Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
I thought the Globe was very fair in its assessment. It recognized that it's largely income inequality that is causing the racial disparity in the Seaport, and that is because there is a racial component to the larger income inequality issue to begin with.
We definitely do have a growing income gap between the haves and have nots in this country. That's issue #1. But issue #2 is that non-white people have an even greater disadvantage than whites. We have way more white people (proportionally to the makeup of the overall population) who can afford to live in the Seaport than non-white people because of this racial gap.
But the Globe also made some good points about how Boston as a whole lacks spaces where black people feel welcome and accepted.
The Seaport was/is an opportunity for the City to leverage public investment and public policy to try to address these issues, even if just in a small way. By involving people of color more in the creation of the neighborhood, there would be a greater likelihood that the people who live, work, and visit the neighborhood would be more diverse.
The Globe is not inciting racism. It's pointing out the existing problems and disparities we have, and suggesting ways we can try to solve those problems.
No offense, but I strongly disagree with all of this. How in God's name could the city have made " black people feel welcome and accepted" in terms of the Seaport buildout? Are blacks excluded from the ICA? Legal's Harborside? Blue Hills Bank Pavillion? I don't get it. The creation of the neighborhood is dictated by market forces. The public amenities are there for all to enjoy. If any of these places are systematically discriminating against blacks the city/state should come down on them like a ton of bricks. However, even this slanted article isn't making that accusation.
Yes, the high cost to live there keeps some people out, but that phenomenon is color blind. I'm white as a freakin' ghost and can't afford to live their either. The Glob in their anti-development zeal is trying to find racism where it isn't in an attempt to halt the buildout of the Seaport. Screw that.
Of course blacks are not excluded from any of these places. It's not that businesses or government are discriminating against blacks when it comes to the Seaport, it's that it is a place where black people largely do not feel welcome. That's a trickier issue than red lining or discriminatory hiring practices. It's more subtle.
I do think making an effort to be more inclusive with who is on the design and development teams as well as who are the business owners who open up shop in the Seaport can help to address this. I do think there is a larger issue with black people not feeling welcome in many white-majority spaces in Boston, and that of course will take much more of a societal change to solve, but by involving black people more in the creation of the Seaport, at least there is a chance that it could reflect more of what black people are looking for, and creating those kinds of spaces where they do feel included.
I do think making an effort to be more inclusive with who is on the design and development teams as well as who are the business owners who open up shop in the Seaport can help to address this. I do think there is a larger issue with black people not feeling welcome in many white-majority spaces in Boston, and that of course will take much more of a societal change to solve, but by involving black people more in the creation of the Seaport, at least there is a chance that it could reflect more of what black people are looking for, and creating those kinds of spaces where they do feel included.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
cden4, I agree with you here and with several of the points you make in your previous post. The only point I didn't agree with was the evenhandedness of the globe's reporting (though I agree with many of their conclusions); they seem to only be pointing out the failure stories and not a single success story in this overall series on racism. There have been, admittedly, very few success stories, but not zero. Today's piece on Higher Ed. is case in point. They had one sentence about some effective policies at Tufts and MIT, and a dozen+ paragraphs on stalled/failed efforts at the city's other schools...Yet when they compared schools' data from 1980-2015, Tufts and MIT weren't included. My overall take on the series is that the data presented is not fully evenhanded, then it is fair to call into question the quality of the journalism. But I admit that it would be very unlikely that the conclusions would change much. This is a city that needs to be jolted into having conversations on these issues - conversations that weren't taking place.
If you are not of a certain race, you are not in a position to speak to whether someone from that race should feel welcome or not. Those are their feelings you are talking about; such is not equivalent to your logical take on whether they should/shouldn't have those feelings.
I agree with everyone who is saying that what's transpired in the seaport = economics at play. But the point is, it would not have broken capitalism whatsoever if:
- City planners/officials asked* employers to advertise new jobs more in underprivileged areas of the city
- City planners/officials asked* to keep affordable housing efforts also located within the same neighborhood instead of accepting offsets in another neighborhood
- City planners/officials designated some of the restaurant/bar/shop slots to be for local/not-chain businesses at controlled rent, and advertised those opportunities in underprivileged neighborhoods (e.g., this could have been a type of "offset" accepted, similar to other offsets)...and this could have resulted in minority-owned businesses being part of the seaport's growth.
