Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

stick n move said:
Apparently in seaport square they ripped out the grass and installed plastic turf. That sucks.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2055984680835457038

https://twitter.com/x/status/2053592693297594817
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that area and walked through there on a nearly daily basis for years. The tale (or, tail) of that park is one where dog owners yet again ruined one of the few patches of grass in the neighborhood. There were plentiful NO DOGS signs on all sides, there's a new dog park 20 feet away and a bigger one 1 block away (that was also necessitated by dog owners tearing up another grass park), but literally every time I walked by there would be people with dogs off leash, digging up the lawn and chasing rabbits through the landscaping.

Plastic turf sucks, but several times a year the sod had to be replaced because it kept getting ruined by dog owners who don't follow the rules. Dogs are cool, pets are great, but the people who allow their animals to shit all over the place and tear up the parks are the reason this particular area got worse, and no one has any interest in doing anything about it (rant over).
 
Justbuildit said:
I'm very familiar with that area and walked through there on a nearly daily basis for years. The tale (or, tail) of that park is one where dog owners yet again ruined one of the few patches of grass in the neighborhood. There were plentiful NO DOGS signs on all sides, there's a new dog park 20 feet away and a bigger one 1 block away (that was also necessitated by dog owners tearing up another grass park), but literally every time I walked by there would be people with dogs off leash, digging up the lawn and chasing rabbits through the landscaping.

Plastic turf sucks, but several times a year the sod had to be replaced because it kept getting ruined by dog owners who don't follow the rules. Dogs are cool, pets are great, but the people who allow their animals to shit all over the place and tear up the parks are the reason this particular area got worse, and no one has any interest in doing anything about it (rant over).
Click to expand...

Widespread dog ownership imposes huge negative externalities in dense urban areas, and it's frankly a little baffling to me that there seems to be very little effort politically or otherwise in Boston to address that. It should be very expensive to register and own a dog in a city. With the exception of some smaller breeds, dogs are really not good city pets and cities are not good environments for them. Dog waste in parks and on sidewalks is a quality of life hazard, off-leash dogs are a safety hazard, and the fact that so many people just bring their dogs into retail / dining establishments nowadays is a public health hazard (even for folks who aren't allergic).
 
BACsop said:
Widespread dog ownership imposes huge negative externalities in dense urban areas, and it's frankly a little baffling to me that there seems to be very little effort politically or otherwise in Boston to address that. It should be very expensive to register and own a dog in a city. With the exception of some smaller breeds, dogs are really not good city pets and cities are not good environments for them. Dog waste in parks and on sidewalks is a quality of life hazard, off-leash dogs are a safety hazard, and the fact that so many people just bring their dogs into retail / dining establishments nowadays is a public health hazard (even for folks who aren't allergic).
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how popular dogs are. I think there's more dogs than kids now.
 
BACsop said:
Widespread dog ownership imposes huge negative externalities in dense urban areas, and it's frankly a little baffling to me that there seems to be very little effort politically or otherwise in Boston to address that. It should be very expensive to register and own a dog in a city. With the exception of some smaller breeds, dogs are really not good city pets and cities are not good environments for them. Dog waste in parks and on sidewalks is a quality of life hazard, off-leash dogs are a safety hazard, and the fact that so many people just bring their dogs into retail / dining establishments nowadays is a public health hazard (even for folks who aren't allergic).
Click to expand...
I don't currently have a dog, but I know a few older guys who have a comfort dog, serving as a psychological aid. One guy has PSTD from serving in the Vietnam war and needs a dog in that regard. That is an extreme example, but if license fees are raised then an exemption for these types of cases should be made, with a note from a doctor required.
 
jklo said:
You'd be surprised how popular dogs are. I think there's more dogs than kids now.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an unfortunate trend. We need more kids in cities and fewer dogs. Lots of things that are popular have negative externalities (cars! motorcycles! guns!) that should be regulated accordingly! I'm not saying we need to ban dogs from the city, but they impose a cost on society at large, and right now that cost is imposed evenly across everyone, not just dog owners.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I don't currently have a dog, but I know a few older guys who have a comfort dog, serving as a psychological aid. One guy has PSTD from serving in the Vietnam war and needs a dog in that regard. That is an extreme example, but if license fees are raised then an exemption for these types of cases should be made, with a note from a doctor required.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, licensed service and therapy dogs should be exempt. They really aren't contributing to the problems I cite anyway. 95% of dogs you see around Boston don't fall into that category, though!
 
BACsop said:
Yes, it's an unfortunate trend. We need more kids in cities and fewer dogs. Lots of things that are popular have negative externalities (cars! motorcycles! guns!) that should be regulated accordingly! I'm not saying we need to ban dogs from the city, but they impose a cost on society at large, and right now that cost is imposed evenly across everyone, not just dog owners.
Click to expand...
I very much do not like dogs (having a few stints as a mailman will do that to you), but it's the owners themselves that are the problem. We all know responsible dog owners who respect both the rules and other people, and clean up after their pets, but it feels like so many of them are the exact opposite and give Fido free reign. I don't think we need to discourage people from having dogs per-se, we need to encourage people to be considerate!

