My Boston improvement ideas

czsz said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't respond sooner czsz. My life outside of arguing on the internet got in the way today...


Just kidding, but to answer your question n00b, yeah, seriously. I believe that I made myself clear.


People don't mind cold weather in these parts...

But...

I don't think that many people around here are interested in driving up to Lowell, to spend a day getting fried dough in 25 degree weather. Especially since there's not much to offer at Lowell's Winterfest.

And this is no way a knock at Lowell. I know many who work behind the scenes in the Mill City. City Manager Lynch has worked his ass off to get Lowell to where it is now. And the future is bright for that city. In regards to Winterfest, let's be real here. We're not talking about a Montreal type outdoor festival (Montreal also has that rustic charm which draws people in, but that's another issue for another time). There's nothing really to offer for families. I know since I've worked in that city when the event went on.

If you want to drive 40 minutes up to see the human sled races, and nothing else, be my guest. I won't discourage you. But don't be shocked when your kids want to leave because they're bored.

Oh, and have a nice night!
 
I just thought it was funny/ironic that you said people wouldn't attend a winter fest because it was too cold.
 
czsz said:
I just thought it was funny/ironic that you said people wouldn't attend a winter fest because it was too cold.
Click to expand...
If there's nothing to do at a mini-winterfest, then yeah, I'm not going to stand out in the cold. There's a difference between tolerating and celebrating cold weather.
 
As good a place as any to post my latest Patch column.

City ill-prepared for future growth

We've seen an amazing number of residential and commercial developments built during the past 10 years, and more are on the way. How will the Back Bay and city cope with all this new construction and all these new people?

Screen-shot-2011-02-17-at-12.55.44-PM.png


Map showing approximate location of major new development proposed for Boston Proper during the next decade. Fully-interactive map: http://goo.gl/maps/Sy5l

How will our city look in 10 years?

We might think things change slowly, but if you look at photos of Boston in 2001 and in 2011, you see lots of changes. There's been an influx of residential housing and mid-rise and high-rise office towers. And more are on the way.

At least 20, and possibly more towers will spring up in and around the Back Bay. Let's break it down:

* Two new towers on the Prudential Plaza
* Two new towers on the Christian Science Plaza
* New towers at Berklee College of Music
* The Liberty Mutual tower
* A student dormitory rising about the YMCA in the Fenway, and the massive, billion-dollar Fenway Center project.

To see how all this comes together, see the map on right, or click here for a larger version.

Traffic

How our quality of life will be affected is the obvious question. Traffic, for me, is the number one concern, even above shadows and wind.

I don?t own a car but the effect on all of us of congestion caused by cars is clear. Our streets aren?t built for the additional pressure that new residential and commercial development will bring. Sidewalks need to be widened, streets need to be flattened. Why are there puddles of water at the curbs wherever there are crosswalks?

The subway is already overburdened, even on a good day. Our public transportation system must become more reliable. The actual journey on the subway isn?t unpleasant but the inconsistency of schedules and the bunching of trains are what bother people the most. And seem easiest to fix.

Access to the major highways should be improved. Yes, if you build more roads then the demand will grow, exponentially. But, the traffic is already there. A new plan is needed and, since many of the roads are owned by the state or state-run agencies (e.g., Massachusetts Turnpike Authority), a ?regional? plan is needed.

I?m sure I?ll be dead long before it?s done, but the Bowker Overpass near Storrow Drive and access to and from the Mass Pike must be improved. If traffic can be re-routed off the main streets of the Back Bay, by going under and/or around the neighborhood, we?ll be better off.

Traffic should be moved off Storrow Drive and onto the Mass Pike. The existing off-ramp at Prudential works but what about another east-bound off-ramp to Chinatown and a west-bound off-ramp from the Pike to the Fenway / Back Bay, perhaps near the new Fenway Center? (There is the ?slingshot? at the Allston/Brighton tolls but I don?t think anyone knows about it and fewer people use it.)

