armpitsOFmight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 12
^we're talking about micro units, unfortunately they're connected to politics.
Hotter than Tabasco sauce: the Boston RE market
- Thread starter itchy
- Start date
No, they are connected to the idiotic fact that nothing catches on in this country unless it is marketed as being the next hip, trendy thing. Hence "greenwashing". This is that absurditum taken to the max. It has nothing to do with liberals or hybrid cars or netflix vs television; the people who live in these units are likely to be either the rich guys who commute back and fourth between NYC and Boston on a weekly basis, rich people who have an apartment in the city and a house in the country, or more likely idiots who buy a place site unseen and read nothing but the marketing materials and figure that's all that there is. I guess a minority will also enjoy being an a new, hip building with amenities in a sprouting neighborhood as well.
The real issue here is that no one is calling the developers on the fact that these units are more expensive then ones you could find downtown or in the back bay, with no real other benefits. And the fact that these aren't going to help drive down the costs of existing housing stock because they are not competing with it in any reasonable manner. The plus side is that they are going to get the density up in the neighborhoods where they are built en masse.
Micro units are supposed to be cheap options. If they're not cheap, then why bother? If a developer wants to risk their money on building overpriced micro units and they fail to rent, why should I care? It's his or her money at risk, not mine.
There's so much available space to try all kinds of housing options. Some concepts may work, some may not. That's called the FREE MARKET. It means freedom to fail just as much as it means freedom to succeed.
All this blab about politics is incredibly stupid. Take it back to the Herald comment section.
There's so much available space to try all kinds of housing options. Some concepts may work, some may not. That's called the FREE MARKET. It means freedom to fail just as much as it means freedom to succeed.
All this blab about politics is incredibly stupid. Take it back to the Herald comment section.
jdrinboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 558
And if a bunch of liberal yuppies rent these things, pay their taxes, commit no crimes, eat out a few times a week, and shop downtown on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that's a problem why?
The gimmick of getting 23-27 year old post grads to rent out these micro-units is a tough sell. The buildings are just on too valuable of land to keep rents low. So downtown should allow people to build higher. There are cheaper options in the in the Brighton's, Somerville's of the city. And to be honest, I hope Chelsea and Eastie get some good spillover as well as prices are even more reasonable.
The real conclusion is the Boston and the urban areas around it need as much housing as they can get of all types. Downtown and the areas around T stops (northpoint, Assembly, Quincy Center) are getting on the boat with 20+ stories of residential. Downtown should go higher (even those areas should IMHO). Kendall and Central should go higher. Somerville should keep infilling.
I think there needs to be a big focus on this at all levels of government to work together and come up with a regional plan and streamlined permitting so that developers can't try and recoup costs with higher end housing. Middle class people can live in high rise housing too.
In my dream world, the city of Boston takes Government center plans it to be high rise residential (all 50+ stories) integrated into a restored street grid with no megablocks. They have a mix of unit types spread across 10,000 units. You immediately have people from all over move in, put downward pressure on prices and start a wave of commercial investment all around because there at 20000 people that live near jobs and need to eat and shop all by the T.
The real conclusion is the Boston and the urban areas around it need as much housing as they can get of all types. Downtown and the areas around T stops (northpoint, Assembly, Quincy Center) are getting on the boat with 20+ stories of residential. Downtown should go higher (even those areas should IMHO). Kendall and Central should go higher. Somerville should keep infilling.
I think there needs to be a big focus on this at all levels of government to work together and come up with a regional plan and streamlined permitting so that developers can't try and recoup costs with higher end housing. Middle class people can live in high rise housing too.
In my dream world, the city of Boston takes Government center plans it to be high rise residential (all 50+ stories) integrated into a restored street grid with no megablocks. They have a mix of unit types spread across 10,000 units. You immediately have people from all over move in, put downward pressure on prices and start a wave of commercial investment all around because there at 20000 people that live near jobs and need to eat and shop all by the T.
choo for city council!
rinserepeat
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2012
- Messages
- 267
- Reaction score
- 6
investment banker/finance/doctor types rent these kinds of places - especially if you're talking specifically back bay or south end - they're typically not the most liberal people you'll meet, though. Either that or wealthy international students at one of the schools in the area.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
I'd enjoy this conversation a lot more if it didn't go "liberal / conservative" on me.
