General South Bay Development (Formerly Gateway Center)

[KentXie]

Re: Why should a low-income person ive in a luxury high-rise

Why should a low-income person ive in a luxury high-rise?

Please, someone, explain this to me so it makes sense.

If you can make me understand that, I will be forever grateful.

I've lived in Boston for twenty years, been a fan of new and old architecture and buildings, worked in real estate, been a staunch free-market liberal (?) ... and I just don't get it.

I'm serious. Tell me. Why should developers be forced to set aside several units in their buildings, to be sold in an "affordable housing" auction?

Who is helped? Does it help? Who is hurt? Anyone?

What's the f-ing point??????????????

The point is to help liberals like Ron feel better about themselves. (Sorry Briv, I swear that's the last time.)

Seriously though, it's a complete lack of understanding of how the market works on the part of those in power and those who put them in power. People are born into liberal families in a liberal state and they fail to see all viewpoints. Therefore, they have a viceral reaciton to high housing costs of "we should make them lower" and think that subsidized housing is the answer, not fully thinking it through and realizing that if a developer has to subsidize housing, he has to make his profits up somewhere, or he makes less. If he makes less, there is less incentive to develop. It's the anti-business aspect of this state and it's politics that I hate. I just can't see how a state can get so much right and have so much going for it - education, healthcare, high-end industry, social openness and liberality (is that a word?), and yet still be economically so ignorant.

Hmmm....there is one error. What happens if nobody can afford a house in that building? The developers will make less money than subsidized housing. This is what is happening. The condo market is cool and now multiple condo developers are thinking twice on building anything. Not enough people are buying condos yet affordable housing are still sky rocketing. I would rather see some subsidized housing than condos that sit half empty.

Also, to partially answer IMAngry's question. Most likely the project will have tenements and low-rises accompanying the luxerious 67 story tower. The affordable housing would probably not be included into the tower. This is a huge plot of land that would allow lower income housing. And also, many of you guys may not actually believe it, but the US do run on low income workers. They are the people that does the dirty work in the city since they don;t have other choice....or they goofed in school and now they are force to do so. They are at the bottom of the pyramid and without them, the city would not function. The rich and wealth off people makes up smaller percentage of the city. The majority are lower incomes. This is the same in every city and every city accomadates them otherwise, we will have a glistening city with thousands of homeless littered across the street.

 

[IMAngry]

Okay, then the solution seems simple

Tell me why this doesn't work:

New luxury housing is built.

The rich people, who can afford it, move into the new housing.

The less rich, the middle class, and the poor all move up a notch on the ladder.

Everyone screams that Boston and Massachusetts are either losing people or suffering from a stagnate population.

Great. So, if we build more housing, the rich will move (as they have), and the additional housing goes to those who need it most, at the bottom of the ladder.

What am I missing in this equation?

 

[PerfectHandle]

I'm not qualified to address this as any kind of housing economics expert, but as I see it, your equation's logical flaw is that it attempts to solve a problem by creating a system that is completely unresponsive to that problem.

If the market only responds to the demand created by rich people, then it is responding to the smallest of minorities in MA, and thus doesn't serve the Commonwealth very well. For one thing, there could never be enough units vacated by rich people moving to nicer houses to come close to addressing the needs of the vast majority of residents. In other words, the first domino in your line wouldn't be enough to knock over the next one.

I agree with your last point though. The basic solution to the problem is to build more housing. The real question is how to incentivize developers so that they can build moderately priced homes and still make a living. It seems to me we could go a long way by simplifying the approval process and taking density impediments out of the zoning codes in both urban and suburban municipalities around Boston.

 

[Ron Newman]

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

 

[Scott]

This is not a private parcel and the government owes it to the taxpayers to get the most benefit from it in dollars and housing units. Luxury units pay alot of property taxes but have a lower per-person occupancy rate so the city will continue to contract if only those kinds of units are built costing us federal funds and representation in Congress based on population.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

Because it is not profitable. This is not some kind of social engineering experiment where we can say "lets just build cheap housing because we need it", it's business. it is simply the job of developers to maximize their profit. Read some Adam Smith. By maximizing profit and building luxury housing, the developers lower the cost of housing overall in the market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and everyone benefits.

Come on bosdevelopment, back me up here...

 

[BostonObserver]

Dude you're an idiot

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

Because it is not profitable. This is not some kind of social engineering experiment where we can say "lets just build cheap housing because we need it", it's business. it is simply the job of developers to maximize their profit. Read some Adam Smith. By maximizing profit and building luxury housing, the developers lower the cost of housing overall in the market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and everyone benefits.