(Just to rant further: I know dogs tend to be a substitute for children because they are far less work, care, and money...but good grief do a lot of people with "fur babies" take that to the nth degree and think they have no reason to control their dog. I know he's your little sweetheart and he'd never bite...but I don't know that and he doesn't know me! Leash him, please. Constantly boggles my mind that people care more about their dog than other humans.)
 
Arenacale said:
I very much do not like dogs (having a few stints as a mailman will do that to you), but it's the owners themselves that are the problem. We all know responsible dog owners who respect both the rules and other people, and clean up after their pets, but it feels like so many of them are the exact opposite and give Fido free reign. I don't think we need to discourage people from having dogs per-se, we need to encourage people to be considerate!

(Just to rant further: I know dogs tend to be a substitute for children because they are far less work, care, and money...but good grief do a lot of people with "fur babies" take that to the nth degree and think they have no reason to control their dog. I know he's your little sweetheart and he'd never bite...but I don't know that and he doesn't know me! Leash him, please. Constantly boggles my mind that people care more about their dog than other humans.)
Click to expand...
The problem is people, not dogs. Some people litter, or behave in other selfish ways in shared environments, and some of those people also have a dog. Sure, there are some breeds that don’t make sense in urban environments and some people adopt them anyway. But framing the problem as “dog owners” or “dogs” is completely missing the plot. Lots of the worst kind of people chuck their McDonalds bag out the car window without a second thought, but nobody (outside the urban planning/street safety context) says “drivers ruin everything, throwing their litter everywhere”. They isolate it to “litterers”. And litterers are the people who don’t pick up their dog crap. Kick the litterers out of the city and you’ll have no problem with “dogs”.
 
dennismulder said:
The problem is people, not dogs. Some people litter, or behave in other selfish ways in shared environments, and some of those people also have a dog. Sure, there are some breeds that don’t make sense in urban environments and some people adopt them anyway. But framing the problem as “dog owners” or “dogs” is completely missing the plot. Lots of the worst kind of people chuck their McDonalds bag out the car window without a second thought, but nobody (outside the urban planning/street safety context) says “drivers ruin everything, throwing their litter everywhere”. They isolate it to “litterers”. And litterers are the people who don’t pick up their dog crap. Kick the litterers out of the city and you’ll have no problem with “dogs”.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. The issue is more than individual behavior and not just related to dog waste. If you make it more expensive and onerous to register/have a dog in the city, fewer people will have them, which in turn means fewer "bad" dog owners will have them, which in turn means fewer of the issues discussed in this thread. Trying to control human behavior through enforcement is very difficult and not particularly effective, so I am not optimistic any sort of campaign aimed at changing the behavior of bad dog owners or litterers will have much impact. Generally if you have a negative externality, whether traffic congestion, carbon emissions, smoking, or speeding, the most effective way to mitigate that externality and reduce the harm is a tax on the externality (e.g. congestion pricing, carbon tax, cigarette taxes, automated fare enforcement, respectively). I would submit it is the same with dogs in cities. There are many reasons why we should discourage dog ownership in urban areas, and to do so, I believe the most effective way would be to increase the price of dog ownership in urban areas.
 
Blackbird said:
I mean, kids have plenty of negative externalities too, no?
Click to expand...
...no? Not sure if this is a troll? Unless you are referring to the fact that it costs public money to house, educate, and feed kids, which is not a negative externality? Kids represent the economic and cultural future of our society. They are of immense positive benefit and do not impose negative economic, environmental, or health effects on society at large like the classic examples of externalities that I referenced above.
 
Out of curiosity... Boston is already seen as a pretty dog-unfriendly city as it is, especially compared to domestic migration hotspots like Austin, cities in the Carolinas, etc. as younger folks have more fur babies, places where they *can* take their dogs and have that lifestyle becomes more important and, annectodally as someone with more friends with fur babies than those with kids, drives a decent chunk of where they're choosing to live. Like, with a kid, you'd perhaps choose to move to the suburbs to have a cul de sac or good school district... With a dog you're making the same choices. It's just that in MA you can't often (legally) take your dog to an outdoor restaurant patio or into coffee shop in the city that dog parks aren't super dense, etc... I get that some folks don't like dogs, but I think the trend is ultimately moving towards more dog friendly and even dog-first spaces rather than less - it's why ISD created a new variance for dog friendly spaces.

