I am exited about the changes. I don't think every area of the city needs to have a residential component. Public transit works only if there is a core of high density office space that is accessible by multiple, and preferably all, transit lines so that people can commute there from neighborhoods that are served by only one transit line. If you build an office at say, Wellington than it will be convenient only for people who live on the Orange line. Building the Urban ring will allow more diffusion of the office district but honestly the urban ring will probably never happen. Therefor we must look to downtown to take on as much of the bulk of new office construction as possible. Having residents of expensive condo's downtown will impede this. First off they likely oppose future high rise construction down town. Second office density is much higher than high end residential density. What is the need to make downtown a 24 hour neighborhood? We ready have 24 hour neighborhoods in Boston and it is to these and underutilized former industrial sites served by single transit lines that we should promote new residential construction.
Residential in Downtown?
- Thread starter Hydrobus
- Start date
Re: Filene's
Sorry to call you out on your very first post, but this is so completely wrong I can't let it slide. Public transit works when there is appropriate density to support it, both residential and commercial, as well as institutional and recreational. To try to pack as much single-use high rise office space in the downtown core is one of the colossal and fundamental failures of urban "planning" from the 1950's-1990's in america. I hope we've moved (way) beyond that mindset.
The demographics of Boston are already tilted way too heavily to the suburban commuter population; encouraging residential construction in the city proper be it downtown, or Back Bay, the North End, or FPC, etc would only help the city's overall livability and sustainability.
Sorry to call you out on your very first post, but this is so completely wrong I can't let it slide. Public transit works when there is appropriate density to support it, both residential and commercial, as well as institutional and recreational. To try to pack as much single-use high rise office space in the downtown core is one of the colossal and fundamental failures of urban "planning" from the 1950's-1990's in america. I hope we've moved (way) beyond that mindset.
The demographics of Boston are already tilted way too heavily to the suburban commuter population; encouraging residential construction in the city proper be it downtown, or Back Bay, the North End, or FPC, etc would only help the city's overall livability and sustainability.
Re: Filene's
As you say density is necessary for public transit to work. However it is not the only condition. Individual transit lines are unidirectional. Only a consistently very high density city could support a spread out grid of transit lines going in multiple directions. For Boston in particular there are only two directions, inbound and outbound. If employment and residential centers are disbursed evenly than commuters will have to change trains to get where they are going. In many case they will have to go far out of the way to get to there destination witch may be much closer as the crow flies. The way to conquer this situation, and the way it has been conquered since the early days of mass transit, long before zoning laws and modern urban planning, is to situate employment centers in the core where all transit comes together. The new trend is to include a residential component in downtowns and I think that this is dangerous. For example many residential units have been added to downtown Manhattan. In the short term that has taken up the slack in the office market, but in the long term it will restrict future office development, pushing it into places like Jersey city, where less people will use transit because it is accessible by less transit, or to far flung suburbs that are completely inaccessible. I agree that it is important to create vibrant neigborhoods as the "carot" part of the equasion in luring people into moving to cities and using transit but only to the extent that it does not interfere with the long term economic viability of the city.
As you say density is necessary for public transit to work. However it is not the only condition. Individual transit lines are unidirectional. Only a consistently very high density city could support a spread out grid of transit lines going in multiple directions. For Boston in particular there are only two directions, inbound and outbound. If employment and residential centers are disbursed evenly than commuters will have to change trains to get where they are going. In many case they will have to go far out of the way to get to there destination witch may be much closer as the crow flies. The way to conquer this situation, and the way it has been conquered since the early days of mass transit, long before zoning laws and modern urban planning, is to situate employment centers in the core where all transit comes together. The new trend is to include a residential component in downtowns and I think that this is dangerous. For example many residential units have been added to downtown Manhattan. In the short term that has taken up the slack in the office market, but in the long term it will restrict future office development, pushing it into places like Jersey city, where less people will use transit because it is accessible by less transit, or to far flung suburbs that are completely inaccessible. I agree that it is important to create vibrant neigborhoods as the "carot" part of the equasion in luring people into moving to cities and using transit but only to the extent that it does not interfere with the long term economic viability of the city.
Cities have evolved for several thousand years as both employment and residential centers. It is a relatively recent (and largely american) phenomenon to conceive of cities as segregated employment centers, with far flung residential areas surrounding it. The ?new? trend of building housing downtown, is actually a return to a very old development model.
