Is Boston designed for babies?

[czsz]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

It's hard to build an entertainment district from the ground up. Part of the appeal of many places that become thriving nightlife districts is the spontaneity emerging from sheer, raw urbanity. It would be difficult to achieve this in a neighborhood thrown up over night, no matter how solid the urban planning principles.

And Boston certainly doesn't need another ersatz tourist trap ala Navy Pier. Sacrificing one of the city's historic landmarks (Quincy Market) for one is enough.

One of this city's greatest problems is that there is simply not enough dense, urban fabric left uncolonised by gentrifiers who fear noise rising one decibel level and have generally precluded youth culture (which thrives on the cheap) from taking hold. Boston needs the culture of places like Central and Inman Squares to be transplanted to a neighborhood that feels like Downtown Crossing or the North End. In these places alone lie Boston's potential to reproduce thriving and widely beloved nightlife districts like the London's Soho, Istanbul's Beyoglu, or Lisbon's Barrio Alto. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this happening, so we cast our hopes toward the tabula rasa of the Seaport, with utter futility.

 

[belmont square]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I agree, although Boston already has one of the highest percentages of parkland of any American city. Maybe the reason they're not always so well maintained is that, in the quest to create pastoralism in the city, we've stretched the city's finite resources.

But if you looked at a 3 mile ring around the center of Boston, my guess is its either in line with other major cities or has less parkspace. Sure, when you throw in Franklin Park, the Arboretum, Stony Brook Reservation, etc, the percentage of park space goes way up. But are people on this board really concerned about the urban design impacts of large tracts of park space in Dorchester in Hyde Park? I'm not suggesting all the parks in the city center are assets, but when I walk around Downtown/Back Bay/South End/Fenway/Charlestown/Southie/Eastie I don't feel like I'm being overwhelmed with parkspace.

Your obsession with Boston's supposed child-orientation strikes me as odd given that we're likely at a 370 year low in the percentage of the population that are school age children. And I'll admit to being a city parent snob when it comes to dealing with the hoardes of suburban families with their oversized strollers while I navigate the Aquarium. But here's a question--if the city is making this concerted effort to sanitize the city and make it child friendly, why are there so few kids left in the city? And if the city is such a miserable place for adults, why do childless ones make up a greater proportion of the city now then they ever have?

 

[belmont square]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

One of this city's greatest problems is that there is simply not enough dense, urban fabric left uncolonised by gentrifiers who fear noise rising one decibel level and have generally precluded youth culture (which thrives on the cheap) from taking hold. Boston needs the culture of places like Central and Inman Squares to be transplanted to a neighborhood that feels like Downtown Crossing or the North End. In these places alone lie Boston's potential to reproduce thriving and widely beloved nightlife districts like the London's Soho, Istanbul's Beyoglu, or Lisbon's Barrio Alto. Unfortunately, there is little chance of this happening, so we cast our hopes toward the tabula rasa of the Seaport, with utter futility.

I guess if we were as big as London, as poor as Lisbon, or as big and as poor as Istanbul, we might have more ungentrified dense urban fabric. But we're not. We all understand that Europe serves as the best model for urban development. But can we please stop shaming Boston with comparisons? Guess what--Dingle, Luzerne and Karlovy Vary are all more dynamic and urban than Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc. It's not that hard to pick European examples to trump American ones.

 

[jass]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I don't understand. Wouldn't you be making fewer trips if the grocery stores carry both hard stuff and beer (and of course, groceries and pharmacy items)? I am not sure about New York, but in Maine, Beer, Wine, and Hard Stuff are sold together in grocery stores (there are plain old liquor stores too). I can go pick up the burgers and dogs for my cookout, the beer for the boys, the vodka (or wine) for the ladies and some deoderant and shampoo... all in the same place; now THAT's convenience.

Ron, I didn't know that about the liquor liscenses in Massachusetts. I understand the logic behind it, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult for a large chain (such as Shaws or Stop and Shop) to liscense each particular franchise.

Exactly. In California, theres actually a large liquor store right next to the supermarket. The supermarket sells everything... wine, tequila, beer, vodka, rum etc.

The liquor store survives next door by having a much larger, and specialized wine selection, and import vodkas and such. Supermarket sells smirnoff and absolut. Liquor store sells those + polish, russian, swedish, croatian vodka etc.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Man alive, this thread is all over the place. I want to move this conversation cause it's pretty good but this new software doesn't allow me to do it. If someone wants to branch off on a new thread go ahead.