*I say "asked" because I actually do believe that some of these developers would have taken these actions even if suggested and non-binding. The point is that these conversations weren't being had because no one considered them vital enough.
And I confidently say this wouldn't have broken capitalism because all of these developers were already paying offsets of one form or another...a well-planned effort could have resulted in much better strategic design of such offsets to help tackle the diversity issue. All of this could have been accomplished without costing the developers more.
"Feeling welcome" is a real thing; if you are not of a certain race, and there was a restaurant/bar near you that you were interested in trying, but when you went there you noticed that 100% of the clientele of that venue was a different race of yours, and you were the only one of your race, would you be a frequenter of that bar? I am just asking an honest question. No one is asking for venues to be all black and non-white...they are just asking from them not to be 100% white. Even a little bit of diversity makes minorities feel more comfortable in a place. There's no reason not to have the conversations about how this can be accomplished, and I do believe it is simply lazy, de-prioritized thinking that results in it not happening.
The city needed a wake-up call.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm asking this in good faith so bear with me here. As a white person, I can't really comprehend what isn't welcoming about the Seaport to black people? Is it the fact that it's mostly white people there? Do people there stare at you? How is it different from other mostly-white neighborhoods like Back Bay? Genuinely curious.
I've never seen anything that appears like racism (to me) and I frequent the Seaport a decent amount. So I'd like to hear other's perspectives about what specifically isn't welcoming.
I've never seen anything that appears like racism (to me) and I frequent the Seaport a decent amount. So I'd like to hear other's perspectives about what specifically isn't welcoming.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Most people, regardless of race, can't afford to live in the "Seaport". Because most of the money is held by the top 5%, almost all of whom are white, that's who's going to live there.
My guess is that outsourcing the affordable units to other neighborhoods meant more affordable units could be built there than if they were built in the "Seaport". Just my guess. But if the guess is correct, the BRA was probably judging that upping the gross number of affordable units available in the city has a higher priority than the socio economic makeup of a new neighborhood.
Was that the right judgment? We can debate it intelligently. But I doubt that the BRA has a big pointy pillow case order pending at Crown Linen.
My guess is that outsourcing the affordable units to other neighborhoods meant more affordable units could be built there than if they were built in the "Seaport". Just my guess. But if the guess is correct, the BRA was probably judging that upping the gross number of affordable units available in the city has a higher priority than the socio economic makeup of a new neighborhood.
Was that the right judgment? We can debate it intelligently. But I doubt that the BRA has a big pointy pillow case order pending at Crown Linen.
If you want to be welcomed in the Seaport, bring money. It doesn't matter what color you are. Money will always be welcomed in the Seaport.
Also, walking through and looking out at the water is totally free! That's pretty much my experience with the area. Look but don't touch. In fact, that's pretty much my experience with the majority of Boston.
Also, walking through and looking out at the water is totally free! That's pretty much my experience with the area. Look but don't touch. In fact, that's pretty much my experience with the majority of Boston.
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
I wasn't even aware Don Knotts had any half siblings.
Unfair that they only got half as many t's in their names too.... disgraceful really.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
That's a whole lot of rules for the public to follow.
I'm not white and I don't comprehend it either. I do not feel unwelcome there. It was simply an idiotic hit piece by the Globe to bring up race, which unfortunately, several will fall for. Many others (including here), though, have recognized that it's about money, not race. But then again, it's always about money regardless of anywhere in the country and certainly not unique to Seaport.
So why does it seem (to me) so popular to use Seaport (vs. Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Wellesley, Weston, etc.) as THE scapegoat to further their various agendas whether it be race or economic-related? My own thoughts are:
1) It's new and naturally people will talk about it
2) People wanting to believe $18B of their money was used explicitly and directly to develop the Seaport where the "rich white men" now live
3) Some other misplaced sense of entitlement
On point #2, it's interesting to understand what the $18B primarily consists of, which is also detailed in the Globe article. Money spent on the harbor clean-up arguably benefited Boston as a whole, and certainly wasn't in some master plan of making it nicer for the wealthy. Additional tunnels to/from the airport were sorely needed and serves everyone who uses them. Getting to/from the airport pre-Big Dig was pretty archaic in general. The convention center was put in a location where no one wanted to be. The federal courthouse did nothing to make the area more desirable.
