Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

sidewalks said:
Personally, I think Shepard's suggestion is quite innovative. It would undoubtedly be pilloried for being classist, but I think it might help the economy.
Click to expand...

Didn't they have a similar program for new teachers who agreed to teach at least two years in a public school system?
 
If you renege, what do they do?

Throw you in jail?
 
IIRC they got the bonus (or tax refund) at the end of the deal.
 
itchy said:
As for your point about tax rebates, I think it's an interesting idea, but I'd be worried about abuse -- people living tax-free for two years, then jetting. Then you'd have a huge base of high-earning, no-tax-paying people -- not good for city services.
Click to expand...

I've proposed tax rebates for only one year, the first year after graduation when presumably incomes are lowest. It's also a rebate based on (and reimbursed after to answer Ablarc's question) residency for two (or x amount - say even three) years. So you won't have a 'huge base' of no tax-paying people, and you've disincentivized people from 'jetting' before they've been productive tax-paying residents for a time. And, needless to say, once you've incentivized them to begin a career here, it's much more likely you'll see them stay.

itchy said:
Ultimately, if you want to hold on to people, you have to have either jobs or a lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I'd say that the number one way to keep people around is to make them feel invested in the place. After all, if it's purely about jobs and lifestyle, any one of us would leave Boston as soon as a comparable job opened up in Miami Beach. My work has an office in Miami, and rents/real estate in Miami Beach are comparable to Brookline, where I live. Am I an idiot? Why haven't I moved?

What I think is most important about what I've proposed is that if college students in MA realize there's an incentive to stay after college, they might become invested in places like Allston rather than trashing it. If they really assume they'll be living here post-graduation, they could volunteer more, become more involved in local civic life. You encourage college students while they're still students to see themselves at home here for a longer term than 4 years of school.

itchy said:
Really big cities like NY, Chicago, LA have both by dint of their size....
Click to expand...

Really? You don't think Boston has both? An East Coast technology, university, and life sciences hub with a strong consulting and financial sector amidst an intact urban environment?

itchy said:
I'd say that for Boston to really succeed in keeping grads around, city and state would have to give a little ground on taxes in a broad way that affects all (rather than tinkering with incentives for certain classes of people for a year or two) and Boston could also lighten up on residential and entertainment restrictions to create more places for grads to live and enjoy themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to disagree with your point about the often puritan restrictions on entertainment. But to keep things in perspective, Boston has a large reputation as a fun place for young people - stodgy "adults" might see more culture in New York, but young people see a vibrant pub life and collegiate-orented entertainment venues accessible on public transit. Seriously, young people from out of town who go to school here or visit here think this is one hell of a fun town.
 
Sorry, I don't think many collee grads think very hard about comparative tax rates in the states/cities they'll be moving to. Want to tie them down? Create tax incentives to create entry level jobs for 22 year olds with little workplace experience.

Apropos to this thread, I feel like more Northeastern students stay in metro Boston than others because they get a toehold in the local economy with the work-study program. If you could create a similar matching program for schools that had more traditional academic programs (either for summer internships or entry level positions) it might also help hold on to these grads.

That's assuming that this state even wants them. I can imagine macro-NIMBY minded voters thinking that Massachusetts is too crowded already. Who cares if we lose out on an innovative economy or a Congressional seat or two?
 
czsz said:
That's assuming that this state even wants them. I can imagine macro-NIMBY minded voters thinking that Massachusetts is too crowded already. Who cares if we lose out on an innovative economy or a Congressional seat or two?
Click to expand...

Hey, that is a great hook!!! More college grads retained, more liberal Democratic congessmen and women sent to Washington. That may just work.
 
"This year, for example, the university opened a new 1,200-student dormitory in Mission Hill, yet the number of students living in neighborhood apartments has dropped by only 78, according to Ross."

Can someone please explain this one, please? I'm assuming the dorm isn't 93% empty and Ross is just using some kind of cheap accounting trick (old data or something).
 
TomOfBoston said:
Hey, that is a great hook!!! More college grads retained, more liberal Democratic congessmen and women sent to Washington. That may just work.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Scott Brown's polling numbers? Their residency would up the number of congressmen representing the state, but we all know these kids don't vote.
 
eaalkaline said:
"This year, for example, the university opened a new 1,200-student dormitory in Mission Hill, yet the number of students living in neighborhood apartments has dropped by only 78, according to Ross."

Can someone please explain this one, please? I'm assuming the dorm isn't 93% empty and Ross is just using some kind of cheap accounting trick (old data or something).
Click to expand...

Easy to explain. The dorm is entirely filled. However, students who used to have to pay more to live in dorms that are close to NEU can move into cheaper apartments in Mission Hill with the former residents moving back on campus.
 
I reserved a room last spring in the new International Village building at Northeastern but I found cheaper housing in Mission Hill. I like it here better than being on campus...I'm not that into the strict rules they have for dorms (can only invite 3 people in at once??) which was another reason I'd rather live away from the university's eye.

It's really disturbing that this guy Ross doesn't even take into consideration that a) the university has no control over whether its students choose to live off campus and b) that all college students are adults and since we're in America we can live wherever we want. Mission Hill is a nice place now, and from what I gather it never used to be. It should be considered a positive that college students (who don't generally commit violent crimes) helped better the neighborhood.

and of course politicians like Ross always make it so hard for highrise dorms to be built...
 
bjamessuchy said:
I reserved a room last spring in the new International Village building at Northeastern but I found cheaper housing in Mission Hill. I like it here better than being on campus...I'm not that into the strict rules they have for dorms (can only invite 3 people in at once??) which was another reason I'd rather live away from the university's eye.

