Landmark Ctr. Expansion Plans | Fenway

Make the approval permitting process simpler/faster --> more companies build more housing more quickly --> supply begins to catch up with demand --> rents stop skyrocketing year to year.

The best affordable housing requirement is density.
 
Many on this board will say that increased supply will help lower prices, but let's be honest, Boston is nowhere near any kind of supply and demand equilibrium.
Click to expand...
I think the situation was put pretty starkly by the the report out of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that greater Boston needs to add about 400,000 new units by 2040 to accommodate demand. That's basically like adding a new Boston in the region within 30 odd years. We're building a lot now, but not even close to the pace that appears to be required. Seems to me that even if permitting gets easier and affordable requirements become stricter, we're still going to be in for high housing prices for a long time. Supply and demand work in the long time, but short to medium term is going to be painful.
 
Last edited:
Getting away from the Landmark specific proposal so maybe this should be moved to a more general thread. But it is an important point.

Boston cannot do it by itself. Yes, it can build taller downtown and southend, into roxbury, allston and brighton. Cambridge and Somerville are getting in on it too, and need to continue too. But where it really will be done is the next layer out. We need the Southfield's, Westwood Stations, etc. to build a lot more residential. This should be made an explicit condition for prioritizing things like DMUs that add capacity. You need a lot of housing in the suburbs around transit networks. Otherwise its just going to be this upward spiral of prices and discussion on lack of housing.
 
choo said:
Getting away from the Landmark specific proposal so maybe this should be moved to a more general thread. But it is an important point.

Boston cannot do it by itself. Yes, it can build taller downtown and southend, into roxbury, allston and brighton. Cambridge and Somerville are getting in on it too, and need to continue too. But where it really will be done is the next layer out. We need the Southfield's, Westwood Stations, etc. to build a lot more residential. This should be made an explicit condition for prioritizing things like DMUs that add capacity. You need a lot of housing in the suburbs around transit networks. Otherwise its just going to be this upward spiral of prices and discussion on lack of housing.
Click to expand...

That requires buy-in from the suburbs... which so far has not happened. I work in a suburban office park where there is a commuter rail station about a mile away from the office which I use daily. It's a 25-30min trip from Boston to there or from there to Providence. Perfect commuter suburb for both cities... should be a huge TOD development. The commuter rail station is surrounded by a sea of parking lots and a small strip mall. My co-workers who live in the town think I am crazy when I suggest there town seek developers for the parking lots because they could build three or four 8 to 16 story buildings there. They don't want "other" people in their town, the crime, the noise, the pollution whatever. Heck they don't even want the MBTA station there - there insular town hall has a couple times proposed closing the road that leads to the MBTA station.

I fucking hate the suburbs.
 
Consider me highly skeptical.

I don't understand why people feel that tons upon tons of housing "must be built" - the proverbial "something NEEDS to be done!" According to whom? And, if it doesn't happen, what catastrophe is likely to occur?

Do you really think that there is demand to double the Boston area's metro population in the next 20 years when it has been pretty slow-growth the last 50? Boston has a strong real estate market now, but these things are cyclical, and housing markets need to be supported by strong non-housing growth to have sustainable (as in, more than 5 years) growth. Let's assume state GDP growth will be stronger than the national average (although in 2013 it was below the national average). Do we really think state GDP growth is going to be so strong that the city of Boston needs to double its residential units in the near to medium term future and that Westwood needs to commit itself to tearing down its single-family homes to become an entirely different place full of multifamily buildings?

Assume that transformational residential construction doesn't happen but the supposed flood of people does come. What happens? They will look farther afield to live - in the suburbs, exurbs, Southern NH or Worcester. Those places are cheaper, and if the presence of new arrivals to the state causes home prices appreciate to the point that it deters even later arrivals from coming to the area ... well, fine. Nobody is going to suffer horrible consequences if the population growth rate of the greater Boston area through 2050 is 5% instead of 10% (or, more realistically, 0.5% instead of 1.5%, against a national population growth rate of 0.7% last year and 1% in the last 10 years - and 1% growth rates don't necessitate building a new Boston). Moreover, it would only be a good thing if a critical mass of people does need to move to Worcester, Springfield or the old mill cities to find cheaper housing. Lord knows most cities in the state badly need an input of skilled workers, jobs, and investment.

