Grit vs.Gentrification

statler

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
496
With all the recent talk about Jacob Wirth's, Downtown Crossing, Kenmore Square, et al, I figured it was a good time to have a discussion about Boston's grit and gentrification.

Since I come here to learn and not teach, I'll ask a bunch of questions.

Is there much grit left in the city? Where?
How much grit is too much? How much is too little?
Is there 'good' grit and 'bad' grit? (Kenmore Sq 10-15 years ago vs Dudley Sq?)
Is there good gentrification (North End) and bad gentrification (Kenmore Sq)?
Anyone think no grit is good grit?
Will gentrification consume the entire city or will there always be pockets of grit?
 
Codman Sq. Dorchester is still very gritty,I live one block away and never eat or shop there,I don,t feel welcome(I,ve lived here for 18 years)there!
 
As long as grit doesn't get me robbed, I'm all for it.

Hey 02124 you been to the new Chicken and Waffles place by Home DePOT? I heard it was good.
 
Maybe it's just Hollywood... but both "The Departed" and "Gone Baby Gone" made Boston look very gritty. Barely a stylized view of the city to be found in either movie, other than the shots of the State House. I remember watching and thinking "Damn...Boston's a tough town"
 
Jackson Sq is nice and gritty, though parts are gentrifying, it depends on which side of the tracks you are on.
 
ngb_anim8 said:
Maybe it's just Hollywood... but both "The Departed" and "Gone Baby Gone" made Boston look very gritty. Barely a stylized view of the city to be found in either movie, other than the shots of the State House. I remember watching and thinking "Damn...Boston's a tough town"
Click to expand...
Yeah, and don't forget "Mystic River."

Truth is, most of Boston outside the red-brick rowhouse districts is gritty, isn't it?

As you say: tough town.
 
^lol at ngb's comments. Ben Affleck went out of his way to find the ugliest circus freaks for extras and looked for the worst neighborhoods possible. The sad thing is the mother's friend in the movie takes my bus...ouch. Yes, she's still that ugly, but her kid was normal looking suprisingly enough.
 
ablarc said:
Truth is, most of Boston outside the red-brick rowhouse districts is gritty, isn't it?
Click to expand...

If that's true, why do we always bemoan the lose of places like the Rat, Buzzy's, the combat zone, etc...

Shouldn't we be cheering the fact the Boston is getting less gritty?
 
^ I think you identified the good grit and the fact that we're losing it. The bad grit we don't bemoan, but wouldn't it be terrible if Regina's Thacher Street venue got improved? (Bad enough they stopped drowning their pizza in olive oil.)


Jake Wirth is very slowly losing the borderline grit that endears it to some, but the owners' theory must be that it's more than compensated for by customers that would prefer it to morph into a TGIFriday's.
 
I wonder if it's possible to somehow define the criteria for 'good' grit and 'bad' grit, or if like the SJC & pornography, we'll know it when we see it.
 
True story - they couldn't film Gone Baby Gone in Southie because they couldn't find a street that was gritty enough where they could film - so they moved over to Dorchester and found the perfect area with a little park out front so they could get the angles they wanted, not the tight streets. The problem is that many of the triple deckers in this area have been redeveloped into really nice condos. So the production people actually hung dirty scrims over the triple deckers in the background that had been painted and looked really nice. They had to add grit!

The western neighborhoods in Dorchester are gritty. Roxbury is gritty. There is plenty of grit in Boston - just not in the urban core. That's a good thing. The chinese have solidified their power in Chinatown and are fighting hard to keep the area gritty (or "disgusting" depending on your vernacular) but for the most part, the urban core of the city will be grit-free in about ten years. The outlaying areas will be where the grit is. I'm fine with that.

Good grit? Maybe Lower Allston - full of hipsters and college kids.
Bad grit? The area around the Upham's Corner Commuter Rail
 
Suffolk 83 said:
As long as grit doesn't get me robbed, I'm all for it.

Hey 02124 you been to the new Chicken and Waffles place by Home DePOT? I heard it was good.
Click to expand...
No did,nt know it was there? chicken and waffles?
 
Good grit: the property taxes are robbery.
Bad grit: robbery.

Good grit: the parking problem is murder.
Bad grit: murder.

Good grit: the neighbors are high on life.
Bad grit: the neighbors are high on glue.

Good grit: you admire it while driving home.
Bad grit: you are home.
 
Boston02124 said:
No did,nt know it was there? chicken and waffles?
Click to expand...

Yea the Hen House. I gotta get over there. Most Bostonians can't appreciate this type of establishment unless your of a certain backround or if you've spent time in the south. Good stuff not very often found 'round these parts.
 
