General Boston Discussion

The criminal stupidity of such a proposal is laid bare by the tens of thousands of preexisting SFH units in metro Boston that be suddenly rendered retroactively illegal. Vast swaths of Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, Quincy, Everett, Medford, Malden, Revere, Saugus--and probably even some of the more modest sections of Newton, Waltham, Dedham, etc. Tens of thousands of units that compose great, walkable, picturesque, complete urban neighborhoods. Making this a beautifully simple litmus test for one's feelings vis-a-vis urbanism. Hate urbanism? Support this proposal!
Ooops, sorry, I conveyed that really poorly. That initiative would make it so that cities and towns can't set a minimum lot size larger than 5000 square feet. Municipalities can set smaller minimum lot sizes if they want, and all the existing smaller homes are perfectly safe. This proposal would just be to tackle the problem of municipalities setting extremely large minimum lot sizes, like the many places that set half-acre or full-acre minimums. Hopefully one of the effects of this proposal is that someone sitting on a one acre property would be allowed to chop it up into eight smaller lots, if they want. I think this sounds great.

full text here:
 
Ooops, sorry, I conveyed that really poorly. That initiative would make it so that cities and towns can't set a minimum lot size larger than 5000 square feet. Municipalities can set smaller minimum lot sizes if they want, and all the existing smaller homes are perfectly safe. This proposal would just be to tackle the problem of municipalities setting extremely large minimum lot sizes, like the many places that set half-acre or full-acre minimums. Hopefully one of the effects of this proposal is that someone sitting on a one acre property would be allowed to chop it up into eight smaller lots, if they want. I think this sounds great.

full text here:
The proponents are calling this the "Legalize Starter Homes" proposition, which is a fair, but maybe overly optimistic, name.

As an example how this could play out, Weston currently has lot minimums of 60,000 sq ft in most of the town. Theoretically, these could be divided into 12 separate lots by right. Towns could likely dampen the impact with lot coverage requirements and setbacks, but it would remove some of the most ridiculous restrictions in Eastern Mass.
 
The proponents are calling this the "Legalize Starter Homes" proposition, which is a fair, but maybe overly optimistic, name.

As an example how this could play out, Weston currently has lot minimums of 60,000 sq ft in most of the town. Theoretically, these could be divided into 12 separate lots by right. Towns could likely dampen the impact with lot coverage requirements and setbacks, but it would remove some of the most ridiculous restrictions in Eastern Mass.
So is this proposal one that seems like it has some momentum behind it? I know someone has already mentioned it on this form recently (sorry if that was you and I forgot). I'd love to see it go through.

At least a couple of the anti-housing proposals there are so poorly written, they seem like one crank who badgered a dozen neighbors to sign, and that'll be it. But it is worrying there are so many proposals that would make housing harder to build.
 
So is this proposal one that seems like it has some momentum behind it? I know someone has already mentioned it on this form recently (sorry if that was you and I forgot). I'd love to see it go through.
It very well might have been me. I'm not associated with the petition, but am quite excited by it.

As for momentum, it's hard to say. However, the organizers are at the very least serious about it. Here's a blurb on signatories from the CommonWealth Beacon article covering it:
Petitions must come with the signature of at least 10 voters. Along with Mikula [of the Pioneer Institute], the starter home petition signatories include Jesse Kanson-Benanav of the pro-growth group Abundant Housing, Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser, and Greg Reibman, president and CEO of the Charles River Chamber, which covers Newton, Needham, Watertown, and Wellesley.

More info here:
Interest Form
CommonWealth Beacon article
B&T article
Instagram
Facebook
 
Zeigler’s primary job is to lead the war on the city’s burgeoning rodent problem. Officially, he’s the environmental health coordinator, but that title grabs less attention than rat czar, he said.
[...]
In recent years, the concept of “rat czar” has been popularized, as cities consider addressing rat troubles by appointing people who specialize in the subject. In 2023, New York City made headlines when it named Kathleen Corradi to oversee rodent control, and now, Boston politicians are pushing for their own, too. Chicago also has had a rat czar for years, and like the Windy City, Somerville has been ahead of the curve, with a succession of rat czars for more than a decade.
[...]
Mayor Katjana Ballantyne said the rat czar tackles the city’s challenges with creativity. It’s a tough job, she said, given that “rats know no boundaries.” She touted the benefits of having someone in charge of the rat problem — to the envy of other cities, where rat-catching duties are delegated to inspection services or a department.
Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn is pushing for the city to establish a rat czar and an office dedicated to rodent control so residents realize the city is taking the rat issue seriously. Residents all around the city call him to vent their grievances, he said.
 
This could bring some fundamental progress finally:


"......The Healey administration on Tuesday unveiled a series of reforms to the environmental regulations for housing projects, with the goal of getting shovels in the ground faster.
“It’s our job to make sure government moves at the speed of business, and cutting these regulations will reduce review times from more than a year to 30 days and supercharge the building of homes across Massachusetts,” Healey said in a statement......"

.
 
Links to the proposal web page and summary document:
MEPA Amendment
Background Document

Definitely a step in the right direction, and the criteria to qualify for expedited review seems pretty reasonable. Three main points stick out: projects can be large but not massive (less than 10 acres & less than 6000 adt), must be housing focused (67% by GFA), and can't have new gas connections.
 

One clear change was the marked increase in residents identifying with more than one race, who now make up 16.9 percent of the city’s population, according to newly released American Community Survey estimates.

[...]

Groups with high levels of recent immigration saw some of the biggest shifts amid the changes. The Hispanic population rose by 9.7 percent since the 2023 estimates, while the Asian share increased by 6 percent.

In contrast, the Black share edged down slightly, while the white share rose modestly.