Micro-units seem foolish to me but unfortunately I haven't been able to articulate why. All of your comments are valid so thanks for them.
In a perfect world where we could build as much housing as needed, then perhaps micro-units would make sense. In a city where just about everything is off-limits except high-rises (due to land acquisition costs and ... alright, NIMBYs) it's foolish.
Micro-units seem foolish to me but unfortunately I haven't been able to articulate why. All of your comments are valid so thanks for them.
In a perfect world where we could build as much housing as needed, then perhaps micro-units would make sense. In a city where just about everything is off-limits except high-rises (due to land acquisition costs and ... alright, NIMBYs) it's foolish.
Not many investment bankers in Boston but $2100 a month would be an appropriate rent for an associate (3-5 years in the business, mid-late 20s).
J
Jason
Guest
No you can't... At least nothing decent.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,276
- Reaction score
- 2,124
Jason's right. At best $2100 will get you a fixer-up loft on the "wrong side" of the South End.
Like this:
http://ag011339.speedhatch.com/rentals/816161-harrison-boston-ma-02118
Hence why we need more units. Micro or otherwise.
$2400 will give you a few more options.
$2700 will give you plenty of options.
That's the market.
http://www.trulia.com/for_rent/3438_nh/x_map/#for_rent/3438,3461_nh/1p_beds/2100-2700_price/price;a_sort/750p_sqft/x_map/
There has been a fairly brisk pace of tearing down pre-war buildings during the recent boom - unfortunate, given the large number of parking lots/garages and post-war buildings that remain, and could have been replaced.
Fully/partially demolished:
-Filene's 1905 building
-Dainty Dot
-former MDC Building on Beacon Hill
At risk:
-Fidelity buildings
-Boylston Place
-Arlington Building / former SCL building
-One Bromfield
It never fails to baffle me that developers who want to build in Boston because it is an attractive market don't care that Boston's attractiveness comes in large part from the beauty, architectural detail and urbanity that Boston's large supply of pre-war building stock creates. Every time a building contributing to this is lost, Boston's overall attractiveness decreases.
Anyone know if any of the candidates in the mayoral election are speaking about preservation of the city's historic buildings at all? Ideally, I'd love to see a special process for razing a pre-WWII building ... in reality, any mention at all of historic preservation is probably better than anything Menino has done.
Fully/partially demolished:
-Filene's 1905 building
-Dainty Dot
-former MDC Building on Beacon Hill
At risk:
-Fidelity buildings
-Boylston Place
-Arlington Building / former SCL building
-One Bromfield
It never fails to baffle me that developers who want to build in Boston because it is an attractive market don't care that Boston's attractiveness comes in large part from the beauty, architectural detail and urbanity that Boston's large supply of pre-war building stock creates. Every time a building contributing to this is lost, Boston's overall attractiveness decreases.
Anyone know if any of the candidates in the mayoral election are speaking about preservation of the city's historic buildings at all? Ideally, I'd love to see a special process for razing a pre-WWII building ... in reality, any mention at all of historic preservation is probably better than anything Menino has done.
There is a special process for razing buildings older than 50 years. Some kind of waiting period and review.
I have to say that I do appreciate pre-war buildings and traditional forms; but that's mainly because post-war architecture has sucked so dramatically. Too much "form-follows-parking", too many blank streetwalls, and an obsession with egoistic monuments which detract from the city rather than contribute.
I think a lot of the "fear of heights" that has gotten into NIMBYs is largely due to the tendency in the last 60-odd years of building tall while ignoring the ground floor. A building that can only be appreciated from a helicopter is probably one that actually "looms" and "intimidates" a pedestrian.
Same goes for "density" which is associated in the NIMBY mind with the Corbusian-style housing project, even though that's a false impression.
If post-war architecture didn't suck so much then maybe people wouldn't feel so bad about new stuff replacing old. Remember, many pre-war buildings replaced even-older structures, many of which were beautiful too.
