Old Colony phase 4, 5, & 6 | 72-110 Mercer street | South Boston

[chrisbrat]

It clearly isn’t a question of wealth when you consider the sticker prices some people are paying for these things.

Look, New York churns out affordable units in high density areas without resorting to this kind of fast casual slapdash stuff (because again, it’s illegal).

Here’s a new building in the Bronx, 100% affordable. Sure it’s a bland, unadorned, box but it’s miles beyond the vinyl numbers we get up our way. Nobody is going to mistake this for an off-ramp building in Waltham. Just as important: this is a precast concrete plank building - no wood chips in sight.

That is very pretty, you're right.

I suspect that if I lean too far into my "side" of the conversation so far, I'll lose touch with objective good/bad of the situation(s) being discussed. I'd wager a realistic assessment might argue that, thusfar, we've both been a little too dogmatic. Boston could definitely do better. Boston also isn't doing so badly.

 

[sean99090900]

It clearly isn’t a question of wealth when you consider the sticker prices some people are paying for these things.

Look, New York churns out affordable units in high density areas without resorting to this kind of fast casual slapdash stuff (because again, it’s illegal).

Here’s a new building in the Bronx, 100% affordable. Sure it’s a bland, unadorned, box but it’s miles beyond the vinyl numbers we get up our way. Nobody is going to mistake this for an off-ramp building in Waltham. Just as important: this is a precast concrete plank building - no wood chips in sight.

Well first, New York is hardly a paragon of affordable housing. While I am willing to have a rational consideration of regulations for reasons of safety or whatever, I think it is a terrible idea for government to dictate what citizens can do with the property they own.

At the end of the day, there is a policy objective of public housing and its subject to the constraints of political willpower expressed in acceptable levels of taxation. It's like building gigantic highways and bridges irrespective of their value add to the economy. If the best argument we have for spending money less efficiently is that some small portion of the population has aesthetic objections, we are no better than NIMBYs.

 

[Czervik.Construction]

Where I was going is that while these buildings look cheap, and are quite dull on the outside, are actually well built vs what is available in the surrounding area. Also, the interiors are generally very good quality with modern, open floorplans, new appliances, in-unit laundry, no lead paint or asbestos, etc.

The developers are not sleazy, they are professional real estate developers, backed by real estate investment funds. When I lived in Boston, I had plenty of "interesting" landlords and property managers. These new properties are run by professionals.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Ongoing future maintenance of these new buildings and grounds will be critically important. They can build fancy structures, or plainer structures, but if they're allowed to deteriorate it all doesn't matter. When my family moved into the Jefferson Park housing project in Cambridge in 1954, it was beautiful. The buildings were plain but well built with quality materials, and the grounds and landscaping were very nice. But by 1966 when we finally moved out, it had turned into a vandalized hellhole through lack of maintenance and the resultant demoralization of the residents. When a public housing project is not kept up by the city, people living there inevitably give up. So, the debate about how fancy a new building should or should not be is, to me, a bit moot. It's more important how the facility is managed, and how the residents are engaged and enabled to have pride in where they live.