I Think We Should Collectively Write An Article!!!

[czsz]

From dealing with them on a weekly basis, I know that most folks who work for municipal planning departments are not urban enthusiasts. They don't tour their own city with their eyes peeled, they don't small-talk about urban aesthetics, they're likely to live in the suburbs, they spend their days back-stabbing at the office, and their opinions on cities were received fully-formed and immutable from professors and textbooks in planning school. And we all know what balderdash is served up there as wisdom.

I wonder why such people even choose to go to planning school in the first place. I would have thought most such people have at least some minimal enthusiasm for cities.

It's ironic that a place with so many universities and a constant influx of young people can be so culturally sterile.

This has always been the beguiling paradox of Boston. Europeans in particular are always taken aback by how "a university city can be so conservative" in terms of its nightlife, fashion, etc. I even get comments about the conspicuous lack of political graffiti or stickered street signs. Cambridge and Somerville come off marginally better, but they don't exactly have a monopoly on the student population.

 

[ablarc]

I wonder why such people even choose to go to planning school in the first place. I would have thought most such people have at least some minimal enthusiasm for cities.

By the time most folks have put five years' work into their careers they've lost sight of what got them excited about their field to begin with. Work has become a struggle for survival.

 

[ablarc]

How do we find a cure?

The cure consists of getting city folks back in touch with themselves. There's a reason they moved to the city in the first place, and if they like being there still, there's a reason for that, too.

But it's not to be found in the canned theories they've absorbed from the nonsense in the zeitgeist.

If they can free themselves of the theories that rot their minds when they think about the city, they can find that they're perfectly capable of forming their own true observations, just by respecting the evidence that comes to them through their senses. Rather than glomming onto the induced consensus of the herd, they need to learn to trust themselves for their opinions.

Just as we do.



Then the veil will fall from their eyes.

 

[statler]

I'm an idiot.

Jane Jetson... Jimbo Jones... ArcaneAlchemy ... bigboybuilder... blade_bltz... BostonBoy... Bubbybu... buju b... Christina Crawford... DevilDog... dotdreamin... DowntownDave... TheBostonBoy...

 

[ablarc]

^ You mean there are ... *gasp*... TWO BostonBoys ??

 

[ablarc]

For a lot of people around here, suburbs = good, city = bad.

Many people are stuck in the Seventies?

The concept of a livable city with 24 hour neighborhoods is alien to them.

Possibly even threatening. Think of all the drug dealers, prostitutes and drunks that could unleash.

Boston is a place where people go to school and then live for a few years until they can move out to the suburbs with the big SUV. It's a place they pass through, not a destination. And while they are here, the character or lack thereof the place makes no impression on them.

To be fair, though, a lot of them hang around after they get their degrees. I bet the urban parts of Cambridge, Somerville and Boston have a decent concentration of Harvard and MIT graduates.

It's ironic that a place with so many universities and a constant influx of young people can be so culturally sterile.

Actually a fertile local culture is more often due to grownups than students. The exception is Paris' Latin Quarter, and to a lesser degree Harvard Square. Students don't have the money --and often, the interests-- to generate a lively culture. Greenwich Village, SoHo and the Meatpacking District are not student phenomena.

You can't convince anyone of anything until they understand what a city is and can be, and then take a look at Boston.

Not sure I know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

 

[nm88]

And yet many recent retirees are electing to move into the city instead of migrating to the sunny climes of Florida and Arizona as their parents did. For these people, retiring means losing lawn care and household upkeep while increasing cultural, theater and dining possibilities. The first baby boomers are deciding, perhaps, that golf alone is not enough to occupy them.

 

[czsz]

^ They also happen to be just the sort of people who have a lot of time for active NIMBYism.

Actually a fertile local culture is more often due to grownups than students. The exception is Paris' Latin Quarter, and to a lesser degree Harvard Square. Students don't have the money --and often, the interests-- to generate a lively culture. Greenwich Village, SoHo and the Meatpacking District are not student phenomena.

All of these places are shadows of what they once were - perhaps because they have become such "grownup" phenomenon. The Latin Quarter? Plein avec les magasins <<Gap>> et <<Banana Republic>>. Harvard Square? Pretty much the same? Greenwich Village only manages to have retained its cultural edge for the likes of Bill O'Reilly. A real artist hasn't been able to walk around SoHo for 20 years. And just try clubbing in the Meatpacking District without the corporate credit card.

You may be right that students have neither the time nor the money to create lively urban spaces, but the answer isn't to look to the counterculture neighborhoods of a generation ago. Twentysomethings living in Bushwick and the Mission are more active and creative, even if their respective neighborhoods don't necessarily reflect it yet (though it doesn't help that decades of spiraling prices have resulted in these people being pushed to the urban margins, leading them to fetishize urban emptiness in turn).

