Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

[SeamusMcFly]

jass is injecting a really important element to this discussion.

This whole fiasco is not about binary racism, or the logic of fairness.

It is about how people feel. Counting one basketball court is a snide rejection of a thoughtful point of discourse.

This discussion is about the fact that the planners and officials could have done better.

I am pro-growth and pro-seaport for crying out loud. But the fact of the matter is, they could have done better (in a lot of ways, but this particular discussion is about fostering a sense of inclusion in a designed-from-scratch neighborhood). They should have done better because a) its the right thing to do, and b) because some amount of public money was spent, so why not be strategic about the use of that money toward the betterment of the lives of the full cross-section of residents and taxpayers.

Taking the high-road means ensuring that review committees are cross-sectionally representative. It means making sure offsets are optimally spent. This isn't about overt racism (this time), it's about making a freaking effort (because your residents are telling you an effort needs to be made). These residents are not acting entitled about being able to afford luxury housing.

I am honestly a little bit appalled by the total-brush-off this discourse is getting from the (presumably) white contributors to this site. NO one is asking to cancel seaport development plans, only to add a few subtle considerations to the development and planning process. How hard is that, honestly?

jass I guess we're in it alone on here.

Nah, just because I made a glib comment doesn't mean I ain't with this idea. It's not trolling, it's being real.

Basketball vs. tennis is a poor comparison. In (yes this is anecdotal) my working class town (Rockland) growing up. We had both. The tennis courts were always in severe disrepair, and I think I tried to use them a total of 3 times with some second hand racket I may have pulled out of the trash. Our basketball courts were always well used, despite the fact they were not cared for by the DPW. We would replace nets (or chains) and even rims to make sure we had courts. Our demographics were heavily white, with a handful of black families. Tennis courts saw little to no use by anyone.

Now, living in a much more diverse city of Brockton. We still have parks with basketball and tennis courts. The use, to the best of my knowledge, is almsot the same as when I lived in Rockland. Just with more black, cape verdean, and brazilian kids using the courts than in my old town.

Tennis is a sport generally for the rich. Not just any single color of rich, but in general in this country that has meant white. Newport has long been a bastion for this. It's a sport for those who send their kids to camps, and pay for lessons.

Basketball is for kids who have shorts, sneakers, and enough money between them to get a ball or two. This is why it is heavily inner city and poor neighborhood approved. The last 40 years have done a great job of marketing the sport to blacks, and it now has a very ethnic feel to many people now. It is not however a sport for black people. The same as hockey or golf are not sports for white people.

Perception can be reality to many people, but saying tennis courts over basketball is inherently racist is not fair in my opinion, but I can understand the sentiment. I also think of it as class-ism, because as someone who is not black, I have also felt class-ism in this regard. Growing up in a blue collar town surrounded by fairly well to do towns, you see a lot of it. I cannot compare that to the racism felt by any ethnic group because, it is not even in the same ballpark, but I also try not to see everything as racist at first blush. I feel too many people do, because if you go looking for racism, whether it's there or not, you'll find it.

 

[tobyjug]

Interesting as the recreation discussion is, the recreational argument is anapposite as it pertains to this particular neighborhood. You could put in a bevy of horseshoe pits, and that wouldn't make the neighborhood more economically diverse by attracting poor white guys into "Seaport" housing, any more than more basketball courts there would house poor black guys.

The real issue is whether affordable housing should be located on site as a part of new developments, or outsourced as was the case here. I vote "yes" to on site affordable housing.

 

[jass]

Interesting as the recreation discussion is, the recreational argument is anapposite as it pertains to this particular neighborhood. You could put in a bevy of horseshoe pits, and that wouldn't make the neighborhood more economically diverse by attracting poor white guys into "Seaport" housing, any more than more basketball courts there would house poor black guys.

The real issue is whether affordable housing should be located on site as a part of new developments, or outsourced as was the case here. I vote "yes" to on site affordable housing.

I bring up the recreation aspect because it is something that is both extremely visible and extremely subtle.

Subtle, because "let's build a new tennis court!" doesn't appear to carry even the slightest bit of racial connotation. Who hates new recreational options? if a developer proposed a new public tennis court as part of his project, why would anyone say no?

But it's extremely visible once you say "let's replace the tennis court with a basketball court" and suddenly, certain people become very, very, very, concerned.


But yes, affordable housing is the elephant in the room.

As is transportation.

Remember when the Silver Line was going to link Dudley Square with the Seaport?