Housing

Finally, if residents truly want students out of their neighborhoods then they need to accept (high-rise) dormitories built all around the city. Just this week, hundreds of members of the Fenway YMCA signed a petition challenging Northeastern?s plans to build a 720-bed dorm off Huntington Ave. Letting Northeastern build would go a long way to resolving the issues that neighbors have with the school.

It?s an ?either-or? situation. Either you accept new dorms or you accept kids in the neighborhood; there?s no other choice. (I fear what residents truly want is for the colleges to stop expanding.)

I like residential towers being built, and not for the obvious reason that I can make commissions. To me, residential housing reflects a growing city, one where people want to live. I want to encourage that so that we're moving forward, not stopped in time.

But, we need to work to persuade people to consider neighborhoods outside the Back Bay and Boston Proper. Today, it's nearly impossible to convince new arrivals to even look at rental and condo properties in the outer boroughs. Residential developments for dense housing in neighborhoods such as South Boston and Dorchester should be promoted. Projects such as these are a logical way to grow the city while not putting additional pressure on the downtown neighborhoods.

In my opinion, the city seemed ill-prepared for the changes it endured during the past decade. We've gained more than 10 percent in population since 2000 and we're bursting at the seams. If we're going to continue to grow, and I think we will, we need to plan now for the future.[/quote]
 
John, while I agree with a lot of what you write especially about road and transit infrastructure, I'm not sure the problem you're diagnosing truly exists - that is to say, I don't think "we're bursting at the seams" as you put it. A lot more people (actual people, not just luxury condo owners!) could move into the core areas, into buildings built on vacant land, or air rights... but what's needed will be more amenities for actual residents: supermarkerts, 24-hour shops... put these in walking distance of new developments and suddenly you eliminate a lot of potentially new car or subway trips. Another thing is to stop mandading minimum parking requirements, which virtually guarantees that new developments bring more cars onto choked streets.
 
The Bowker Overpass should not be improved, it should be removed (except for the part that goes over the Pike). You've already got Charlesgate East and West for getting from the Fenway to Storrow Drive -- and it sounds like you want to get rid of Storrow Drive anyway. The overpass is redundant and a blight to the neighborhood.
 
Whoa. How did I miss hearing about the Dover Amendment?

The Dover Amendment allows religious and educational organizations to bypass (certain) local zoning rules.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia says that Boston says it's exempt.

Fat chance!

As far as I can see, the law means colleges can build whatever they want. No?
 
Boston had a larger population in the 1940s. Why would the city have a problem expanding to a lower population than then, now? So people will have to leave their cars behind and the MBTA will need more frequent service like the BERy offered. What's the big deal?
 
As far as I can see, the law means colleges can build whatever they want. No?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the "certain" part of "certain local zoning restrictions"?

The city also has leverage over nonprofits in other ways that cause them to fall in line. And of course, they're sensitive to bad PR in general.
 
Opinion: A Real 10-Point Economic Plan for Boston
By: Me

On Monday, Boston mayor Thomas M. Menino announced a “Ten Strategies for Job Growth” plan during a breakfast address before the Greater Boston Labor Council. Included are ideas such as increasing vocational and technical training and summer jobs programs, simplifying the city’s permitting process, and increasing city-state tax credits for infrastructure improvements.

The mayor has done a good job of keeping the city running during this grueling recession; the city of Boston has a 7.9 percent unemployment rate whereas the nation’s rate is 9.1 percent. This new plan, however, seems unlikely to have any significant economic effect, I’m afraid.

In addition to what he's recommending, here are some more practical ideas that could better help most people.

Stop harassing non-profits (PILOTs). The first bullet point of the mayor’s plan is to give the city’s non-profit organizations credits against their voluntary property tax payments for each new hire of an out-of-work city resident.

Non-profits in Massachusetts are exempt from paying property taxes. It’s state law. The Commonwealth believes that hospitals and universities (and museums) provide a “public good” and therefore should be rewarded for this with a tax break.