 

[czsz]

This is the continuation of the discussion that began in the Greenway thread, branched off par van's request.

First, my two most definitive and controversial posts on the issue:

It's the whole approach taken by the city and taken up by the media - the same homogenization process that brought us Friendly Fenway. The Platonic ideal of downtown Boston for groups editorializing in the Globe is always something that will delight and amuse families frolicking around on seasonable weekends. Parents and pastoralists brought us the family-friendly Greenway, the family-friendly aquarium, the family-friendly Quincy Market, the family-friendly Freedom Trail, the family-friendly Enchanted Village/Chowdafest and other nonsense that occupies City Hall Plaza on its two purposeful days, City Hall Plaza to begin with (because Scollay Square was certainly not family-friendly), the dead and antiseptic Theater District where you can see the Lion King and not much else (alas poor Combat Zone), the continuing presence of the dangerous-for-pedestrians-but-family-friendly Duck Tours, all the family-friendly gimmickery of central Boston parks (swan boats, Make Way for Ducklings, Frog Pond, the whole of First Night and its G-rated entertainment), the impending hypergentrification of Downtown Crossing (because thrift stores and gangs of teens hanging out were not family friendly, and, by the way, families can only come from the suburbs), lest I forget: the Science Museum (great for field trips, useless for learning anything about post-1970 developments in science), and, of course, the Children's Museum.

Don't get me started on Cambridge and its Curious George Bookstore and Harry Potter street fairs.

Even Charlie of Charlie Card fame is a cute little cartoon character.

What is left in this city for adults? A strip of shitty Irish sports bars here or there?

It's not really a matter of explicit intentionality; I can't really cite some sort of definitive policy paper arguing for family friendliness. But it comes out in the presumptions of people who make choices about what goes into the city. The NIMBY mentality you cite owes a lot to overriding social norms which dictate that things deemed wonderful in 'family friendly' suburbia (quietude, pastoralism, easy transport for gaggles of kids, safety) are fundamentally good everywhere, including cities. And while it's a mentality we associate with NIMBYs, it has infiltrated the decision making processes of the highest levels of city government. When was the last time we heard a proposal to make Boston more fun for twentysomethings? All we get are parks, quaint museum, parks, theatre for expensive musicals, parks, zoning for condos for middle aged executives, parks, neighborhood "main streets" initiatives that encourage quaintness and such, and more parks.

et maintenant, la lutte continue...

belmont wrote:

But here's a question--if the city is making this concerted effort to sanitize the city and make it child friendly, why are there so few kids left in the city?

Possibly because the city is increasingly expensive, and families can't afford to live in it. Nor do they look too kindly on the school system. The "concerted effort" at "sanitization" mostly targets more affluent suburban families who commute in to use the city as if it were a theme park.

And if the city is such a miserable place for adults, why do childless ones make up a greater proportion of the city now then they ever have?

For the same reason - more families are moving out. But, don't forget that a significant percentage of "childless" adults flocking to Boston's central neighborhoods are old empty nesters whose interests are usually every bit as blase as those of suburban families with children.

 

[czsz]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Started a new thread on the children issue. Belmont, please follow me there:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=46544

 

[czsz]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I guess if we were as big as London, as poor as Lisbon, or as big and as poor as Istanbul, we might have more ungentrified dense urban fabric. But we're not. We all understand that Europe serves as the best model for urban development. But can we please stop shaming Boston with comparisons? Guess what--Dingle, Luzerne and Karlovy Vary are all more dynamic and urban than Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Phoenix, etc. It's not that hard to pick European examples to trump American ones.

I'll briefly respond to this here because it has (kinda sorta) more to do with development like the Greenway. True, Boston bests American cities like Dallas and Jacksonville. Yay, us. At the same time, it does have the opportunity to match [urban culture] wits with the likes of Genoa, if not Dingle et al. Why not go for it? Whatever happened to the ideal of Boston as a world class city? What mayor would run on the slogan "at least we're better than Phoenix"?

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Ron, I didn't know that about the liquor liscenses in Massachusetts. I understand the logic behind it, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult for a large chain (such as Shaws or Stop and Shop) to liscense each particular franchise.

Except that grocery store chains aren't franchises. The stores are company-owned.

 

[statler]

I love the idea of a design museum in Boston.