My personal thoughts are that the Silver Line and deals to convince a small number of companies to relocate made the biggest differences, but make up but a fraction of the $18B that gets thrown around. Let's be clear though, no breaks would have been needed if the area was desirable in the first place. Also, if we're going to talk about public transit, there's also a commuter rail line that runs to rich-white-man Wellesley. Outrageous!
The last point I'd like to make here is that while people pile on the negatives around the Seaport development (which I also contribute to when it comes to some of the architecture), could we also recognize some very important positives? Some call it sterile, I consider it clean and virtually crime free - in the middle of the city! To me, those attributes are highly desirable, though I understand not everyone is a fan.
Indeed. And for that reason its carte blanche for the private security people to exclude anyone they want to.
I have zero evidence that they have ever used that power to disproportionately exclude minorities and low-income people. But there is ample precedent for that sort of thing.
Only semi-worthwhile point in the article was you could have required affordable housing to be built on site rather than contribute to a fund. One salient point in 100 mistruths.
I'll also say again, I don't like the focus on just blacks. Where do Hispanics and Asians stand on all this? I'm guessing they aren't included because they didn't conform to the pre-determined narrative the Glob had in mind.
I'll also say again, I don't like the focus on just blacks. Where do Hispanics and Asians stand on all this? I'm guessing they aren't included because they didn't conform to the pre-determined narrative the Glob had in mind.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Everybody that goes to the Seaport is not even from Boston. They are all transplants or upper class from other countries or states. I see plenty of different races along with all sorts of cultures when I go out to eat in the area. The GLOBE is wrong concerning race. Yes........ the top money producing people live in the area.
Its not race----- its income inequality. With the 18 Billion in Tax dollars spent it was basically geared for the corporations/Politicans and Unions to benefit from our tax dollars not the overall public. Just look at the side deals that Menino and the other democrats gave.
READ THE SIGN. Stay off the lawn and take a hike. We got what we wanted.
We built up the waterfont on your dime.
Hey look a bunch of white males declaring that racism doesn't exist because they've never seen it.
I am shocked.
BTW, next time you see a render like this:
Pay attention to the fake people they put in.
Does that look inclusive to you?
Here is an example in Los Angeles, when a render was released for development in a neighborhood that is like 90% black:
It seems like for some of you, racism only means "I want to kill that race".
No. Theres a range of racism.
"Im not racist I'm colorblind!" is what leads to not realizing that your office is 99% white, which in turn leads to not realizing that you forgot non-white people exist when developing your rendering.
Imagine you are developing a public park that has 6 tennis courts and 0 basketball courts (ahem, northeastern).
That's racist.
We don't know if it's the result of "we dont want something that will encourage black people to come here" racism, or "everybody at the office plays tennis lets do that" racism, but the end result is a clear message to the community that what they would like was never considered.
Speaking of which, how many basketball courts are in the seaport district?
I am shocked.
BTW, next time you see a render like this:
Pay attention to the fake people they put in.
Does that look inclusive to you?
Here is an example in Los Angeles, when a render was released for development in a neighborhood that is like 90% black:
It seems like for some of you, racism only means "I want to kill that race".
No. Theres a range of racism.
"Im not racist I'm colorblind!" is what leads to not realizing that your office is 99% white, which in turn leads to not realizing that you forgot non-white people exist when developing your rendering.
Imagine you are developing a public park that has 6 tennis courts and 0 basketball courts (ahem, northeastern).
That's racist.
We don't know if it's the result of "we dont want something that will encourage black people to come here" racism, or "everybody at the office plays tennis lets do that" racism, but the end result is a clear message to the community that what they would like was never considered.
Speaking of which, how many basketball courts are in the seaport district?
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Only a dumb uneducated individual would look at somebody's color and make judgement.
It does exist---- but not capitalistic society. Money could careless what color you are. Seaport was not built on capitalism it was built and supported by the Democrats who are a group of fascist regime.
You did nail the renderings thou.
Now that the thread has been trolled by someone who is likely unable to loosely define fascism, can we please focus on the actual Seaport Square development and related news?
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
Uh... there's one right here. I don't see any tennis courts (or any other sort of sporting area) in the Seaport. So by your basketball metric, the Seaport is actually pro-black!