Is Boston designed for babies?

[endus]

Because we parents pay taxes and vote, en masse. If the powers that be do not accommodate us, their political career will be brief.

Get used to it.

btw- I personally have never heard anyone who witnessed it, say that they miss the crime in New York.

You should try talking to some more interesting people. Try the local bondage dungeon...or maybe see if you can sneak into a subway tunnel in the middle of the night...you'll find them.

It's not the crime that they miss as much as the character.

Not to get nasty, but you talk about the local politicians as if you're proud of them. I can't imagine ceiling tiles falling on your children's heads on the way to the airport to fly to Disneyland is very good for them. If you want to take credit for the losers that run this state, you are MORE than welcome to do so. Just be ready to accept the consequences when they fail as they always have and will continue to do in the future.

It's all a facade. A paper city built up to look new and shiny. The truth is that all the crime is still there, it's just a different kind of crime. It used to be that you knew where the combat zone was and you just didn't go there. Now the bridges are built with substandard concrete, the ceiling caves in on you when you're trying to drive to the airport, and your tax dollars are disappearing even faster than they did before with even less of an explanation of where they went.

 

[aquaman]

Because those zones are under constant attack from the breeders. I've been in bars in Cambridge at 10:30 at night and had people walk in with a baby! No joke. The situation is completely out of control.

This is a case of bad parenting, not evidence that there is out of control pro-baby wave where city planning is concerned.

 

[belmont square]

It's one thing to create sustainable development, it's another to revamp the city as a bastion of yuppies.

Affording a house in Arlington, where I grew up, is nothing but a cruel joke now. I realize that my scope is creeping a bit here, but I think that it's all interrelated. It seems that the more you aim at making the city "safe" and "kid friendly" the more you chase out the locals and their businesses. In doing so you completely destroy the character of the city and what made it a cool place that people wanted to live in the first place, and the more you turn it into yet another strip mall filled with culturally bankrupt corporate line-towers. These people want to live in their idea of what "Boston" is, not the actual reality of what Boston is. They view all of the things that make the city what it is as a blight and a hindrance to their vision of a bed bath and beyond on every corner and no one throwing up in the alley behind their apartment when the bars close.

I won't even get into gentrification and the effects on the racial makeup of an area that it can have.

Even though I have two young children I'm with you on most of this. These endangered features of the city are some of the things that made it attractive for me to move here 15 years ago, and living in a non-homogenized environment is one of the reasons I'm attempting to remain here to raise my children.

However, aren't you describing a future that's inevitable for any city that turns the tide on decades of disinvestment and becomes desirable again? The presence of subsidized housing and residential adjacencies to large transportation and industrial infrastructure makes it likely that there will always be a beachhead for low-income folks in the city, but if urban form continues to gain in popularity doesn't it reason that it will transform into a place inhabited primarily by the wealthy or upper middle class? Isn't that the case in Paris or London or the great European capitals.

I'm of an age that considers urban decay and grit to be part and parcel of a major city, and I'm no fan of homogenization. But if there are going to be residential areas where homes are not kept up and the sidewalks are strewn with litter, and we had to make a choice, I guess I'd rather live in a world where those neighborhoods were on suburban cul de sacs of cheap 1970s era faux colonials then on streets of well-built victorians and row houses in Eastie, Dorchester or Everett.

And here's the best part--the day when all of urban Boston is Disnefied or Harvard Square-ied looks to be several decades away based on my observations of walking around the city.

 

[Scott]

Because those zones are under constant attack from the breeders.

"breeders" like your parents... unless there was another way to bring you into this world. I am very proud of the fact that I have reproduced so I wear that like a badge of honor.

btw- Your fellow citizens, members of organized labor spent a lot of time and treasure to ensure a certain community's right to marry. Wouldn't it be nice if that resulted in more adoptions. Wouldn't it be nice if you met that certain someone and have a child of your own? It would change your attitude.

Try the local bondage dungeon...or maybe see if you can sneak into a subway tunnel in the middle of the night...you'll find them.

Next time I'm filled with self loathing I may try that.

 

[czsz]

I think some people here are confusing the worthy right of families to exist and/or live in the city overall with the unnecessary need for families and their needs to take priority over everything in nearly every neighborhood.

 

[Scott]

...and what would a relative newcomer know about what is happening in neighborhoods he's never been to?