So, no, Westwood is not "morally obligated" to become an urban area. And Canton does not need to be given voodoo doll treatment if it doesn't commit to huge TOD developments to double its population. Frankly, this "crisis" sounds 100% manufactured, and most likely by people pushing their own interests. I refer less to people on this board than politicians (with various motives) and the construction/developer/broker/electrician/plumbing groups who are floating this spurious-sounding figure of "400,000 housing units needed in Boston TOMORROW - or the city sinks!" Naturally the soft-minded media lap up those sensational numbers and stories - but the public needs to be a bulwark against that sort of irrational thinking.
 
No one is morally obligated, but yes, something does need to be done. Extreme rents can have a hugely destabilizing effect. The riots in Paris's suburbs a few years ago are a good example of what can happen when a city artificially constricts housing; rents rise in the center pushing lower income people into far flung exurbs that isolate them from economic activity and exacerbating already problematic poverty. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but my preference would be for no riots over lots of riots, and I'd assume most would agree, regardless of any moral issues.

In terms of the evidence that we need to build, you don't need to look any further than the price. You don't need to be an economist to know it's incredibly high, which would indicate supply isn't meeting demand. To look at slow overall population growth (and even loss) over the last few decades (which has reversed recently in Boston by the way) and think otherwise is understandable, but you've got a major causation issue. Population didn't rise, but we also didn't build much housing that would have accommodated new comers. In fact, we built such a small amount of new housing that costs rose and people who would have otherwise stayed left. But again, even if you want to conclude the opposite, how do you explain away the obvious supply/demand/rising cost issue? I guess there could be a secret housing cartel, but I think that's probably unlikely.
 
Easy, Jimmy McMillan. What, pray tell, is the "right" price for rent? What makes anyone the moral arbiter of that?

The fact is, there are a lot of well-paid people in Boston. They are willing and able to pay $2K or even $10K per month. You can add lots of supply, but there will always be a core area with limited supply (even if it's just one block) where the people with money will want to live because it's prestigious and nice. That area will always be expensive because those people have the money and don't mind spending it.

Roxbury is very close to the most central parts of Boston, and cheap. Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, East Boston - all cheap, all close by. The problem isn't supply, it's that there are a lot of wealthy people. And that's a good thing.
 
I said I didn't think it was a moral issue twice. The "right" price is determined by the market, just like the "right" supply would be if we didn't artificially restrict construction. And there's absolutely no problem with lots of wealthy people. The problem is when the housekeepers, limo drivers, nannies, etc can't afford to live anywhere near them. Sure, Roxbury etc are cheap now, but if you don't see how quickly prices are escalating then you're not paying attention. Again, it's not a moral issue. It's a functioning economy and society issue. The world needs ditch diggers, but if the ditch diggers can't make it to the ditch then you're screwed.
 
Putting aside moral issues, there is simple a ROI issue at stake here.

Why should the T spend money expanding service if the towns are going clamp down on the potential customer base? It just doesn't make sense. If you care at all about provision of efficient service, then you don't want to dissuade potential customers by making it impossible for them to live near the station. In addition, the T will never get proper use of its fixed infrastructure for one-way peaked demand. If all travelers are going downtown in the morning and out in the evening, then that's at least half of the potential capacity simply wasted.

In such a wasteful scenario, the need for subsidies to the T will only grow higher and higher. The only way out of that mess is to develop demand for two-way, all-day travel on all the fixed infrastructure that is created. That is how the myriad public AND private train operators in Hong Kong and Tokyo become profitable, even, a goal far beyond what we are seeking.

Nobody's home needs to be demolished. There's tons of land near stations that can be developed into compact town centers.

If I were running things, I would offer this deal to towns: either you commit to liberalizing zoning within a 10 minute walk of the station, or you pay a significantly increased assessment for service. Or we skip your town entirely. Period.
 
Ichy, the 435k by 2040 number is not quite as outrageous as you think. It was for Greater Boston (~4.6 million people) not Boston (~635,000 people). Its maybe 15-20% growth over 25 years* or about 0.5-0.7% annual increase in housing supply. That's completely reasonable, steady growth in housing supply.