It's really disturbing that this guy Ross doesn't even take into consideration that a) the university has no control over whether its students choose to live off campus and b) that all college students are adults and since we're in America we can live wherever we want. Mission Hill is a nice place now, and from what I gather it never used to be. It should be considered a positive that college students (who don't generally commit violent crimes) helped better the neighborhood.

and of course politicians like Ross always make it so hard for highrise dorms to be built...
Click to expand...

You are using logic, that does not apply to Boston politics!
 
a) the university has no control over whether its students choose to live off campus and b) that all college students are adults and since we're in America we can live wherever we want.
Click to expand...

Where I went to college we were not allowed to live off campus (well technically we were, but with considerable bureaucratic difficulty to the point at which almost no one did unless they were living at home with their families). A university can certainly take steps to dictate where a student can or cannot live as part of its agreement to educate that student. So yes, you theoretically have the right to live wherever you want "as a college student," but any specific college (especially a private one) has the corresponding right to make this difficult or near impossible for you.
 
I realize that^. But at least for Northeastern's case, they can't require everyone to live on campus. Even though they say they require all freshman to live on campus I still know a bunch of them who somehow got around that. I know that Emerson requires first and second years to live on campus now that they have the additional space, I suppose that NEU isn't too far off from that as well.
 
bjamessuchy said:
I realize that^. But at least for Northeastern's case, they can't require everyone to live on campus. Even though they say they require all freshman to live on campus I still know a bunch of them who somehow got around that. I know that Emerson requires first and second years to live on campus now that they have the additional space, I suppose that NEU isn't too far off from that as well.
Click to expand...

If the number they say is true, then NEU is going to need a lot more dorms, especially since Juniors and Seniors are not guaranteed dorming.
 
This is the kicker: Boston would be quieter and more affordable with the students out of its neighborhoods.

Love it.

Avoid town-gown disputes: get moving on new dorms
Boston Globe editorial, January 17, 2010

WHAT POSSIBLE harm can come of a few hundred more college students in Boston when 155,000 of them already attend 36 colleges? No harm if they can be housed on campus. But the increase is of legitimate concern to families competing with groups of students for apartments in Mission Hill and the Fenway area. And undergraduates, as a rule, aren?t model neighbors.

City Council President Michael Ross is calling out Northeastern University for exceeding its 15,000-student enrollment cap by 585 students. The cap is somewhat flexible, and the overage probably reflects increasing undergraduate student retention rates at Northeastern more than it does the intentions of college officials. But Ross is angry that the enrollment bump coincides with the failure of Northeastern to make progress on a planned 600-student dormitory on St. Botolph Street. The councilor isn?t out of order here. Northeastern, after all, houses just half of its undergraduates on campus. Boston College and Boston University do a significantly better job, at 82 percent and 80 percent, respectively.

Town-gown battles are bad for everybody. Mayor Thomas Menino?s administration and college officials have reached a truce in recent years. The terms are pretty simple. The city keeps itself in top shape as an attractive destination for students and doesn?t make a big deal about the burdens imposed by having so many non-taxpayers drawing on city services. The colleges, in turn, make earnest efforts to house their students on campus, leaving room for working- and middle-class families in the neighborhoods. And everyone can celebrate the hundreds of millions of dollars in spending power that arrives each year with the students.

But Northeastern isn?t holding up its end of the bargain. In 2006, the university secured approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority to build three new dormitories with the capacity to house a total of 2,800 students. But the university made good on building just one of those dorms for 1,200 students. Architectural plans for the 600-student dorm on St. Botolph Street are gathering dust. And a proposed dorm on the site of a Gainsborough Street garage is on indefinite hold.

The climate for financing dorms is overcast, to be sure. But Northeastern could be making more aggressive attempts to lease already available space at the nearby YMCA on Huntington Avenue. The Y is also eager to build a tower on the back of its property that could be a perfect fit for Northeastern. Minimally, the university should be adjusting its freshman enrollment downward next year if it can?t make headway on its housing problem.

Once a commuter school, Northeastern has brilliantly reinvented itself as a central campus with a rich university life. Students would benefit from living there. And Boston would be quieter and more affordable with the students out of its neighborhoods.
Click to expand...
 
Oh for fucks sake. If NEU starts to make aggressive attempt to least nearby lands, neighbors will start saying that NEU is expanding into neighborhoods and will fight tooth and nail against it. You know what, the neighbors get what they deserve. Every single one of them. This happened at BU when they tried to build their dorms.
 
But then it's Chuck Turner's problem not Mike Ross's. The goal is to move the problem out of Mission Hill and into Roxbury.
 
KentXie said:
Oh for fucks sake. If NEU starts to make aggressive attempt to least nearby lands, neighbors will start saying that NEU is expanding into neighborhoods and will fight tooth and nail against it. You know what, the neighbors get what they deserve. Every single one of them. This happened at BU when they tried to build their dorms.
Click to expand...

And BC when they tried to build dorms, and Suffolk when they tried to build dorms, and that private dorm in fenway....etc...etc...
 
Boston should outlaw all universities and colleges! Shut them down! Convert the residence halls to "affordable housing" (housing projects). Then we will have Detroit.
 
Are college kids factored into the population of Boston?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top