Sure, that project was killed because the costs were idiotic (as was the design).

....but imagine Dudley Station actually looked and felt like Kendall Square. I have a feeling developers would have been a lot more eager to push for the project, and politicians would have accepted spending a billion or two in order to connect those neighborhoods.

Blue Line to Charles? if Revere had the demographics of the seaport, maybe it wouldnt be eternally on hold. Likewise the (cheap by comparison) extension to Lynn.

Look at how much money is spent on commute rail extensions that serve 500 people. Then compare the demographics.

 

[stick n move]

Interesting as the recreation discussion is, the recreational argument is anapposite as it pertains to this particular neighborhood. You could put in a bevy of horseshoe pits, and that wouldn't make the neighborhood more economically diverse by attracting poor white guys into "Seaport" housing, any more than more basketball courts there would house poor black guys.

The real issue is whether affordable housing should be located on site as a part of new developments, or outsourced as was the case here. I vote "yes" to on site affordable housing.

Exactly. Rich people play different sports than middle and lower class. That was a bad argument as minorities arent going to hop on the train transfer to silver then walk all the way out to some basketball court built here. Basketball courts get used by people within whatever neighborhood their in they dont attract people. This is about class and where the affordable housing is located. Also as I mentioned the factors that lead certain races to wealth over others, taking population % into account as well as this is a white majority state.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I bring up the recreation aspect because it is something that is both extremely visible and extremely subtle.

Subtle, because "let's build a new tennis court!" doesn't appear to carry even the slightest bit of racial connotation. Who hates new recreational options? if a developer proposed a new public tennis court as part of his project, why would anyone say no?

But it's extremely visible once you say "let's replace the tennis court with a basketball court" and suddenly, certain people become very, very, very, concerned.


But yes, affordable housing is the elephant in the room.

As is transportation.

Remember when the Silver Line was going to link Dudley Square with the Seaport?

Sure, that project was killed because the costs were idiotic (as was the design).

....but imagine Dudley Station actually looked and felt like Kendall Square. I have a feeling developers would have been a lot more eager to push for the project, and politicians would have accepted spending a billion or two in order to connect those neighborhoods.

Blue Line to Charles? if Revere had the demographics of the seaport, maybe it wouldnt be eternally on hold. Likewise the (cheap by comparison) extension to Lynn.

Look at how much money is spent on commute rail extensions that serve 500 people. Then compare the demographics.

Transportation is 100% correct. Most racially divisive thing I can think of in this city. Besides jerks of course.

However, yes Toby we are fully off topic.

The Globe article wasn't about Seaport Square the development. It was about the Seaport, which belongs in the urbanism or whatever sub section of this forum.

 

[jass]

That was a bad argument as minorities arent going to hop on the train transfer to silver then walk all the way out to some basketball court built here. Basketball courts get used by people within whatever neighborhood their in they dont attract people.

Did you see my NYT article? People in NYC are traveling from all across the city to use the new basketball courts in Brooklyn Bridge Park. That neighborhood makes the seaport look cheap in comparison.

 

[jl326]

Did you see my NYT article? People in NYC are traveling from all across the city to use the new basketball courts in Brooklyn Bridge Park. That neighborhood makes the seaport look cheap in comparison.

It seems like the area is becoming quite a problem for the residents who actually live there (primary stakeholders).

Resident complaints on increased crime

Residents demand Bridge Park get crowds under control

 

[jass]

It seems like the area is becoming quite a problem for the residents who actually live there (primary stakeholders).

Resident complaints on increased crime

Residents demand Bridge Park get crowds under control

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Let's browse the comments:

Let's face the truth here. Unless the City closes the projects and moves their residents elsewhere, Brooklyn Bridge Park will periodically be overrun by violent thugs.

the city simply raze the projects and pull the plug on NYCHA.

Time for the Fire Hoses

Just remove the basketball courts and roller rink.

Once you personally witness the parade of barbarians racing down the street you pay hard earned money to live on, you'll be entitled to comment. The park serves as a thug magnet. I don't see any workable solution to this problem. Nice things attract thugs, an age old problem.

Thing has gone total ghetto. Just like the movie theater on Court St... I don't set foot near either of those places.

Change the basketball courts to tennis courts, and voila, problem solved.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Now let's look at the rampant crime theyre worried about:

While she was down, a female acquaintance stole her phone and MetroCard, according to police.

Oh no, in a city of 20 million, a kid had their phone stolen.


Clearly, race isn't an issue here!