I suppose that I reject the hub and spoke development concept and subsequent transit model that has evolved in Boston; it would be a more equitable and sustainable model to develop multiple employment nodes within the city itself. There are already multiple employment/institutional centers within the city: downtown financial institutions, Harvard and MIT north of the river, the growing Kendall Sq biotech area, and Longwood Medical hospital area, etc.
To think that the city could conceptually reach a saturation point (where office towers cannot be built because too much residential has been built) seems dubious. The enormous tracts of land that sit vacant in the seaport district, around Fenway, at North Point, in Allston, at the Inner Belt in Somerville, in Roxbury prove that there are many areas of the city that could be expanded, both in terms of commercial and residential.
To not build housing downtown because it might hypothetically preclude a future office development, and touch off a chain of events whereby said potential office tower is developed in, say Kendall instead, which subsequently inconveniences someone commuting from Wellesley because they have to transfer to the red line at south station, seems like completely flawed logic to me. A disclaimer: my point of view is completely oriented towards urban living; I am not particularly motivated to address the convenience of those commuting from outside the city.
I suppose that I reject the hub and spoke development concept and subsequent transit model that has evolved in Boston; it would be a more equitable and sustainable model to develop multiple employment nodes within the city itself. There are already multiple employment/institutional centers within the city: downtown financial institutions, Harvard and MIT north of the river, the growing Kendall Sq biotech area, and Longwood Medical hospital area, etc.
To think that the city could conceptually reach a saturation point (where office towers cannot be built because too much residential has been built) seems dubious. The enormous tracts of land that sit vacant in the seaport district, around Fenway, at North Point, in Allston, at the Inner Belt in Somerville, in Roxbury prove that there are many areas of the city that could be expanded, both in terms of commercial and residential.
To not build housing downtown because it might hypothetically preclude a future office development, and touch off a chain of events whereby said potential office tower is developed in, say Kendall instead, which subsequently inconveniences someone commuting from Wellesley because they have to transfer to the red line at south station, seems like completely flawed logic to me. A disclaimer: my point of view is completely oriented towards urban living; I am not particularly motivated to address the convenience of those commuting from outside the city.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fan Pier
Rather than see what type of mess a developer would come up with for mid-priced housing in this area, I'd like to see them get moving on the luxury stuff so that there's less pressure to convert the loft and arts space along the channel.
Rather than see what type of mess a developer would come up with for mid-priced housing in this area, I'd like to see them get moving on the luxury stuff so that there's less pressure to convert the loft and arts space along the channel.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fan Pier
Sorry but you've got this backwards. More luxury in the Seaport will only make the artists lofts be converted faster since the building of luxury will signal to developers/building owners that it is a viable market. If you want the artist lofts to stay then you need to depress real estate values or landmark the buildings somehow.
Sorry but you've got this backwards. More luxury in the Seaport will only make the artists lofts be converted faster since the building of luxury will signal to developers/building owners that it is a viable market. If you want the artist lofts to stay then you need to depress real estate values or landmark the buildings somehow.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fan Pier
The fact of the matter is, you absolutely, hands down, end of story, no-ifs-ands-or-buts, cannot build mid to low priced housing in a major downtown area without heavy subsidization that will eventually dry up and negate your entire effort. Fort Point Channel's most realistic shot at maintaining it's artist community is for the Seaport to satiate the market for downtown luxury apartments and negate the need to convert even more old warehouse space.
The fact of the matter is, you absolutely, hands down, end of story, no-ifs-ands-or-buts, cannot build mid to low priced housing in a major downtown area without heavy subsidization that will eventually dry up and negate your entire effort. Fort Point Channel's most realistic shot at maintaining it's artist community is for the Seaport to satiate the market for downtown luxury apartments and negate the need to convert even more old warehouse space.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fan Pier
But that's not how the market works! The city isn't a single entity that can correct for these things. Every developer/building owner works on their own and when they see luxury moving in they want to cash in too.
You are right that the only way to keep affordable housing in a downtown is by heavily subsidizing. Is that what we really want? Would it cost less and help more people if we improved mass transit to the suburbs instead?
The hard fact is that artists are the first wave of gentrification and luxury apartments are the second. Boohoo for the artists but that's the way it works. They move on, clean up another neighborhood, and the processes continues. You can't say you are for the artists and want more luxury condos, the world just don't work that way. If it did Soho would be where all the artists in NYC live, but no, they all moved out to Brooklyn a long time ago. The same thing happens anywhere, especially Boston.