Screenshot 2025-09-11 125614.png
Screenshot 2025-09-11 125703.png
 
If you talk to airline employees, we could've used hundreds more hotel rooms since at least the early 2010's. No vacancies across the city left airlines very limited options if flights got cancelled.
 
Boston City Council to consider proposing regulations on autonomous vehicles. (May take vote at today's city council meeting - now occurring - but might hold off ..)

The legislation would mandate a study on the technology’s effects on the employment of current ride-share drivers and prohibit self-driving cars from operating in Boston until that’s been completed and other permitting requirements are established. Even then, the cars wouldn’t be allowed to operate unless a human safety operator is inside the vehicle and able to intervene, according to the proposed ordinance.

I mean, taking it slow to see how the cars do on city streets seems logical.

Delaying that because we're worried about the jobs of ride-share drivers .. that's just plain stupid.

From Yahoo! Finance (I tried to find a website that didn't have a lot of garbage to pull from but ...)
 
Boston city councilor proposes taxing large residential properties (more than 100 units) as commercial properties.

District 4 Councilor Brian Worrell filed a proposal ahead of Wednesday’s City Council meeting to reclassify large apartment buildings as commercial property, while still offering a residential exemption.

“By reclassifying large apartment buildings, corporate landlords in the City of Boston would be more equitably taxed,” Worrell wrote in his hearing order. “The result would be that residential rates would be lowered across the city as a greater burden of the fixed Proposition 2.5 property tax revenue would fall on corporate landlords rather than on small landlords or homeowners.”

Part of the order.

Further creating a supplemental affordable housing exemption for corporate landlords who offer 80% of units at rents lower than those set for 80% of AMI
individuals would incentivize landlords to keep rents lower than the market might otherwise dictate ..

Also.

Boston should also petition to give out 7-year tax agreements reflective of the residential rate on any new housing of 100 units or more to ensure this tax plan
doesn’t hamper housing production across the city ..

The request is likely to go to a committee hearing. Being voted on at today's City Council meeting (in progress).

Edit. So the concept here I guess is the same as when the city tried to up the commercial / residential rate from 175% to 181%. Because office buildings are worth less, they contribute less property tax income. The city tried to increase how much was contributed anyway but the state legislature said no. So the city had to hit up residents for more of the revenue needed for the budget.

I guess this legislation tries it but in a different way. It creates a new property tax classification: commercial/residential, which would be at the higher rate ($11.58 vs. $25.96). The apartment building owners would pay the higher rate and residents wouldn't see any increase (at least for awhile) because Prop. 2.5 means the total levy can't rise.

Legislation as proposed.


From WCVB
 
Last edited:
Is there anything new / proposed for new buildings in Boston / Cambridge? It seems like we're in the doldrums now for new construction after a prolonged building boom.
 
Go to the individual threads, new proposals get posted there almost every day. I just posted a new one in the cambridge thread 5 mins ago.
 
Is there anything new / proposed for new buildings in Boston / Cambridge? It seems like we're in the doldrums now for new construction after a prolonged building boom.

It does feel that way. Almost like what's going on at South Station is the only thing going on.
 
Last February, my destination was Winnipeg, where the frozen rivers downtown were alive with ice skaters. The winter before, I poked around Edmonton without exposing my cheeks to the brutal winds, thanks to a maze of heated tunnels that connect the buildings there. A month before then, I was dancing to techno beats with parka-clad Montrealers as snow fell at an event called Igloofest. Initially, these trips were simply a wallet-friendly alternative to the tropics. Then I learned — just like our northern neighbors — to embrace the season.
And with each return to Boston, I became more conscious of our lack of winter spirit. If you’ve ever wandered around Copley Square or Atlantic Avenue on a Thursday evening in January, you know what I’m talking about. Large open spaces are left vacant. Encountering a large group of people out on the town feels like a rare wildlife sighting. But winter doesn’t have to be an exercise in misery. To be fair, some efforts have been made to bring more winter cheer. The annual Snowport winter market in the Seaport and SoWa Winter Festival in the South End, for example, call to mind the labyrinthine holiday street markets that pop up in Vienna, Prague, and Dresden each winter. It’s not a perfect translation; the European markets don’t charge to get in, as SoWa does, and there are a lot more of them spread out across each city. But once an idea takes root, it can grow — for my money, the JP Holiday Market in the Spontaneous Celebrations arts space in Jamaica Plain leads the pack for importing Europe’s yuletide vibes to Boston.
But there’s much more that we can do.
Let’s start at the ground level and consider the streets. In winter, snow, sleet, and wind can disincentivize moving around the city. But illuminating more of our streets and parks with enchanting light fixtures can transform them into destinations. Tokyo has done a masterful job with creative installations that stay aglow after New Year’s Day. The Shibuya Blue Cave lights immerse visitors in sapphire haze, while the illuminations on Nakadori Avenue bring the party downtown.
 
Sorry for the late response, but I just saw this.

What has always struck me about Boston is the complete lack of mediocre hotels for budget travelers - basically a place to sleep for the night with no frills. Even in NY, I can find a mediocre to crappy hotel with a shared bathroom where one can stay on a budget. Boston has a couple hostels, but that's about it.
 
I feel like the Globe runs one of these "Boston should really be a Winter City" articles once a year. I mean, I agree. I'm not sure how we get there.

One totally impractical winter tradition I'd love to bring back, is they used to flood and freeze Franklin Field (now Harambe Park) every winter. Some years as much as 30 acres of ice. That sounds crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's correct. A century ago they had to rely on natural freezing. Modern ice-making equipment is so much better, they could make something big and cool and last for several months.

1764865225400.png

1764865254964.png
 

Back
Top