 

[czsz]

Huh? What are you implying?

 

[belmont square]

the unnecessary need for families and their needs to take priority over everything in nearly every neighborhood.

That's a little over the top, don't you think? The majority of city neighborhoods (Dot, Mattapan, Roxbury, Hyde Park, Eastie, Roslindale) have always had large populations of children and the needs of children in these places seem to be addressed much as they always have. In a few smaller neighborhoods (South End, Back Bay, North End, Beacon Hill) where this demographic was driven almost to extinction, the return of this species in historically very small numbers seems to be generating a disproportionate amount of alarm.

I get it. Formerly fringe groups in society--gays, artists, single adults--flooded into the areas of cities that were vacated by retreating middle class families in the latter half of the 20th century. But just because they were alone in seeing the city's charms during the darkest days of American development, should the city be reserved for them in perpetuity? If czsz or anyone else is truly a proponent of urban living, shouldn't the goal be a day when the demographics of the city more closely mirror those of the metropolitan area as a whole?

 

[czsz]

If the demographics of the city mirror those of the rest of the metropolitan area (i.e. the suburbs) where to the "gays, artists, single adults" congregate when they want to do so exclusive of strollers and crying? Are you suggesting they be pushed out of the city, or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

 

[belmont square]

If the demographics of the city mirror those of the rest of the metropolitan area (i.e. the suburbs) where to the "gays, artists, single adults" congregate when they want to do so exclusive of strollers and crying?

The same place I go with my kids when I want to congregate with them exclusive of uneducated people swearing every third word, high school kids smoking pot on the street, people tossing cigarette butts on the sidewalk, and inebriated college age kids stumbling out of the neighborhood bar: out of the city, because if you can't hack living cheek by jowl with those that aren't like you, then you shouldn't be in the city in the first place (whether you're a yuppie parent, or bondage dungeon dweller). By the way, when I get a night or day out on my own or with friends to enjoy the city sans kids, I'm usually able to find spots devoid of stroller and crying...could it be that the "gays, artists, single adults" are less creative/adventurous these days, or are they just not buying into the tolerance they've been selling all these years?

 

[belmont square]

or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

Yes! I can't think of anything less cosmopolitan than wanting to live in a neighborhood where everyone has the same lifestyle as you. If they want to mimic the white middle class parents that exclusively settled suburbia, then I would support their colonizing a place like Tewksbury or Norton.

 

[Scott]

Are you suggesting they be pushed out of the city, or that they lose their monopoly on the few small neighborhoods they've built lifestyles and communities in?

Last time I heard that argument it was during an anti-busing rally.

 

[endus]

"breeders" like your parents... unless there was another way to bring you into this world. I am very proud of the fact that I have reproduced so I wear that like a badge of honor.

btw- Your fellow citizens, members of organized labor spent a lot of time and treasure to ensure a certain community's right to marry. Wouldn't it be nice if that resulted in more adoptions. Wouldn't it be nice if you met that certain someone and have a child of your own? It would change your attitude.

I've met that certain someone. Maybe someday I'll have a kid. What I won't do is take that kid to bars in cambridge in the middle of the night or down through the alley where Centerfolds is. I also won't work to bulldoze Boston's culture to make it a homogenous vanilla "safe-zone".

CSZ makes my point precisely: there is certainly a right for families to exist and have places to go and have fun. No question about it. However there is also a right of people without families to have places to go and have fun. Neither of those rights supersedes the other one.

Next time I'm filled with self loathing I may try that.

You don't need to be filled with self loathing! There are wicked cool people in both places. You'd be surprised.

...and what would a relative newcomer know about what is happening in neighborhoods he's never been to?

Not sure if this was aimed at me, but I've lived here all my life.

 

[endus]

Even though I have two young children I'm with you on most of this. These endangered features of the city are some of the things that made it attractive for me to move here 15 years ago, and living in a non-homogenized environment is one of the reasons I'm attempting to remain here to raise my children.

Absolutely. You think that way because you're a smart person. As your kids grow it's those same cultural landmarks that will turn your kids into interesting and worthwhile people. Sure, there may be people peeing in the street after the mid east lets out (haha) but the upshot is an incredible local music scene.

