Revere Infill and Small Developments

I still think Revere can be a key player in easing the areas affordable housing shortage. I hope I'm not the only one who sees that.
 
aaaaaa said:
Agreed, would be a great spot for large-scale public housing with some ground floor retail and a small percentage of private units.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure Revere wants to be a dumping ground for all of Boston, Somerville and Cambridge's poor. Maybe we could build that next door to you instead.
 
navigator4 said:
Yes, I'm sure Revere wants to be a dumping ground for all of Boston, Somerville and Cambridge's poor. Maybe we could build that next door to you instead.
Click to expand...

Wait, it wasn't already??? I was thinking mixed income communities anyways. I've said it before, revere could clean up very nicely in that corridor around the blue line and ocean.
 
navigator4 said:
Yes, I'm sure Revere wants to be a dumping ground for all of Boston, Somerville and Cambridge's poor. Maybe we could build that next door to you instead.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me! It would be pretty silly to be afraid of spooky-scary poor people. Unfortunately the government made it illegal to build affordable housing near me, so no dice :(.
 
akmags said:
That's an ignorant comment. Way to stereotype an entire population of people.
Click to expand...

Building new public housing (aka projects) is a pretty stupid idea, given all the money being spent right now to try to rehab existing projects into mixed-income developments. I think its been pretty well shown that pure public housing doesn't work, and, not the least of its problem is extreme disinvestment/upkeep after they are built.
 
bakgwailo said:
Building new public housing (aka projects) is a pretty stupid idea, given all the money being spent right now to try to rehab existing projects into mixed-income developments. I think its been pretty well shown that pure public housing doesn't work, and, not the least of its problem is extreme disinvestment/upkeep after they are built.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Mixed income communities work well. Public Housing concentrates the poor in a dense small area creating a ghetto of sorts. It has never worked well.
 
I agree with the sentiment that housing projects from the past have failed, but to make the statement that housing project contributes to an increase in crime is ignorant and is often a tactic used by NIMBYs to keep public housing projects from entering their neighborhoods.

Revere is a diverse city, and whether or not this development introduces, or of its entirety, is public housing should be irrelevant to the conversation. Why shouldn't someone on public assistance be afforded the same amenities of say Assembly Row? If and which the development decided to go such a route.

To take the argument further -- what if this was a mixed-use public housing concept? Dense, ground floor retail (filled with retail tailored to the Cantonese, Caribbean, Hispanic, or some other representative of the diversity of the occupants), with public housing above. Would sentiments remain the same? Why do we envision these types developments to be upscale and too out of reach for the average person to afford?
 
akmags said:
To take the argument further -- what if this was a mixed-use public housing concept? Dense, ground floor retail (filled with retail tailored to the Cantonese, Caribbean, Hispanic, or some other representative of the diversity of the occupants), with public housing above. Would sentiments remain the same? Why do we envision these types developments to be upscale and too out of reach for the average person to afford?
Click to expand...

I don't think that would work. Hate to say it but a public housing project is never gonna be a destination for the wealthy and middle class people that most stores need to attract in order to survive. Unless the retail is dollar stores and fast food I don't see it happening.

And I agree with others. Why should Revere be burdened with public housing while Boston/Cambridge/Somerville builds luxury developments.

akmags said:
Why shouldn't someone on public assistance be afforded the same amenities of say Assembly Row? If and which the development decided to go such a route.
Click to expand...

Putting people in public assistance into shiny new developments with granite counter-tops is unfair to the middle class people who struggle to pay rent in a triple decker.
 
The discussion is moot because there's no money for new public housing units to begin with. So feel free to take this enlightening policy debate off.
 
tysmith95 said:
... a destination for the wealthy and middle class people that most stores need to attract in order to survive.
Click to expand...

I agree with some of what you said... but this irks me. I am irked.

Sure every community would love to just get a bunch of rich people to move there and just somehow subsidize the government to the benefit of the working class people that already live there. But it usually doesn't work that way either.

Often communities that make attracting the rich as a goal end up displacing working people and the businesses that employ them in order to attract the wealthy (whom they subsidize with taxpayer provided infrastructure and then are often subsidized further with Tax increment financing (TIF). And the rich, being more mobile, will just leave and go elsewhere whenever the next community comes along with a better deal.

We need to see more public planning policy focused on good housing for good middle income and working class people with some subsidized housing for the poor mixed in and spread around (while keeping it close to job centers). There has to be a sustainable development model for the rest of the 80% of the population or else we are screwed.
 
^I agree with you. Mixed income communities work best. Communities that are 100% wealthy don't work well (creates segregation and lack of service workers), just like communities that are 100% low income housing don't work well (crime and disinvestment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top