 

[kennedy]

I think the issue is, some people just don't like cities. These people are also known as old. Surburban is not necessarily bad, I mean seriously, the entire world can't be urban. Without a fairly concentrated urban center, cities will lose their allure. In order for cities to survive, Surburbia must exist.

However, Surburbia does not necessarily need to be like Wayland and Newton and whatever other exurbs there are. They can be cities on a miniature scale.

 

[Ron Newman]

Newton is not an 'exurb'.

 

[JimboJones]

I can get you in the paper; the big, time-consuming thins is deciding on a topic and finding someone to put together a draft.

Do you want this to be broad-based or single-topic? Architecture- or development-oriented?

The first column "you" write doesn't have to cover everything. I think it should be specific enough that people want to read it; if it's too general, people will skim the first paragraph, see it doesn't offer anything new, then turn the page.

One idea would be to use a specific to make a general point. For example, since just about everyone but me thinks the SC&L building is like the second coming of Gaudi, perhaps you could write a column about how Bostonians and the powers-that-be are saving the wrong buildings - tearing that down while leaving other, more ugly / unimportant buildings standing (I can't think of an example, but you know what I mean).

Since the covert purpose of the column would be to drive traffic to this site, it would, of course, make sense if the column focused on a topic that we've all spent hours talking about. Being a bit controversial would help, too, but not "exclusive".

I could have written this all a lot better, but words are escaping me right now.

 

[ablarc]

I can get you in the paper...

Good news. Let's not let this go to waste.

the big, time-consuming thing is deciding on a topic and finding someone to put together a draft.

The first will be more time-consuming than the second, because deciding on a topic requires consensus, while putting together a draft merely requires a volunteer.

Do you want this to be broad-based or single-topic? Architecture- or development-oriented?

On this forum, we correctly see architecture and development as fused. Together they produce urban design.

Sometimes this is good urban design (Christian Science Center, Post Office Square), more often it's bad (Government Center, Charles River Park, NorthPoint, the Seaport, UMass Boston), and sometimes it's more debatable (the Greenway).

Olden times more reliably scored bullseyes (Beacon Hill, South End, Back Bay), and the reasons aren't hard to state --while some spots that started out on the wrong side have evolved with sympathetic intervention into pretty decent places (Prudential, North End, Copley Square, Davis Square).

Yet others are just now patients etherized upon a table (Downtown, Theatre District), and the question is, will they revive?

If we can agree what's good and bad about these places, and if we can demonstrate how they came to be, we can make prescriptions to optimize future developments' chances of success (Government Center Garage project, Fenway/Masspike).

The first column "you" write doesn't have to cover everything. I think it should be specific enough that people want to read it; if it's too general, people will skim the first paragraph, see it doesn't offer anything new, then turn the page.

You bite off only what you can thoroughly chew.

How long should the article be?

One idea would be to use a specific to make a general point.

That's how Muschamp, Ouroussoff and Campbell do it.

For example, since just about everyone but me thinks the SC&L building is like the second coming of Gaudi, perhaps you could write a column about how Bostonians and the powers-that-be are saving the wrong buildings - tearing that down while leaving other, more ugly / unimportant buildings standing (I can't think of an example, but you know what I mean).

This could be a topic if it's not already a lost cause. Other projects resonate even more with the public: The Seaport, the Greenway, the Government Center Garage, City Hall Plaza (perhaps too chimerical).

Since the covert purpose of the column would be to drive traffic to this site, it would, of course, make sense if the column focused on a topic that we've all spent hours talking about.

Together with a collection of links for easy navigation for the uninitiated.

Being a bit controversial would help, too, but not "exclusive".

The subject is inherently controversial.

 

[Jane Jetson]

You can't convince anyone of anything until they understand what a city is and can be, and then take a look at Boston.

Not sure I know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

My point is that in a lot of respects, Boston is less like a city and more like a town. You look at New York or San Francisco, and physical size aside, there is no comparison, especially in terms of vibrancy. I don't think there are many little kids going to sleep tonight thinking, when I get big, I'm going to go live in Boston!

Other than someone's school or job being located here, there isn't anything to hold them here. Young people, rich and poor, bring an enthusiasm and an openness to new ideas and to life just by the nature of their youth. They don't stay because there is nothing for them to want to be a part of.

The people that do stay (other than the Bostonians on this board) seem oblivious to the city's shortcomings, perhaps because they have never experienced a NY or SF, let alone Paris, and think this is just as good. I think the problem is they have no idea what they're missing.

Boston needs to be more than a collection of tourist sites. It needs an identity.

 

[ablarc]

The people that do stay (other than the Bostonians on this board) seem oblivious to the city's shortcomings, perhaps because they have never experienced a NY or SF, let alone Paris, and think this is just as good. I think the problem is they have no idea what they're missing.

Boston needs to be more than a collection of tourist sites. It needs an identity.

Some would say it doesn't matter where you live, so long as you live a good life and work out your personal salvation. You can do that at Guantanamo.