I looked up OCAD in Toronto and just by their website they seem to function in the same capacity as MassArt does here.
The website does not mention a museum per se. They do have a student gallery and a professional gallery which I assume is what you were referring too. I wonder if this is a role MassArt could fill here.
With all the money that schools in this area get MassArt should be able tap into that and expand and open their own museum like the other colleges have.
On a side note, the BAC should grow as well.
We have enough 'general study' schools, the specialized schools should get some love too. Berklee and Emerson do OK for themselves and contribute to the public sphere in their own way. It would be nice to see the other schools step up as well.

 

[aquaman]

First off, I never advocated pastoralism in anything I've said. I think the NIMBY pursuit of "open space" is not fitting in a city that is fairly low rise and which already has plenty of acreage dedicated to parks. (I do advocate safe, small parks and playgrounds and other outdoor spaces for those who live in their immediate vicinity.) If anything, Boston needs more density and urbanism in the "hinterlands" (Hyde Park, Roslindale, etc.). Heck, I'd love to see just about every triple decker in this city bulldozed in favor of more densly built apartment buildings.

But to follow up on the notion that Boston is designed for babies... No, it isn't designed for, nor is it particularly friendly to the coo-coo kind, but we've got plenty of babies of the kukoo kind living here.

I have 2 kids in grammar school, so I think I can assess whether or not Boston is kid friendly. I'd love to live in the city, but it's a fairly hostile place for young families -- unless you want to live in West Roxbury, which is practically Dedham anyhow. Boston's public schools are cr_p, the cost of housing is mindboggling for the space I'd need (two kids, me, a nanny), insurance rates, safe streets, lack of safe playgrounds, heck even trying to push a stroller on poorly maintained sidewalks or through an unshoveled snow bank on each side of a crosswalk make life hell. All of that forces young families to look at the reality of living here v. the burbs and the burbs will win each and every time.

The state of Boston now is that only people left in the city with kids are the ones who cannot afford to get out (the Detroit model) and those who are so wealthy they can insulate their kids from the true nature of living in the city (the Hingham-ization of the South End). The rest of the population is old-timers who rail against change, old money NIMBYs, college kids and child-free yuppies. I don't think that makes Boston a very healthy city or a very diverse world class one.

There is absolutely no reason why Boston cannot be a city that is friendly to young families with kids. NYC has found a way to do it, as have London, Paris, Chicago, Barcelona, and dozens of places around the world.

I see no conflict between (1) zoning DTC, Landsdowne Street, the Seaport and Kenmore Square as 4 am districts and (2) having affordable housing and putting some city money into building decent playgrounds and schools in Dorchester and Roxbury. We can do both. Making this city family friendly AND having an exciting Renzo Piano museum AND allowing restaurants to stay open past 1 am AND selling wine in grocery stores AND having some kid-oriented diversions within the city limits are not impossible.

The enemy of making any of that possible are the NIMBY babies, the kukoo ones, who don't want anything to change, NOT the residents with diaper-clad babies.

 

[pelhamhall]

^ Very good points. Boston has a government model where you have to do your time on the city council, jockey with the special interests, wheel-and-deal behind closed doors with lobbyists and union officials, and then you get to be Mayor. I really, really, really hope Menino does not run again, and some wealthy, successful business person candidate emerges with a self-funded campaign to steer the city out of the rut of cronyism, glad-handing, back-slapping, old-school, smoke-filled, union-hall politics that we're stuck in right now. I hate reading these articles in the local media about which city councilor is going to be the next mayor... as if we all have 2-3 choices of who will appointed next. I wish some brash, brilliant business person would emerge ready to take the reins... but I'm not holding my breath. We'll get a city councilor with years of political favors and baggage to pay back.

 

[underground]

Please don't revoke my hipster card when I say this, but Boston isn't boring. One time, I thought I was bored, but it turned out I just had mono.

 

[cden4]

It's easy to forgot how not boring Boston is. A few times a year, I go to visit my parents in a sleepy suburb of the Pioneer Valley. Talk about boring! It's good that so many of us continue to press on to make Boston an even better place, though. The best thing I can say is that education and inspiration goes a long way. In many cases, NIMBYs just don't know any better. They think they're fighting the good fight, but they just don't know. Teach them how growth and development can make their neighborhoods better, not just for others but for them too! Teach them how more development does not always mean more traffic. Inspire them to want to make their city better for everyone!