PILOTs are “payments in lieu of taxes” that cities and towns in the state push for these organizations to pay in order to make up for lost revenue and to compensate the municipalities for the costs of providing such services as police and fire protection. (The non-profits still pay for sewer and water and pay their employees’ health insurance and payroll and unemployment taxes, of course.)

In Boston, City Councilor Steve Murphy has been bullying the city’s non-profits into increasing their voluntary PILOT payments and Mayor Menino is on board, too.

Yesterday, the Mayor floated the idea of rebating non-profits $1,000 for each resident they hire who is currently unemployed.

So, he’s proposing that a voluntary tax, one they’re not required to pay, will be reduced.

That just doesn’t make any sense to me. If I’m a non-profit, why don’t I just not pay you that $1,000 to begin with and we can save the city some money in processing costs, okay?

The city needs to lay off the non-profits, once and for all. The only real estate development the city has seen during the past four years is on college and hospital campuses. Construction workers only had jobs because of them. Massachusetts General Hospital and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute both completed significant construction projects during this time, as did Northeastern and Suffolk universities and Emerson College and other non-profits including WGBH and the Museum of Fine Arts. Stop penalizing them for the good they do.

Cut the PILOT talk and you’ll immediately stimulate economic growth.

No more “affordable housing” set-asides. Say a developer wants to build a new residential building - an apartment or condominium tower. The city requires (it’s not law, btw, although the Mayor likes to pretend it is) the developer to set aside up to 13 percent of any new housing as “affordable units," meaning tenants or buyers have to qualify based on their incomes.

Other U.S. cities have similar programs. New York City’s differs in at least one significant way; there, developers (actually, homeowners) get a cut on future taxes if they build, whereas in Boston the developers get squat beyond the approval to build.

Why doesn’t this help? First off, the amount of added affordable housing is so piddling small that it has no effect on the high cost of renting/buying in Boston. In fact, it causes housing to be more expensive, by inflating the prices - the developers have to make up the profits lost on the affordable units by renting/selling the other units at higher prices.

If the city wants to encourage more housing to be built, which would employ construction workers as well as architects, interior designers, lawyers, (and real estate agents), it should eliminate affordable housing set-asides and let developers build housing at prices the market will bear.

Developers are adding housing to the city, so they’re providing a badly needed product. We then penalize them by taking away their incentive to do so. Does that make any sense?

Walmart. The Boston Herald says Walmart wants to open one (or more) Boston locations in a ‘Neighborhood Market’ store format, “which averages 42,000 square feet compared to the typical SuperCenter that measures 185,000 square feet and includes a full grocery section.” Mayor Menino has been very slow to embrace the idea.

I fail to see any difference between a new Walmart and the existing South Bay Target. And, as Robert David Sullivan reminds me, there used to be a ~133,000-square-foot Woolworths in Downtown Crossing - so why not a (much smaller) Walmart? (And, stop consumers from traveling to Saugus or Quincy in order to shop.)

Union leaders are complaining about the company’s reputation for offering low wages and no benefits. Well, guess what, Massachusetts has a minimum wage 20 percent higher than the federal mandated wage and we have universal healthcare. So, these are good jobs at good wages.

Does the city want more employed people, especially in the non-skilled labor force? Open the doors to Walmart and see new jobs flood the city.

No more tax credits. Why did Steve Roth and Vornado Realty Trust stop construction on its Filene’s project? Because they wanted to wait for a hand-out from the city. And, where did they come up with the idea that Boston would give them tax breaks? Why, because that’s what Mayor Menino offered to JP Morgan Chase. And, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. And, Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

No developer would want to invest its own money in Boston when there’s a chance the city will put it up, instead. What the tax gimmicks do, however, is create an uneven playing field. The few and the connected get the tax breaks while other developers are left waiting and wanting.

Stop giving away the store for free and you’ll give developers the incentive to build again.

Get development projects up and running. Don Chiofaro has offered to build a ginormous mixed-use project along the Rose Kennedy Greenway with no public subsidies, yet the city continues to ignore him. Other major projects are stuck in the endless approval process.

