good system back then (Hardly got upgraded to help the city progress)
Highways--only clogged during rush hour peaks.

Now all the unique areas are just corporatized and the cost of living continues to skyrocket. Everything being built around Boston concerning residential is just corporate residential BOX that wants $3,000-$4,000 dollars a month vs 2-bedroom house which you were able to rent back in the 70's and 90's for $500-$800 with a backyard, deck, plenty of backyard space, most neighbors knew each other.

Taxpayers got sold a lie by the Federal/State Govt officials. Bad deals and Bad policies have truly set our once free country into a debt slave camp.

It's sad to see how the once unique/accessible city of Boston evolved into a corporate box/political soulless elite city.
What you described is a largely national picture, not much more pronounced in.Boston than anywhere else. The one thing that makes Boston stand out from the crowd is the great condition of the urban core area; downtown and it's immediate environs. Yes, it's more corporate and expensive than 40 years ago, but that's the US in general.
 
"Finally a mayor that gets it"
Let's face it--- Wu is a puppet for Washington DC elite serving the interests of the federal govt rather than the people of Boston. And lets not forget, she's not even a native of Boston, MA. Most politicians returned home after their terms in govt, unlike, Obama settled in Martha's Vineyard which he calls that home.

Few politicians understand finance and how it can enslave society with debt that's why the average American relying on govt assistance programs to put basic food on the table.

Having been part of the Boston fabric since the 70's I've seen the city evolve. Back then, despite being rough, Boston had character and sense of community.
MBTA--- was a good system back then (Hardly got upgraded to help the city progress)
Highways--only clogged during rush hour peaks.

Now all the unique areas are just corporatized and the cost of living continues to skyrocket. Everything being built around Boston concerning residential is just corporate residential BOX that wants $3,000-$4,000 dollars a month vs 2-bedroom house which you were able to rent back in the 70's and 90's for $500-$800 with a backyard, deck, plenty of backyard space, most neighbors knew each other.

Taxpayers got sold a lie by the Federal/State Govt officials. Bad deals and Bad policies have truly set our once free country into a debt slave camp.

It's sad to see how the once unique/accessible city of Boston evolved into a corporate box/political soulless elite city.

Assuming you're auditioning to be Howie Carr's replacement at the Herald, shouldn't you be forward these embittered reactionary tirades directly to the tabloid... instead of posting them on an architecture/development forum?
 

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu plans to file legislation that would allow the city to increase property tax rates on businesses beyond the limit set by the state, city officials told reporters Thursday.

The move comes as commercial property values have dipped in the city due to the post-pandemic shift to remote and hybrid work, and economic impacts like inflation. A recent report by the Boston Policy Institute found the city may lose $1.4 billion in tax revenue over the next five years due to empty office spaces. Boston could also face a recurring shortfall of about $500 million each year after that first half-decade, the report found.

WBUR is a nonprofit news organization. Our coverage relies on your financial support. If you value articles like the one you're reading right now, give today.

Without a change to state law, the property tax burden could shift toward residential properties, Wu said Thursday.

"What we are trying to avoid here is a more sudden, dramatic and concentrated shock to residential property owners, which would hurt residents and businesses alike," Wu said.

Wu said she will file a home rule petition at the city council next week with a goal of getting the measure up to the Legislature as quickly as possible. The measure would give the city the flexibility to temporarily shift more of the property tax levy onto commercial and industrial property owners. If approved, new tax rates would only go into effect if commercial valuations come in low as expected, Wu said.

The measure would give the city a three-year window to exercise the tax change since the city won't have valuation numbers until later in the year, Wu added.

The Boston Policy Institute analysis contended that when commercial property values drop, tax revenue drops — and that would diminish the dollars the city can put toward vital services. But city officials disputed that part of the analysis.

"The decline in [property] values results in an increase in tax rate, and not a decline in the revenue collected through property taxes," the city's chief financial officer Ashley Groffenberger said.

Wu also added, "services are going to be fully funded."

Tom O'Brien, the CEO of The HYM Investment Group, attended Thursday's briefing and called Wu's proposal a "really important tool" to lessen the tax burden on residents, "which will help us quite a bit in the city with a housing crisis that is ongoing." O'Brien also said he'd like to see the proposal paired with "potential new growth or new projects."

Trevor Samios, a vice president at WinnCompanies, which builds affordable housing in Boston, called Wu's measure "thoughtful" and said it "will keep the city of Boston on firm financial footing in the short term, allowing the city to sustainably stabilize and grow the services that are so important to the quality of life for folks who live and work here."

But some say shifting more property tax burden to commercial properties is no solution at all.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We are deeply concerned that increasing commercial tax rates to recoup lost revenue will only take us closer to the urban doom loop being seen in many other American cities," Greg Vasil, CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, said in a statement. "Businesses have carried a tremendous fiscal burden for the city, and pushing them harder at a time when their buildings have lost value is fiscally irresponsible."

The Boston Policy Institute report also raised concerns that imposing higher taxes on commercial properties would create more challenges for those businesses.

