General South Bay Development (Formerly Gateway Center)

Housing in Chinatown Could Double by 2010
Dec 15, 2006

by Adam Smith

Those familiar with development in Chinatown know that the neighborhood?s supply of market-rate and low-income housing is changing and will continue to change. But by how much? That question has been left mostly to speculation.

One group, however, has begun to quantify the change.

The Chinatown Gateway Coalition, a group of Chinatown activists and housing advocates, has found that the housing stock in the neighborhood has grown by one-third since 2000 and is expected to more than double by 2010. Most of the new housing created will be market-rate and luxury.

While acknowledging that the numbers could change depending which projects are considered inside Chinatown, the groups says that in 2000, the neighborhood had a total of 2,091 housing units. By 2006, that number grew by 1,171 units. When and if all currently planned and proposed housing developments are completed, the total housing stock will reach 4,401. About one-third of that total projected stock is expected to serve moderate-income earners and some low-income earners.

?Chinatown?s population will double by 2010,? said Kye Leung, project coordinator of the Chinatown Gateway Coalition.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority, through a spokesperson, did not dispute the housing numbers produced by the group, but did say that the projected number of affordable units appeared too low.

Leung said the data ?- which he cautioned was somewhat a work-in-progress -? will be used for the coalition?s main goal of advocating for a development of a lot of up to 20-acres next to Chinatown, known officially as the South Bay Planning Study Area. The area, which the coalition says should be named the Chinatown Gateway, consists mostly of former Big Dig parcels, and is bounded by Kneeland Street, Albany Street, the Massachusetts Turnpike I-90 mainline, and the I-93 northbound mainline.

?We just wanted to show that the trend is not to develop affordable housing,? said Leung.

However, he said, a high demand for low-income housing exists in Chinatown based on waiting lists at federally subsidized apartment complexes.

But Leung said he did not want to say what type of housing would be best at the site, and that would be left up to residents and community groups. The coalition has met with residents to tell them about the South Bay Planning Study Area and hopes to also collaborate with business owners, community groups and others.

By the spring of 2007, the group plans to host a community design forum for to come up with ideas for what could be built on the expansive lot.

Whoever builds on the land will likely encounter a costly and complicated project because elevated highway roads and ramps cross through it, leaving only about 10 acres of usable dirt ground. Boston Residential submitted a proposal in 2004 to develop the area, most of which is owned by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, but the authority has yet to make a decision on whether to accept the proposal and little news about the land has been released for nearly three years.

The Boston Residential proposal included a 67-floor building called the Gateway Tower, and 1,669 housing units.

The Chinatown Gateway Coalition has said it hopes to take advantage of the lull in the city and state planning processes for the area and draft its own guidelines for developing the land. City officials, however, have said that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Boston Redevelopment Authority have already worked with Chinatown neighborhood leaders for the initial planning of the lot?s development.

When asked about the likelihood of successfully influencing the development of the land, Leung said: ?We have to be smart about what we do and there will probably be compromises.? He added: ?The other scenario would be to not do anything.?
-----------------------

Looks like this project isn't dead yet and it seems renderings will appear at Spring. Can't wait.
 
ablarc said:
DarkFenX said:
But Leung said he did not want to say what type of housing would be best at the site...
Why?

...and that would be left up to residents and community groups.
Why?

.
It's probably because the cost of developing this site including building ramps over the highway maybe too expensive for a project made entirely for low income housing. I just hope they will include about 20% of the housing unit for low income housing. Anything is better than none.
 
DarkFenX said:
ablarc said:
DarkFenX said:
But Leung said he did not want to say what type of housing would be best at the site...
Why?

...and that would be left up to residents and community groups.
Why?

.
It's probably because the cost of developing this site including building ramps over the highway maybe too expensive for a project made entirely for low income housing. I just hope they will include about 20% of the housing unit for low income housing. Anything is better than none.

Isn't there a minimum amount of low income housing required in all new developments?
 
DarkFenX said:
However, he said, a high demand for low-income housing exists in Chinatown based on waiting lists at federally subsidized apartment complexes.

I would like to announce that I am putting up for sale a 2007 BMW Z4 30i Roadster. The asking price will be $2,000. If you are not the first one to request to buy the car, I will put you on a waiting list. if this waiting list is long, then it obviously means that the government should subsidize BMWs for everyone.

z430i_default.jpg
 
If BMWs were essential to life in our society (like, for instance, a place to live), then I would have no problem with subsidized BMWs. However, they are not, so your analogy falls short.
 
esp9762 said:
If BMWs were essential to life in our society (like, for instance, a place to live), then I would have no problem with subsidized BMWs. However, they are not, so your analogy falls short.