I hear a lot of people groan about the disappearance of grit from Boston, but I'm not too sure what exactly people mean by "grit"? What are its characteristics? Does the term encapsulate any place that isn't monoculturally white, affluent and safe?
 
I don't know if Grit is the right word, but does it seem to others that Boston has less "joints" than other cities of comparable age and population size. By "joints" I mean the types of places, restaurants and bars that are comfortable and welcoming to all. The kind of places that have a unique and lived in feel to them like the old Grendels Den restaurant, littlest bar etc. Maybe its the result of Boston small geographic size coupled with high commercial rents. These places are distinct from the corner bar in a gritty neighborhood where neither the proprieter or the regulars wants your business as an outsider. Seems like Boston's got plenty of those in its outlying areas.

Boston, like other cities, is always losing these types of places, but it seems like there are so few remaining in the core of Boston. So much seems geared to the drunken 21 year olds or the uber trendy set, but not much in between.

A balance of gentrication and status quo is probably desirable. I wouldn't have minded for example if the old IHOP building in Kenmore Sq. was replaced with a more vertical Hotel Commonwealth. You could have still had Eastern Standard etc. and new investment in the neighborhood. But they practically wiped out the whole south side of Kenmore Sq for that architectual travesty. Its wholesale gentrification on an abrubt and insensitive scale. The N. End is also gentrifying but its more gradual and the scale of the buildings remains the same. Its less in your face than the new Kenmore Sq. This goes to Ablarc argument for development and investment on smaller scaled land parcels. Gentrification and investment would more gradually replace grit all while new grit could be slowly developing around the corner with the landlord who has low overhead and is charging practically nothing for his ground floor space.

With every Quincy Market(managed in entirety by one company), Hotel Commonwealth or Druker's Shreve proposal, Boston is probably less able to generate these types of unique establishments. As more of the city becomes owned by large powerful landlords or REITs there are less spaces for local enterprenuers to set up shop at moderate rents. These properties will not be able to age gracefully in an economic sense. Quincy Market will probably never be allowed gradually slip into moderate rent territory which would entice local unique enterprises to operate. Once revenues and foot traffic dip for a long enough period, the property will be overhauled, reinvented and likely lure only the highest paying tenants, likely chains.
 
Perhaps this is deeply old fashioned, but places like the Hotel Commonwealth and its tenants have such an oiley, almost desperate parvenu quality that it is difficult to call the result "gentrification". Hangouts for the striving classes, yes.

It is not the absense of patination that troubles, but the lack of authenticity and sincerity. To fall back on the Universal Studios comparison, I wouldn't call the street sets "upscaling". I suppose it is a question of your scale and what you value. Simple maintenance of the existing structures while continuing existing uses would have been sufficiently "upscale" for me.
 
Last edited:
tobyjug said:
Perhaps this is deeply old fashioned, but places like the Hotel Commonwealth and its tenants have such an oiley, almost desperate parvenu quality that it is difficult to call the result "gentrification". Hangouts for the striving classes, yes.

It is not the absense of patination that troubles, but the lack of authenticity and sincerity. To fall back on the Universal Studios comparison, I wouldn't call the street sets "upscaling". I suppose it is a question of your scale and what you value. Simple maintenance of the existing structures while continuing existing uses would have been sufficiently "upscale" for me.
Click to expand...
A friendly, varied and small-footprint gaggle shouldered to oblivion by the bully groundscraper. A loutish, cynical exercise in exploitation: of location, of the gullible rube, of the features of a style. Boston's current hayseed unsophistication laid out for everyone to see.

Why do we allow a single building to usurp a square's whole side, anyway? If we allow it at all, shouldn't we demand at least the quality of Sansovino's Library (or Boston's)?
 
I thought about this a lot yesterday but didn't have time to post. Ablarc's thoughts on Regina's struck me.

ablarc said:
...wouldn't it be terrible if Regina's Thacher Street venue got improved?
Click to expand...

It would be "less" Regina's. Plastic surgery on a familiar face.

Last year, Santarpio's got new tables and chairs, for the first time since I was in diapers. It bummed me out.

In general, good grit is "public" and it enlivens its place. Think Wally's, or TC's. Bars, music venues, funky retailers -- places people want to go because of what they are. Deli Haus, The Wursthaus, Planet Records, the Rat...

Bad grit is often "private" and kills the place that surrounds it. Filthy vacant lots, dilapidated private homes (and ill-kept public housing). These are the things that keep people out of a neighborhood, because they create (deservedly or not) an aura of menace.

The public/private rule is broken by the MBTA and the MDC -- both agencies routinely let their property fall into ruin.

Bad grit we should ban: street-facing chain link fences on residential property; aluminum or vinyl siding on residences over 50 years old.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top