New York City fast-tracked development by getting all of the city’s planning and development agencies together at one time to review and reject/approve outstanding proposals. Boston should do the same thing.

Why does it take so long to get something built in this city? We’ve lost plenty of opportunities during times of past prosperity. It doesn’t have to happen again.

City as landlord. The city of Boston is Boston’s biggest landowner. Along with thousands of abandoned houses and vacant parcels of land, it owns two golf courses (that have lost over $560,000 during the past three years, alone) and the Strand Theatre. All this property is exempt from property taxes.

Want to stimulate the local economy? Sell off those properties to private enterprises, companies that actually have to make a profit in order to survive, unlike the city.

And, there you have it. I don’t need 10 economic stimulus points; I’ve solved our problems with just six.
Click to expand...
 
BRA's Meade eyes new tower space, harbor renaissance


Boston Business Journal by Craig M. Douglas
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 12:38pm EDT
Boston’s top planning official told a business audience Tuesday that the city’s $28 billion in proposed development will continue to snowball, as institutional money and efforts to transform the local waterfront should fuel a flood of new projects in the years to come.

Speaking at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce .Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Latest from The Business Journals Business groups endorse muni-health reform dealSmall-business health cost relief advancing slowlyState St. CEO sees more acquisitions Follow this company .breakfast event, Boston Redevelopment Director Peter Meade specifically identified the city’s South Station and Winthrop Square area near Downtown Crossing as particularly ripe locations for potential new towers. He said areas could easily “embrace more height” without delivering any long-term disruption to the existing layout.

Meade also reiterated the BRA’s long-standing position that such plans in other areas — namely along the Rose Kennedy Greenway — “are not appropriate,” according to the morning’s prepared remarks. While Meade did not identify any particular projects, the statement appeared to mark the latest volley in the city’s ongoing spat with developer Don Chiofaro and Prudential Real Estate .Prudential Real Estate Latest from The Business Journals PetSmart's Phoenix HQ sold for 2 millionPetSmart HQ sold to Cole Real Estate Investments for 2 millionTwo Montague office parks are sold in San Jose Follow this company ., which for years have been trying to build a massive tower complex along Atlantic Avenue in place of the Boston Harbor Garage.

Meade’s comments came just days before the BRA’s board will vote on a slate of major proposals to build out massive amounts of space in the city’s Fenway, Longwood and Allston neighborhoods. Those plans include The Winsor School’s blueprint for 430,000 square feet of new facilities, including a 10-story tower; Samuels & Associates’ Fenway Triangle proposal for 290 residential units, 225,000 square feet of office space and a smattering of retail and parking facilities; and Harvard Business School .Harvard Business School Latest from The Business Journals Sampson named CEO of United Way in DallasAEW Capital launches unit to acquire farmlandBill George's 'executive dream team' includes Marilyn Carlson Nelson Follow this company .’s Tata Hall, a $100 million executive-education facility to be funded in part by a $50 million gift from the founder of India’s Tata Cos.

Those projects, if approved, should be accompanied by billions more in development throughout the city, according to Meade’s remarks. He said the city’s Dudley Square neighborhood alone will account for two million square feet of new retail and office construction over the next five years. The site’s redevelopment will be punctuated by the planned $115 million rehabilitation of the old Ferdinand Furniture Building.

Meade said interest from out-of-state investors — including institutional players abroad and, inparticular, China — continue to see Boston as a key location to deploy their cash. “They tell me that there are four or five hot cities in the U.S. right now, and we’re one of them.”

Meade concluded by promising to deliver within 18 months a new Municipal Harbor Plan for the Downtown Waterfront, the opening salvo in the BRA’s strategy to further transform the city’s waterfront. He said the effort will largely focus on improving access to and the usage of Boston Harbor’s myriad islands, adding that the plan will emphasize “vegetation and visitation.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2011/09/bras-meade-eyes-new-tower-space.html?page=all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top