Edit to add... And IMO, it's poorly socialized dogs, especially in suburbs or rural areas that don't necessarily have to interact with other dogs/humans, that are the general problem. Dogs that are part of the urban fabric and out and about? They get socialized, used to being quiet under patio tables etc. it's the dog visiting from the suburbs who's never had that experience that will react poorly.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Out of curiosity... Boston is already seen as a pretty dog-unfriendly city as it is, especially compared to domestic migration hotspots like Austin, cities in the Carolinas, etc. as younger folks have more fur babies, places where they *can* take their dogs and have that lifestyle becomes more important and, annectodally as someone with more friends with fur babies than those with kids, drives a decent chunk of where they're choosing to live. Like, with a kid, you'd perhaps choose to move to the suburbs to have a cul de sac or good school district... With a dog you're making the same choices. It's just that in MA you can't often (legally) take your dog to an outdoor restaurant patio or into coffee shop in the city that dog parks aren't super dense, etc... I get that some folks don't like dogs, but I think the trend is ultimately moving towards more dog friendly and even dog-first spaces rather than less.
Click to expand...

I think that might be what's driving the popularity of NH and Maine recently - they want SFH and a backyard for their Fur Baby to roam around in.

At least until their employer forces them back into the office like Fidelity.
 
BACsop said:
I respectfully disagree. The issue is more than individual behavior and not just related to dog waste. If you make it more expensive and onerous to register/have a dog in the city, fewer people will have them, which in turn means fewer "bad" dog owners will have them, which in turn means fewer of the issues discussed in this thread. Trying to control human behavior through enforcement is very difficult and not particularly effective, so I am not optimistic any sort of campaign aimed at changing the behavior of bad dog owners or litterers will have much impact. Generally if you have a negative externality, whether traffic congestion, carbon emissions, smoking, or speeding, the most effective way to mitigate that externality and reduce the harm is a tax on the externality (e.g. congestion pricing, carbon tax, cigarette taxes, automated fare enforcement, respectively). I would submit it is the same with dogs in cities. There are many reasons why we should discourage dog ownership in urban areas, and to do so, I believe the most effective way would be to increase the price of dog ownership in urban areas.
Click to expand...
You’re certainly right that user fees would more effectively reduce the poop issue, but you’re also coming from the assumed perspective that preventing dogs from being in a city is a good thing or a net positive. It may be for some people, but the majority of people want dogs, the majority of households have dogs, and making cities inhospitable to such a basic desire shared by the majority of people isn’t going to help cities thrive. For me at least, I want to make cities as livable as possible, and making dog ownership easy and enjoyable is necessary to meet that goal. The benefits of pet companionship outweigh the externalities by a pretty enormous margin (it’s not like dogs are in the same stratosphere as cars in terms of externalities), even if it’s admittedly infuriating when somebody doesn’t pick up after their dog or doesn’t otherwise live up to the responsibilities of having one.
 
dennismulder said:
You’re certainly right that user fees would more effectively reduce the poop issue, but you’re also coming from the assumed perspective that preventing dogs from being in a city is a good thing or a net positive. It may be for some people, but the majority of people want dogs, the majority of households have dogs, and making cities inhospitable to such a basic desire shared by the majority of people isn’t going to help cities thrive. For me at least, I want to make cities as livable as possible, and making dog ownership easy and enjoyable is necessary to meet that goal. The benefits of pet companionship outweigh the externalities by a pretty enormous margin (it’s not like dogs are in the same stratosphere as cars in terms of externalities), even if it’s admittedly infuriating when somebody doesn’t pick up after their dog or doesn’t otherwise live up to the responsibilities of having one.
Click to expand...
The majority of households have dogs? Not in Greater Boston: it's 26%. And I can't find any data suggesting a majority of households nationally own a dog. I don't think one can in good faith state that "a majority of people" desire dog ownership, especially in urban areas. Cities should not be bending over backwards to accommodate dog owners, who comprise a minority of households. By all means cities should plan for the presence of dogs and regulate/price them accordingly to mitigate the downsides. But cities should be prioritizing making cities more liveable for families and kids first and foremost, not dogs.
 
jklo said:
They are pretty noisy. Definitely wouldn't want to live underneath someone with kids.



And don't run around and bite people. Usually.
Click to expand...

Having noisy kids for neighbors is not a negative economic externality that impacts society at large, and even assuming it was, dogs can be just as loud and as much of an irritation for apartment living than kids, if not moreso.
 
BACsop said:
The majority of households have dogs? Not in Greater Boston: it's 26%. And I can't find any data suggesting a majority of households nationally own a dog. I don't think one can in good faith state that "a majority of people" desire dog ownership, especially in urban areas. Cities should not be bending over backwards to accommodate dog owners, who comprise a minority of households. By all means cities should plan for the presence of dogs and regulate/price them accordingly to mitigate the downsides. But cities should be prioritizing making cities more liveable for families and kids first and foremost, not dogs.
Click to expand...
lol yea after I read that I was gonna say, a majority of who have what??? That's definitely not my lived experience seeing friends, family, neighbors. That said, I do think people walking their dogs helps otherwise quiet somewhat antisocial neighbors become acquainted with others, especially the newbies with longtimers. A couple more small dog parks in my area of Dorchester would do wonders to help consolidate some of the externalities everyone's speaking of. Even if someone scoops the poop, I'm not very happy about poop residue and pee in my front lawn/garden. We put up a fence and they now just pee along the fence... But I'm a cat person, so a bit biased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top