Come on bosdevelopment, back me up here...

Looks like you stand alone as the only complete and total asshole on this forum. Either grow up, get some class or find a forum more appropriate to you age and IQ.

 

[Ron Newman]

If everyone here would learn the difference between 'argument' and 'abuse', the whole forum would benefit. (Monty Python provides a helpful reference.)

Now let's get back to discussing 'South Bay' (which desperately needs a better name).

 

[TC]

Re: Dude you're an idiot

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

Because it is not profitable. This is not some kind of social engineering experiment where we can say "lets just build cheap housing because we need it", it's business. it is simply the job of developers to maximize their profit. Read some Adam Smith. By maximizing profit and building luxury housing, the developers lower the cost of housing overall in the market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and everyone benefits.

Come on bosdevelopment, back me up here...

Looks like you stand alone as the only complete and total asshole on this forum. Either grow up, get some class or find a forum more appropriate to you age and IQ.

I must be missing something ......... What was wrong with that particular comment? It seemed like a well thought out argument that I agree with.

You will not find a developer that is going to come to Boston, pay a fortune for land and construction costs without trying to maximize their return on investment.

It's kind of like asking anyone on this forum to sell their house at 50% market value just because people think housing should be more affordable. Not going to happen.

 

[bosdevelopment]

I would say I agree wholeheartedly with dude. Obviously the only reason someone would bother to bend over backwards to get permits and favors from city hall would be someone who's expecting to get paid.. a lot for their troubles. Not to mention the amount of liability they take on developing anything with one of the strictest building/fire codes in the country.

This conversation is really boring and meaningless though.

Renderings are sure to get everything back on topic. YEAH!

 

[bosdevelopment]

As an aside, what's with the rolling hills in the background there? Has the artist ever been to Boston?

 

[Ron Newman]

What direction are we looking in that rendering, and from what location? I'm looking for familiar reference points but not finding any.

 

[KentXie]

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

Because it is not profitable. This is not some kind of social engineering experiment where we can say "lets just build cheap housing because we need it", it's business. it is simply the job of developers to maximize their profit. Read some Adam Smith. By maximizing profit and building luxury housing, the developers lower the cost of housing overall in the market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and everyone benefits.

Come on bosdevelopment, back me up here...

And that's why there is a requirement in Boston to set aside for affordable housing because we all know that developers won't build affordable housing in order to maximize profit. They need to have a rule to follow in order for them to do so.

 

[KentXie]

As an aside, what's with the rolling hills in the background there? Has the artist ever been to Boston?

That's not hills, that's a tsunami heading to Boston thanks to global warming causing extra amound of water crashing onto Boston. Obviously this will probably happen in like 100 years which is pretty accurate since Gateway Center will probably not be built by then.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

Re: Dude you're an idiot

It's kind of like asking anyone on this forum to sell their house at 50% market value just because people think housing should be more affordable. Not going to happen.

No, it's going beyond that. It's making it law that people must sell their house at 50% of market value because people think market value is more expensive.

Of course, the result of this that nobody understands is that it raises the market value and makes housing less affordable for everyone else.

 

[palindrome]

Re: Dude you're an idiot

Also, if the housing need is at the bottom of that ladder, why not build directly for that market instead of making all of those people move?

Because it is not profitable. This is not some kind of social engineering experiment where we can say "lets just build cheap housing because we need it", it's business. it is simply the job of developers to maximize their profit. Read some Adam Smith. By maximizing profit and building luxury housing, the developers lower the cost of housing overall in the market. Everyone looks out for themselves, and everyone benefits.

Come on bosdevelopment, back me up here...

Looks like you stand alone as the only complete and total asshole on this forum. Either grow up, get some class or find a forum more appropriate to you age and IQ.

:? ???????

I agree with everything he said, so i guess i stand with him????? :?:

 

[IMAngry]

I dunno ....

I've always been stumped by that rendering.

Really, give me a landmark I can recognize .... where are we???

 

[bosma]

It looks like the rendering is looking from south to north.

http://www.southbayplanningstudy.com/

 

[kz1000ps]

I've always thought it was looking north also.

 

[jama]

I've always thought it was looking north also.

Yeah, north to south. I guess those are some enlarged blue hills in the background.

???????

I agree with everything he said, so i guess i stand with him?????

I'll second that