But that's not how the market works! The city isn't a single entity that can correct for these things. Every developer/building owner works on their own and when they see luxury moving in they want to cash in too.
You are right that the only way to keep affordable housing in a downtown is by heavily subsidizing. Is that what we really want? Would it cost less and help more people if we improved mass transit to the suburbs instead?
The hard fact is that artists are the first wave of gentrification and luxury apartments are the second. Boohoo for the artists but that's the way it works. They move on, clean up another neighborhood, and the processes continues. You can't say you are for the artists and want more luxury condos, the world just don't work that way. If it did Soho would be where all the artists in NYC live, but no, they all moved out to Brooklyn a long time ago. The same thing happens anywhere, especially Boston.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fan Pier
Editing Note: Sorry, I just realized that we may be talking past each other. What I'm saying is that the only way to BUILD mid to low priced housing is with heavy subsidies, and because of that, your best hope to PRESERVE mid to low priced housing is to expand the amount of newly constructed Luxury Residences thereby negating the need to rehab and convert mid to low end housing. Hopefully, that clears things up.
That is Modern American Urban Planning Myth Number 1. First, subsidized housing creates an unsustainable situation that eventually collapses on itself. Second, the real only way to keep affordable housing in a downtown area is by building and building smart. Housing in the North End isn't getting more expensive because a few luxury buildings have gone up recently. It's expensive because the number of units has been more or less static over the last few years while demand has increased.
Editing Note: Sorry, I just realized that we may be talking past each other. What I'm saying is that the only way to BUILD mid to low priced housing is with heavy subsidies, and because of that, your best hope to PRESERVE mid to low priced housing is to expand the amount of newly constructed Luxury Residences thereby negating the need to rehab and convert mid to low end housing. Hopefully, that clears things up.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fan Pier
Ok but you are still wrong. That's not how gentrification works. It doesn't preserve, it consumes. Even if the landlord doesn't do anything he can still jack up the rents and kick out the old tenants.
You cannot preserve mid-low priced housing by building more luxury. Building more luxury only encourages people to jump on the band wagon.
If you want more mid-low priced housing you have basically 3 options:
1) Wait for a neighborhood to devalue.
2) Heavily subsidize new development.
3) Build where land is cheap as hell, aka far out suburbs and exurbs.
Ok but you are still wrong. That's not how gentrification works. It doesn't preserve, it consumes. Even if the landlord doesn't do anything he can still jack up the rents and kick out the old tenants.
You cannot preserve mid-low priced housing by building more luxury. Building more luxury only encourages people to jump on the band wagon.
If you want more mid-low priced housing you have basically 3 options:
1) Wait for a neighborhood to devalue.
2) Heavily subsidize new development.
3) Build where land is cheap as hell, aka far out suburbs and exurbs.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,320
- Reaction score
- 61
Re: Fan Pier
Hi. Can you all move to the 3rd Suffolk District sometime in the next 30 days? 'k, thanks.
:O)
Hi. Can you all move to the 3rd Suffolk District sometime in the next 30 days? 'k, thanks.
:O)
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fan Pier
Think of Gentrification happening like this:
1) High end demand out paces high end supply.
2) The number of high end units is increased by converting low end units.
3) The number of high end units increases and the number of low end units decreases, but the over all number of units stays the same.
The key to the entire thing is to preserve those mid to low end units by providing high end alternatives to conversion. The issue in general (and this isn't something particular to Boston, but is universal) is that housing supply and housing demand almost never go up and down together (especially up),.
But you've got to think about the negative effects of your three alternatives. If the aim is to create an economically sustainable neighborhood, none of these will work. If you actually planned for devaluation you'd create a one economic bracket neighborhood (unsustainable). If you heavily subsidized new development you'd be relying on an unsecured source of funding over an infinite amount of time to keep your neighborhood afloat (unsustainable). And if you only built where land is cheap, you'd eventually run out of space, put your residents at a geographic disadvantage, and create a one economic bracket neighborhood (unsustainable). So when it comes down to it, preserving existing low to mid range units by increasing the supply of newly built high end units to avoid the conversion of low end units really is your only option.
Ed: sorry, that was to Van.
Think of Gentrification happening like this:
1) High end demand out paces high end supply.
2) The number of high end units is increased by converting low end units.
3) The number of high end units increases and the number of low end units decreases, but the over all number of units stays the same.