Nick Ariniello, the commissioner of Boston's assessing department, said the city's proposal wouldn't create "a shock" to the money that commercial property owners have already forecasted for their taxes.

"We do not in any way anticipate that this is going to be something that is going to cause commercial harm," Ariniello said.

Declining commercial property values are a challenge for cities across the country. But, the Boston Policy Institute report noted, Boston depends more on commercial real estate tax revenue than many other places. Cities in other states can levy local sales and income taxes, so they are less reliant on property taxes. State law bars this practice in the commonwealth.

At a WBUR town hall last week, Wu hinted she would likely seek help from lawmakers to cushion the impact of a potential commercial real estate tax shortfall. The city faced a similar situation in 2003, Wu noted, but received legislative relief to avoid a massive tax hike on homeowners.

But even with an assist from the Legislature, Wu noted at the town hall, there remains the long-term challenge of figuring out how to avoid continuing declines in commercial property values. Wu reiterated that point Thursday and said revitalizing downtown and reimagining how office buildings are used is key.

"We know that ultimately to get foot traffic backup in our downtowns, there are some major shifts that will need to happen around public transportation and it's reliability, around housing and shifting to a more residential mix of units there," Wu told reporters.

Boston has been helping businesses fill vacant storefronts as part of a broader strategy to transform downtown and attract more visitors. Foot traffic has grown steadily downtown, but it not yet back to pre-pandemic levels. The number of vacant storefront has declined by nearly 17% compared to this time last year, Wu said.

The city is also offering tax breaks for developers in an effort to convert empty offices into apartments. Wu said there are already 200 housing units in the pipeline of its residential conversion program.
 
The city is also offering tax breaks for developers in an effort to convert empty offices into apartments. Wu said there are already 200 housing units in the pipeline of its residential conversion program.
Question--- Does the taxpayers also have to subsidize 3-5K rents for 200 Housing units?

Sounds like a bailout for the developers 75% ---29 year tax abatement with the taxpayers might also be on the hook for subsidize rents at such high rental prices as most Bostonians can't afford to even live in Boston.

Basic Math-
200-Units in Boston x $3,000= $600,000 monthly
$7,200,000 Yearly rental income
What are the taxpayers responsible for subsidizing the rental income?
20% ---$1,440,000 a year ----29 years of subsidized rents $41 Million in tax dollars
50%--- $3,600,000 a year-----29 years of subsidized rents $104 Million in tax dollars
100%--$7,200,000 a year-----29 years of subsidized rents $208 Million in tax dollars
These numbers are based on rents staying the same for 29 years.
Greatest deal I have ever seen for the developers. I guess the free markets are over for society.

75% Tax break for 29 Years to convert commercial into residential housing.
Who's going to rent these units? will this be subsidizing housing?

Then you wonder why
Butter is $5.99
Housing is $3000 a month
Insurance is $2000 for a car that might be worth $3000
Childcare --$2000-$4000 a month

Would love to read the details of this program "residential conversion program"
 
Last edited:
Yes, the explicit point is to incentivize new unit creation in unused buildings in central Boston that would have otherwise gone uncreated. If you chose to read about the program you’d know that 17% of new units are required to be deed restricted affordable.

As to who will rent these new units? The same people who are currently renting 98-99% of Boston’s existing rental stock. Indeed if they are not desirable because such a rental clientele does not exist, then POOF, they’ll be rented for even less than the average in the city.

I do not think this program is responsible for inflation adjusted butter and car insurance prices. You appear to (intentionally?) conflate nation-wide market dynamics with some very specific gripes about Boston and Wu. It’s not clear you live in Boston, but if so, I’d encourage you to exercise your right to vote for different leadership!

Edit: details are here. Read away!

 
Yes, the explicit point is to incentivize new unit creation in unused buildings in central Boston that would have otherwise gone uncreated. If you chose to read about the program you’d know that 17% of new units are required to be deed restricted affordable.

As to who will rent these new units? The same people who are currently renting 98-99% of Boston’s existing rental stock. Indeed if they are not desirable because such a rental clientele does not exist, then POOF, they’ll be rented for even less than the average in the city.

I do not think this program is responsible for inflation adjusted butter and car insurance prices. You appear to (intentionally?) conflate nation-wide market dynamics with some very specific gripes about Boston and Wu. It’s not clear you live in Boston, but if so, I’d encourage you to exercise your right to vote for different leadership!

Edit: details are here. Read away!


I remember once upon a time in the free markets----when private companies purchased a real estate/buildings they either generated revenue-expenses= profits. If the developer/private group could not think of a creative idea to generate tenants for the buildings then they would either lower the rents, sell the building at market rates or file bankruptcy which would lower cost of the real estate.

Does that not exist anymore?

These developers/corporations can just sit on empty buildings without collecting no rents for 5 years along with maintaining the building expenses. Those groups would be forced to sell the building and move on to another buyer. Not only that-- downtown Boston is a desirable place to live there is no reason for tax incentives.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top