Living in a great place is icing on the cake, but it's the icing we talk about on this board.

I can see your point that Boston's currently not up to snuff --just as the United States isn't. But just as we can fix America, we can improve Boston.

First let?s look at what?s good about it:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1393

 

[kennedy]

I'd say my vote for a topic would be the future direction of development in the city, and architecture's role in it, and how it is the number one contributor to the culture of a city. This would relate to what Jane just wrote, how Boston needs an identity. Rather, Boston has an identity, but needs to protect it by not building...for lack of better words, crap-yet also, to not be so conservative, to build bigger, higher, and better. One could also talk about how culture plays a role in this (colleges, 24hr nightlife, 24hr anything for that matter, sports, retail, dining...yadda yadda).

 

[JimboJones]

Can't you write the article as part of your application for school, college boy?

 

[commuter guy]

For a lot of people around here, suburbs = good, city = bad. The concept of a livable city with 24 hour neighborhoods is alien to them. Boston is a place where people go to school and then live for a few years until they can move out to the suburbs with the big SUV. It's a place they pass through, not a destination. And while they are here, the character or lack thereof the place makes no impression on them. I wonder how many have actually seen another city outside of Boston - they have no "urban frame of reference." It's ironic that a place with so many universities and a constant influx of young people can be so culturally sterile.

You can't convince anyone of anything until they understand what a city is and can be, and then take a look at Boston.

I think this is a bit harsh on Boston. Boston is much smaller than NYC and will never have that "city that never sleeps" vibe. Chicago and LA are much bigger and not really comparable. Boston compares favorable with other moderately large cities in the U.S. Most such cities in the U.S. don't offer near what Boston can offer in an urban experience. In your opinion, Boston may be inadequate and not live up to expectations, but almost all other comparable cities are worse, most are much worse. San Fran is comparable to Boston and many would argue that it has more urban vitality, but that is just one city. I've visited S.F. many times and it has never come across as some teeming 24 hour city. Its not perfect either. The population is very transient and overall more gentrified than Boston for better or worse. Also for a much as we gripe about the MBTA, and aside from those cool little historical trolley cars Albarc likes to talk about, public transit coverage in S.F. is significantly worse than in Boston. To make Boston more like S.F. you would need to remove Dorchester, Mattapan and parts of Roxbury, place them across a large Bay (Oakland) and then replace the hole in Boston with Cambridge, Brookline and parts of Somerville. Also Boston didn't turn the corner until the "Massachusetts Miracle" of the 80's. San Fran wasn't stuck in the doldrums for decades in the same manner as Boston.

As far as people living in Boston for a few years then heading to the suburbs, my experience is that this is primarily driven by families with young children or those wanting to start having a family in the very short term. This is not a phenomenon unique to Boston by any means.

 

[ChitchIII]

I'm sorry I have been absent after quickly posting this topic last Friday... I spent the weekend up in Stowe Vt. But, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of intelligent, on topic, replies to the subject.

If I may put in my vote for the topic of the article? I think when I started this thread; it was my intention to have an article which was geared towards the single largest development group in the entire city of Boston. And who is that? No, it?s not Boston Properties or Gale International?? It?s the ?Institutions?, the Colleges and Universities which make our great City of Boston the college capital of the world. It would be my hope that if these Institutions were to be allowed to properly execute their Master Plans which coincide with proper Urban Development in the way of density and land use, that others would then have the ability to follow suit.

I don?t feel that there is any lack of intelligent ideas by the Institutions in the way of Urban Planning, however there are too many battles for them to fight in order to effetely do what is best for themselves and the city. And with regards to funding?.. Who has or is willing spend more than these Colleges and Universities, no body.

Sometime this week I am going to try and put together a basic outline with some ideas?. This is my quick and dirty writing, so don?t take my ramblings here as what you will see later. I have legal training and write very analytically when I have the time.

 

[underground]

To me, the over arching theme is the business/government relationship in Boston. In short: people are transient because the cost of living is so high; the cost of living is so high because nother ever gets built; nothing ever gets built because businesses find construction/expansion to be a political hassel or a financial nightmare; busineses have have to deal with this because our local political institutions are a mess; our political institutions are a mess because a large segment of our population is transient and couldn't care less about what happens in a city they can't wait to move out of. It's a snake eating its own tail.

This theme is especially timely in the wake of the national financial mess, the Wilkerson indictment, DiMasi's eithics probe, the Columbus Ctr. disaster, the forclosure crisis, the giant hole in the ground in DTX, numbers coming out in the Globe about a Boston braindrain, etc., etc., etc.

 

[kennedy]

Can't you write the article as part of your application for school, college boy?

I'd love to (assuming you refer to me when you say "college boy"), but I'm not sure you'd agree with all my views. I can write a draft, as a matter of fact I've already started an outline for the topic I said above for my application to some schools.