The key to the entire thing is to preserve those mid to low end units by providing high end alternatives to conversion. The issue in general (and this isn't something particular to Boston, but is universal) is that housing supply and housing demand almost never go up and down together (especially up),.
But you've got to think about the negative effects of your three alternatives. If the aim is to create an economically sustainable neighborhood, none of these will work. If you actually planned for devaluation you'd create a one economic bracket neighborhood (unsustainable). If you heavily subsidized new development you'd be relying on an unsecured source of funding over an infinite amount of time to keep your neighborhood afloat (unsustainable). And if you only built where land is cheap, you'd eventually run out of space, put your residents at a geographic disadvantage, and create a one economic bracket neighborhood (unsustainable). So when it comes down to it, preserving existing low to mid range units by increasing the supply of newly built high end units to avoid the conversion of low end units really is your only option.
Ed: sorry, that was to Van.
Re: Fan Pier
Has it ever been done?
In a prime location?
Without subsidies?
Forest Hills (Queens) is a very nice place developed for those without money. But it was subsidized by rich folks; and it only became a prime location as a consequence of getting built as such nice place.
Has it ever been done?
In a prime location?
Without subsidies?
Forest Hills (Queens) is a very nice place developed for those without money. But it was subsidized by rich folks; and it only became a prime location as a consequence of getting built as such nice place.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fan Pier
@underground
Ok I understand you better now but I think you are looking at this at the theoretical level. In the real world of gentrification the only actors who have any interest in keeping prices low are the tenants. The city wants gentrification because it brings in more tax revenue and developers/landlords want it because they can make more money.
The fact is that preserving low-medium priced housing is actually counter productive in a gentrifying neighborhood (especially if you are building lots of luxury, you don't want poorer people living around you.)
I don't disagree with you about the need, just the solution.
@ablarc
Forest Hills wasn't a prime location. It was a suburban greenfield development.
@underground
Ok I understand you better now but I think you are looking at this at the theoretical level. In the real world of gentrification the only actors who have any interest in keeping prices low are the tenants. The city wants gentrification because it brings in more tax revenue and developers/landlords want it because they can make more money.
The fact is that preserving low-medium priced housing is actually counter productive in a gentrifying neighborhood (especially if you are building lots of luxury, you don't want poorer people living around you.)
I don't disagree with you about the need, just the solution.
@ablarc
Forest Hills wasn't a prime location. It was a suburban greenfield development.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Fan Pier
We're way off topic from Fan Pier...
If you want good, quality, affordable housing move to my neighborhood in Dorchester. If you want to live in waterfront, downtown luxury location like the Fort Point Channel, then become a lawyer, not an "artist".
'Nuff said.
We're way off topic from Fan Pier...
If you want good, quality, affordable housing move to my neighborhood in Dorchester. If you want to live in waterfront, downtown luxury location like the Fort Point Channel, then become a lawyer, not an "artist".
'Nuff said.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
There are too many limitations on Boston's ability to provide the kind of housing gentrifiers want, where they want it to ever put an end to artist dislocation, even in this economy. There are way too many real estate-specific variables at play to apply a simple supply-demand equation to the situation, although it helps ever-so-slightly.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Of course there are a ton of variables that effect this, but that doesn't mean we don't know what the variables are. In fact, it's pretty obvious what the variables are! They're primarily related to our idiotic regulations and our idiotic processes. The good news for us is that those are two things that we can change. I'm not gonna pretend it'll be easy, but it's do-able.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
No, not entirely. I think we probably don't want to alter the aesthetics of a lot of Boston neighborhoods that would be the better places from a market perspective to dump supply in the form of condo towers (like the North End or Beacon Hill). Likewise, there's a limit to how far the wealthy will live from core neighborhoods without demanding more space. And a lot of wealthy people will also prefer prewar living spaces, which are necessarily limited. Finally, a lot of proximate space to this prime real estate is taken up by water - this is why Boston traditionally grew by land reclamation, and inflates real estate values even more.
So supply will always be limited because the demand side for luxury housing is really inelastic - these people are extremely picky, and Boston would have to radically alter its center city geography or morphology to reduce their demand to the point at which they would not be placing pressure on existing neighborhoods - assuming they would be willing to only take new housing.
So supply will always be limited because the demand side for luxury housing is really inelastic - these people are extremely picky, and Boston would have to radically alter its center city geography or morphology to reduce their demand to the point at which they would not be placing pressure on existing neighborhoods - assuming they would be willing to only take new housing.