I have to say that I do appreciate pre-war buildings and traditional forms; but that's mainly because post-war architecture has sucked so dramatically. Too much "form-follows-parking", too many blank streetwalls, and an obsession with egoistic monuments which detract from the city rather than contribute.
I think a lot of the "fear of heights" that has gotten into NIMBYs is largely due to the tendency in the last 60-odd years of building tall while ignoring the ground floor. A building that can only be appreciated from a helicopter is probably one that actually "looms" and "intimidates" a pedestrian.
Same goes for "density" which is associated in the NIMBY mind with the Corbusian-style housing project, even though that's a false impression.
If post-war architecture didn't suck so much then maybe people wouldn't feel so bad about new stuff replacing old. Remember, many pre-war buildings replaced even-older structures, many of which were beautiful too.
Some like to argue that it is just "age", that a hundred years from now, another group would be complaining how 2013 architecture is so much better than 2113. I must concur with you that that's probably not true (unless we just decline, but my pointing is this observation more than perception). We really did abandoned something. In short, we'll probably see a greater rate pre-1950 get saved and outlast than our modern-style buildings.
Also, as a minor blurb, your line of "form-follow-parking" of your focus on parkiting than reality for Boston (since it is the first thing you listed). The suburbs are definitely true and we'll likely see a redevelopment and rethinking of the outer areas of cities. Within dense areas like Boston, I don't think form been twisted that much to parking than modern design. I suspect the abstract-style post-modern architecture philosophy is the bigger role for architecture for the high-end. Value engineering the mid-tier and lower-end buildings.
I do think we are moving away from that now, the next generation will have a better balance between following old ideas about aesthetics with modern theories of abstract art.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
It's not just age or design. A big part of what is missing in new construction is quality materials. While modern facades can sometimes do a pretty good job of mimicking masonry load bearing walls at a quick glace, any lingering study will quickly reveal a lack of weight and feeling of permanence that can only be found in the former.
Thus what I meant when I said value engineering for the mid-end and lower buildings.
cca
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,408
- Reaction score
- 12
No. Your falling prey to nostalgia. The criteria for the performance of buildings for comfort and durability has driven how buildings are constructed today. I mention durability, because it is true that owners/developers feel that they can fine tune the lifespan of a building to have a shelf life and make their pro-forma look great on the front end, but ... it is also possible to build a building that will last far longer than a solid masonry wood posted prewar building today. A contemporary (not style, but in the non-architectural meaning of the word) building is built to perform in ways it was impossible to perform as recently as 30 or 40 years ago.
It is ok to lament the loss of the pre-war buildings. They are great to look at. They are still good architecture, but are no longer good buildings. We here on this board might say that the architecture part of that is more important, but the people with the checkbooks do not agree.
cca
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
LOL at the notion of getting a 750sqft 1br in Back Bay/South End for $2100! You might be able to get a tiny underground studio for that price. A decent 1br will set you back $2500+/month.
Also, saying that the only people who want to live in 1br's in Back Bay/South End are "rich liberals who want to brag about how green they are" is absurd on its face. Both neighborhoods are highly desirable due to their extensive nightlife, proximity to work, nice architecture, and general city life. I can't believe you think political affiliation has anything to do with wanting to live in the city. You must be trolling.
As long as the roof is maintained, a timber framed building (mortise and tenon) has an average life expectancy of 400 years. A light framed (stick) is about 80. Same with load bearing masonry. By it's very definition, as long as there is not a failure of the roof (which would accelerate the decay of ANY structure), it's pretty much indefinite (read: roman aqueducts).
Today the name of the game is to build fast and cheap. Permanency never even enters the discussion.
Then also comes that pre-war engineers did not have their formulas as dialed in as they are today, so most structures that have survived were actually overbuilt.
Efficiency in new construction (in speed, use of materials, and energy) has absolutely increased. Life span, not at all.
Now you certainly can build that way while incorporating modern tech (I'm currently working for a client with a circa 1980s timber frame colonial, sheathed with SIPs), but it is labor intensive and therefore big bucks.