(I ballparked 2-3 million housing units for 4.5 million people - does anyone have a more accurate count?)
 
underground said:
No one is morally obligated, but yes, something does need to be done. Extreme rents can have a hugely destabilizing effect. The riots in Paris's suburbs a few years ago are a good example of what can happen when a city artificially constricts housing; rents rise in the center pushing lower income people into far flung exurbs that isolate them from economic activity and exacerbating already problematic poverty. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but my preference would be for no riots over lots of riots, and I'd assume most would agree, regardless of any moral issues.
Click to expand...

Another problem. Companies have to spend more in cities on employees since they generally need to to pay a living wage. One of the reason engineer salaries in Silicon Valley are so high is because the cost living (mostly due to rent) is insanely high in the Bay Area. If cost of living does not decrease or stabilize you seriously run the risk of companies moving out of the city due to the cost of employment. This issue may eventually play out in San Francisco which has even worse housing market and is barely tackling the problem.
 
fattony said:
I don't know, considering we lack extreme regulation a la rent control, I think we are damn close to supply and demand equilibrium. You/we/one might not like how high the equilibrium point is, but if anything the only market distortion we have is the affordable housing requirement which keeps prices artificially low.

There are a TON of high paying jobs in and around Boston. We are not New York for shear concentration of wealth, but there is no shortage of doctors, lawyers, financiers, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc who are all "new money" wealthy folks. They aren't competing with the "old money" types for mansions on Beacon Hill. They are competing with you/us for rehabed brownstones in the South End and new construction in the Fenway.
Click to expand...

FatT -- Actually we are just like NYC as far as shear concentration of wealth is concerned

However -- - Most unfortunately for the US ---- neither NYC, nor Boston, nor Hollywood, Nor Silicon Valley --- are == to Washington DC and its surrounds

DC is becoming like Imperial Rome ---- the production of the entire country flows into DC in the form of $ ---- but not much seems to flow out and DC gets richer and richer

Note that Maryland is now #1 in States with Millionaires per capita and 7 of the 10 richest Zips are in Metro DC
 
itchy said:
Consider me highly skeptical.

I don't understand why people feel that tons upon tons of housing "must be built" - the proverbial "something NEEDS to be done!" According to whom? And, if it doesn't happen, what catastrophe is likely to occur?

Do you really think that there is demand to double the Boston area's metro population in the next 20 years when it has been pretty slow-growth the last 50?......

Nobody is going to suffer horrible consequences if the population growth rate of the greater Boston area through 2050 is 5% instead of 10% (or, more realistically, 0.5% instead of 1.5%, against a national population growth rate of 0.7% last year and 1% in the last 10 years - and 1% growth rates don't necessitate building a new Boston)....

So, no, Westwood is not "morally obligated" to become an urban area. And Canton does not need to be given voodoo doll treatment if it doesn't commit to huge TOD developments to double its population. Frankly, this "crisis" sounds 100% manufactured, and most likely by people pushing their own interests. I refer less to people on this board than politicians (with various motives) and the construction/developer/broker/electrician/plumbing groups who are floating this spurious-sounding figure of "400,000 housing units needed in Boston TOMORROW - or the city sinks!" Naturally the soft-minded media lap up those sensational numbers and stories - but the public needs to be a bulwark against that sort of irrational thinking.
Click to expand...

Itch -- I think that you are onto the crux of this report -- except you missed the fundamental flaw in the underlying assumptions and the fundamentally flawed consequences:

1) Baby Boomers are retiring -- Check
2) we need to build housing to hold the Boomer's replacements in the workforce --- Not necessarily the retiring Boomers might move to Florida and leave their housing behind
3) this necessitates the growth in housing in and above growth in economy --0 not necessarily see #2

I do expect that the Greater Boston economy will outperform the US as knowledge-based industry becomes a dominant part of the economy -- what we do best

However, the cost of doing business here will always be higher and the weather this time of year will always be less good than some other parts of the US

PS: the Metro Planning Council has a less than enviable track record of prognostication
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top