 

[kmp1284]

Indeed, I've never found Boston to be truly boring. Would I like more? of course, who on this board wouldn't. In the course of a month I can go out to bars five nights a week and go to a good and different bar every night for the whole month without going more than 1.5 miles from my apartment. As for clubs, I'm not a huge club person, I used to go to Avalon quite a bit but since that's been closed I've gone to Estate two or three times and Saint twice and for what a club should be, at least to me, they pass muster. Neither is particularly great as compared to my New York clubs, but seriously, city of 8 million versus city of 600,000, stupid comparison for stupid people. New York has a lot of clubs but not many of them are that good. I've been to upwards of 20 clubs in NY and there are only three or four that I go back to regularly when there. For all the people who are as deathly bored in Boston as they claim to be, simply, what is your problem? what do you like to do that cannot be accomodated? What could Menino, Flaherty & Co. do better beyond allowing bars to stay open until 4am and/or running the T later or 24 hours?

 

[cden4]

One thing I would like to see is a more active streetlife. Parks are great, but I think we could use more sidewalk cafes. I think the plan for Downtown Crossing to truly pedestrianize the area is great, so that we can get some tables and chairs out there for people to just sit, socialize, and people-watch. I'd like to see this type of thing happen OUTSIDE of downtown, particularly in the neighborhood business districts. Too much of the city has car-oriented streets which discourage passive pedestrian activity. For most residents, the streets ARE their backyards. Make them places for people, not cars. That will also help make it more attractive to families, if they feel they can walk with their children without being threatened by fast-moving vehicles.

 

[belmont square]

I see no conflict between (1) zoning DTC, Landsdowne Street, the Seaport and Kenmore Square as 4 am districts and (2) having affordable housing and putting some city money into building decent playgrounds and schools in Dorchester and Roxbury. We can do both. Making this city family friendly AND having an exciting Renzo Piano museum AND allowing restaurants to stay open past 1 am AND selling wine in grocery stores AND having some kid-oriented diversions within the city limits are not impossible.

I strongly agree.

All of that forces young families to look at the reality of living here v. the burbs and the burbs will win each and every time.

I strongly disagree. I'm not faulting you for your decision to move out of the city. But my family hasn't made that decision. Most parents move out because of the schools, but the way I see it--we can't afford to live in any of the towns where the public high schools could compete with Boston Latin or Latin Academy. And even in the more affordable towns with mediocre schools, we'd have to spend much more on transportation, and would spend much more time commuting to city jobs (and away from our kids).

I think there is plenty of affordable housing in East Boston, Dorchester, Roslindale, Hyde Park, JP for people that want to stay in town. At the end of the day most self-professed city lovers opt for the promise of better schools and more space in a suburban environment. Hey, its their choice.

But if we've identified the need for cities to retain families in order to remain vibrant and healthy, don't we need to criticize the city-loving (I'm differentiating from those that never expressed an interest in remaining here after mating) parents who flee to the suburbs for a lack of courage and vision as much as we criticize our NIMBYs, park designers, BRA officials, and transit operators?

 

[cden4]

...don't we need to criticize the city-loving ... parents who flee to the suburbs for a lack of courage and visionYes indeed.

Yes we certainly do. I think the current generation who is having kids are more willing to take a chance and try to improve the city schools than the past, at least from what I've seen.

I currently live in Somerville, and I tell people that when I do have kids (within 5-10 years or so), I fully intend to stay in Somerville. I still get many reactions of "oh but what about the schools (the high school in particular)?". My response is usually that school is what you make of it, and that the Somerville schools are actually quite good and are getting better. In addition, people need to have the courage to realize that diversity (economic, racial, cultural, educational) is a GOOD thing for children. It's a cross section of the real world. It's a global society now, and the earlier children can learn to interact and collaborate with a wide variety of people, the better we will all be. (Ok, I'll step off my soapbox now!)

 

[tobyjug]

I love the new thread title!
Anyway, I was at a Clapton-Winwood concert last night at Madison Square Garden (boy, has that place aged poorly.) Wishing to shake off the horror of watching 20,000 drunken middle-aged white people trying to dance, I thought I'd stroll through Times Square. Can you say goo-gaa-gaa? Went for a cigar this morning at Nat Shermans and actually saw a "Build-A-Bear Workshop" on Fifth Ave! If you beamed down from space, you'd have sworn that Manhattan was designed by babies too. Aha! Light bulb moment! The real problem here is the "Manhattanization of Boston."

 

[dirtywater]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

I think the best place to do all these things is at the Seaport. . . . The WTC of Boston there and so is the convention center, ICA, Children's Museum and the Computer Museum which means that the area should expect a huge amount of pedestrian traffic if we can just add more things to it.

The Computer Museum hasn't been there for years. Its space was taken over by the Children's Museum and the Computer Museum became part of the Science Museum.