BTW, if you havent been to Brooklyn bridge Park, I urge you to check it out.

It has a lot in common with the seaport, and highlights the huge missed opportunities here.

Before:


After:

=

 

[commuter guy]

First off, I think widening income inequality is one of the most pressing issues in this day and age, however those who expect the BRA to do anything significant to mitigate this in the seaport are going to very disappointed. This agency is incapable of even nudging developers to provide a decent streetscape for the pedestrian realm. I get the sense it's a laissez faire attitude all around.

I also appreciate that minorities might feel out of place hanging out at a bar in the financial district or the seaport. That being said the point of this series seems to be whether Boston has a unique problem with racism. The Boston metro area is relatively homogeneous compared to other large us cities. Do black people feel more welcome in downtown Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle or San Fransisco? Those cities have relatively very low black populations like Boston. To compare the feel of Boston with DC, Atlanta or Philly is comparing apples and oranges demographically.

 

[bigpicture7]

First off, I think widening income inequality is one of the most pressing issues in this day and age, however those who expect the BRA to do anything significant to mitigate this in the seaport are going to very disappointed. This agency is incapable of even nudging developers to provide a decent streetscape for the pedestrian realm. I get the sense it's a laissez faire attitude all around.

I also appreciate that minorities might feel out of place hanging out at a bar in the financial district or the seaport. That being said the point of this series seems to be whether Boston has a unique problem with racism. The Boston metro area is relatively homogeneous compared to other large us cities. Do black people feel more welcome in downtown Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle or San Fransisco? Those cities have relatively very low black populations like Boston. To compare the feel of Boston with DC, Atlanta or Philly is comparing apples and oranges demographically.

They supposedly looked at the top-10 metros, drawing the line just after Boston. Therein lies a potential critique of the journalism...if they instead looked at top-20 metros, would boston look as bad? This is what you might call a fragile result...boston is the "worst" based on where you arbitrarily draw the line.

However I am not going to shrug this off as a journalistic integrity issue. I actually think it proves a subtle, important, and intentional point:
Boston wants to think of itself as a top-10 metro; it wants to think of itself as a big powerful metropolis, versus a small, provincial place. Well, what goes along with striving for that club is being compared to those in that club.

But isn't this the whole point of sparking this intensive discussion:

...however those who expect the BRA to do anything significant to mitigate this in the seaport are going to very disappointed. This agency is incapable of even nudging developers to provide a decent streetscape for the pedestrian realm. I get the sense it's a laissez faire attitude all around.

 

[jass]

First off, I think widening income inequality is one of the most pressing issues in this day and age, however those who expect the BRA to do anything significant to mitigate this in the seaport are going to very disappointed. This agency is incapable of even nudging developers to provide a decent streetscape for the pedestrian realm. I get the sense it's a laissez faire attitude all around.

I also appreciate that minorities might feel out of place hanging out at a bar in the financial district or the seaport. That being said the point of this series seems to be whether Boston has a unique problem with racism. The Boston metro area is relatively homogeneous compared to other large us cities. Do black people feel more welcome in downtown Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle or San Fransisco? Those cities have relatively very low black populations like Boston. To compare the feel of Boston with DC, Atlanta or Philly is comparing apples and oranges demographically.

Yes, BRA is bad.

However, I think you're underestimating the percentage of Black people in Boston.

For reference:

Percent Black:
Atlanta: 51.4%
DC: 47.7%
Philadelphia: 42.8%
Chicago: 32.9%
NYC: 25.5%
Boston: 24.7%
Minneapolis: 18.6%
Denver: 10.2%
Seattle: 7.9%
San Francisco: 6.1%

I found is amusing that your list of cities was actually in the correct order! (I added Chicago and NYC)

So the fact that a bar in the financial district might be as racially mixed as one in SF, Seattle, or Denver, absolutely points to an issue.

I've never been to Chicago, but I understand they have a huge geographic racial segregation issue.

Boston is as Black as NYC. And yet before seeing these numbers, I would have guessed NYC was 15%+ more Black because in my experience, it's certainly more mixed within the downtown areas.

 

[FenwayResident]

Boston is as Black as NYC. And yet before seeing these numbers, I would have guessed NYC was 15%+ more Black because in my experience, it's certainly more mixed within the downtown areas.