True but living in downtown Boston isn't essential to life in our society either.
 
esp9762 said:
If BMWs were essential to life in our society (like, for instance, a place to live), then I would have no problem with subsidized BMWs. However, they are not, so your analogy falls short.

Transportation is essential to life in our society. In most peoples' case, this means cars. Living in downtown Boston is "the BMW of housing", hence the analogy to illustrate the absurdity of subsidizing such a premium commodity.

Food is essential to life, and as a result we have food stamps. (Whether we should is a matter of debate, but that's a different matter). How would you like it if those food stamps could be used for purchasing a $75 fillet mignon at a fine restaurant?
 
I live in Boston without a car and I do just fine. In fact, driving in Boston is so terrible I'm glad I don't have a car. I wasn't under the impression that the subsidized apartments were the equivalent of a $75 Filet Mignon bought with food stamps. I was under the impression they were simply in the same building as the extremely nice apartments. I always thought the term 'affordable' meant the developer would put in some not so hot apartments and then charge a lower price than they could. If they're getting luxury condos for cheap, that's probably not a good system. I might not know enough about it I guess, but I do support subsidies for housing in general. I also assumed it was partly to make up for building so much luxury housing in a traditionally non-luxury neighborhood, which would appease the chinatown residents who might feel they're being pushed out.
 
DudeUrSistersHot said:
esp9762 said:
If BMWs were essential to life in our society (like, for instance, a place to live), then I would have no problem with subsidized BMWs. However, they are not, so your analogy falls short.

Transportation is essential to life in our society. In most peoples' case, this means cars. Living in downtown Boston is "the BMW of housing", hence the analogy to illustrate the absurdity of subsidizing such a premium commodity.

Food is essential to life, and as a result we have food stamps. (Whether we should is a matter of debate, but that's a different matter). How would you like it if those food stamps could be used for purchasing a $75 fillet mignon at a fine restaurant?
But it's not necessary to own a high cost BMW. You can buy something that can cost even less which would pretty much counters your food analogy. Also, no cars are not essential to life in our society, at least in Boston, the 'most walkable city'. My teacher bikes to work everyday and I use the T to get to school. I don't need to use a car to get to anywhere I want. I used to walk from Charlestown to Back Bay or anywhere else. Cars are not a necessity, it's a luxury.
 
DarkFenX said:
DudeUrSistersHot said:
esp9762 said:
If BMWs were essential to life in our society (like, for instance, a place to live), then I would have no problem with subsidized BMWs. However, they are not, so your analogy falls short.

Transportation is essential to life in our society. In most peoples' case, this means cars. Living in downtown Boston is "the BMW of housing", hence the analogy to illustrate the absurdity of subsidizing such a premium commodity.

Food is essential to life, and as a result we have food stamps. (Whether we should is a matter of debate, but that's a different matter). How would you like it if those food stamps could be used for purchasing a $75 fillet mignon at a fine restaurant?
But it's not necessary to own a high cost BMW. You can buy something that can cost even less which would pretty much counters your food analogy. Also, no cars are not essential to life in our society, at least in Boston, the 'most walkable city'. My teacher bikes to work everyday and I use the T to get to school. I don't need to use a car to get to anywhere I want. I used to walk from Charlestown to Back Bay or anywhere else. Cars are not a necessity, it's a luxury.

I think it's awesome how everyone is getting my point and not going off on completely irrelevant anti-car tangents.
 
The reason everyone is talking about cars is that you made a car related analogy to explain your point. Deconstructing the analogy will not really kill your point, but you put forth a very extreme view that I don't think is accurate. Even if living in downtown Boston is the 'BMW of Housing' (which I don't think it is, that would probably be Back Bay somewhere), these low cost apartments are more like really old beat up BMWs of housing.
 
The Chinatown Gateway Coalition would prefer their area around dt boston we're refering to as a Lexus. Back Bay would then be a Ferrari. Everyone knows Fenway is a VW, Roxbury is an old Caddy, JP is a Ford Escort, Cambridge is a bus, and Mattapan is anything with 1 working headlight.
 
Does that make Hyde Park a Camaro on cinder blocks in the back yard?
 
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??????????????
 
Re: Why should a low-income person ive in a luxury high-rise

IMAngry said:
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.
 

Back
Top