However, aren't you describing a future that's inevitable for any city that turns the tide on decades of disinvestment and becomes desirable again? The presence of subsidized housing and residential adjacencies to large transportation and industrial infrastructure makes it likely that there will always be a beachhead for low-income folks in the city, but if urban form continues to gain in popularity doesn't it reason that it will transform into a place inhabited primarily by the wealthy or upper middle class? Isn't that the case in Paris or London or the great European capitals.

Sure. I can't argue with that. Its the inexorable force of progress. Disinvestment -> cheap rent -> artists -> culture -> cool place to live -> yuppies. That's just one path things can take but, yea, it's kind of inevitable. I think that some of the more prosperous property owners (like in Harvard Sq) could probably show a little spine and actually work and (ghasp) sacrifice to keep the city interesting, but I know that won't ever happen.

I'm of an age that considers urban decay and grit to be part and parcel of a major city, and I'm no fan of homogenization. But if there are going to be residential areas where homes are not kept up and the sidewalks are strewn with litter, and we had to make a choice, I guess I'd rather live in a world where those neighborhoods were on suburban cul de sacs of cheap 1970s era faux colonials then on streets of well-built victorians and row houses in Eastie, Dorchester or Everett.

I wouldn't hold your breath. It's only a matter of time. History matters not to developers. You need look no further than the rape of the old state Hospitals by Avalon Bay for evidence of whats to come. Bulldozing most of Danvers State Hospital was a crime and if you can't save a structure of that magnatude what hope do houses have? Sure, some will be saved, but the character of the neighborhoods will inevitably be lost. Maybe in the grand scheme of things it's better, but I don't think so.

 

[Scott]

I also won't work to bulldoze Boston's culture to make it a homogenous vanilla "safe-zone".

Did someone here say they wanted to bulldoze Boston's culture? Lord knows the current generation has so little compared to Gen X.

 

[endus]

Did someone here say they wanted to bulldoze Boston's culture? Lord knows the current generation has so little compared to Gen X.

<shrug> Well, apparently SOMEONE is in favor of doing so...

 

[Scott]

^I call your whole generation lame and that's all you got?

Lucky you were brought up in Arlington and not in the real Boston culture. They would have ragged on your ass.

 

[endus]

^I call your whole generation lame and that's all you got?

Allright then...if that's how it's going to be...

So, you're assuming I'm a member of "the current generation" I guess? Unfortunately you're not right. Thanks for playing though.

You're also not right about the culture of "the current generation". It's all in where you look and what's good right now, especially since we're talking about culture on a local level. If your cultural outlook is based on MTV or on driving by the club where you used to see bands back when you were actually cool at 11AM on a Tuesday on the way to the pediatrician, of course you're going to think there's nothing out there. I could lament the death of a variety of local music genres, not the least of which being a fucking fantastic local hiphop scene, but that's what old guys say when they lose their vision and relevance.

Lucky you were brought up in Arlington and not in the real Boston culture. They would have ragged on your ass.

LOL, you don't know shit about shit, least of all about me and what culture I've been involved with. It's funny that you've got all this soccer mom rage you're taking out on the rest of us though...I see where your opinions on the subject are coming from now.

 

[Scott]

Word of advice; Do not join a forum and try to tell people the way it is or convince people how cool you are with outrageous suggestions.

So, you're assuming I'm a member of "the current generation" I guess?

That's right, otherwise you would either be too old or too young (like a baby)to be hanging in bars in Harvard Square.

but that's what old guys say when they lose their vision and relevance.

It is also what they say when they have that certain epiphany and realize there really is nothing new under the sun. Whipping yourself in a subway tunnel is far from original and suggesting it here doesn't impress anyone.

Hip hop? I know every word to Rappers Delight; lay down some cardboard and I can show you some b-boy moves I learned back in the Dirty Dot. Does that impress anybody?

 

[endus]

It is also what they say when they have that certain epiphany and realize there really is nothing new under the sun.

In truth you can certainly be forgiven for thinking this way given the state of things, but nonetheless it doesn't give you a license to come in and rain on everyone else's parade.

Hip hop? I know every word to Rappers Delight; lay down some cardboard and I can show you some b-boy moves I learned back in the Dirty Dot. Does that impress anybody?

Yea, actually, that would be kinda impressive. Certainly more than this trolling is, anyway. That's not exactly a new idea either.