NYC is still pretty segregated, but it's just not limited to one area, so you get more mixing. Most of Manhattan below 96th Street is white/Asian neighborhoods with projects interspersed. So for example you'll have Chelsea which is mainly wealthy white people, but as soon as you hit 9th avenue b/t 23rd and 28th there's way more black people because of the projects. But you don't see most of those black people going out to bars or restaurants on 7th or 8th avenue even though they live one block away.

Brooklyn is better but there's definitely clear dividing lines in some neighborhoods (e.g. Flatbush Avenue).

Bronx seems pretty clearly segregated with the really nice homes on the Hudson and mostly poor black neighborhoods everywhere else.

Can't speak for Queens since I haven't really been there much, and I've heard Staten Island is mostly white but again I've never been there beyond the ferry terminal.

 

[SlothofDespond]

Is that the city limits of Boston? Boston city limits are tiny compared to many other major American cities. You really need to set a radius or something or at least use whatever the generally accepted metro area numbers are.

 

[shawn]

^--- Good points, but there's still something to be said about absolute volume as opposed to percentages. 25.5% of NYC is about 2.2 million people. MA is something like 8% black, so there's only about 500k blacks in the entire state. There's a critical mass in NYC that is absent from Boston.

This isn't really an apt comparison, but I live in Bunkyo Ward in Tokyo, with the second-highest number of non-Japanese residents in the city. Supposedly we have about 500% more than the city average and 10x the national average. I say "supposedly" because I personally never see evidence of this, other than the above average number of English and Korean signage. Doesn't matter that the percentage is a lot higher, the critical mass still isn't there.

 

[commuter guy]

Although the city of Boston is fairly diverse, I was thinking Metro area demographics which is really controls what you see in Boston center given it's the job, entertainment and nightlife magnet for the whole metro area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...areas_with_large_African-American_populations

Boston ranks low, 42 out of 48 in metro percentage share of black population so there is reason NYC feels more diverse albeit also segregated, because the metro area is more diverse.

 

[stick n move]

Did you see my NYT article? People in NYC are traveling from all across the city to use the new basketball courts in Brooklyn Bridge Park. That neighborhood makes the seaport look cheap in comparison.

It could have to do with the fact that the park is in Brooklyn which has a high population of black people. From my perspective in Dorchester we just go to the neighborhood courts like Doherty Gibson. Im not throwing on gym shorts and carrying a ball down to the red line getting off at south station transferring to silver and walking to some random court somewhere in the seaport when I have like 5 in walkable distance and thats most likely the sentiment with most people. Combine that with southie being known world wide as an Irish part of Boston which we all know still today is like 99% white and I dont see it as comparable to Brooklyn at all. Thats all I was getting at. Its a white neighborhood that just added tons of expensive housing its not going to be diverse. Hopefully they can include on site affordable housing in the future though to change this fact. Southie is not Brooklyn though in many ways I can say that for certain.

 

[commuter guy]

Overall, my point being is that after reading the seaport article I can help but wonder how much of the unwelcoming environment blacks feel in the seaport is just due to the fact that Metro Boston has such a low percentage of black population overall. In general I thought the journalism was disappointing with cherry picking, mixing and matching statistics without any deep consistent analysis.

One interesting fact from the article was that construction firms have to hire 25% minority labor which was recently bumped up to 40%. That is fairly aggressive given for example blacks make up 7% of the overall metro area population. I'm would guess firms have to work quite hard to meet those targets.

 

[odurandina]

40% is totally out of line. Loony pc cesspool will strangle the Golden Goose (a.k.a. construction workers).

 

[bigpicture7]

^ yeah but come on, minority means a lot more than just blacks. The state is ~74% non-Hispanic white, and metro-Boston is ~50% white. I'll admit 40% is on the aggressive side, but not by much.

Please spare this, dude:

Loony pc cesspool...

You know I am pro-development and try to meet in the middle on most things. This type of generalization is garbage...

 

[commuter guy]

Metro boston is 71% white, there are larger #'s of Asians and Hispanics than Blacks in the Metro, but as pointed out, the focus seemed to be on Blacks only for the article.

Demographic source: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US14460-boston-cambridge-newton-ma-nh-metro-area/

Point taken though about minority hiring (not just black hiring), hiring target should be 29% for minorities if you are trying to mirror overall labor market. They may have set 40% target for policy reasons - that construction is occurring inside of city limits and the city itself is close to 50% minority.

Given social economic realities of the minority population by and large here and elsewhere across the country, higher unemployment, lower levels of educational attainment, more english and second language speakers, I stand by my hunch that it is likely no small feat for these firms to hire 40% minority workers