Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

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
 
commuter guy said:
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/
Click to expand...

That figure counts white Hispanics. For most diversity programs (I cannot speak for this particular construction metric) Hispanics count. Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, per the U.S. census. That's why there are two sets of stats.

The state figures, for example, would list the state at 83% white including white Hispanics, or 74% white otherwise.

Plus, usually people who are mixed-race count toward diversity hiring stats (again, depending on the program).

commuter guy said:
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
Click to expand...

^agreed. I mean, come on, there's a high minority unemployment issue within city limits as the articles discuss. This is policymaking: if they are going to recruit more people into the pipeline, why not recruit from the area with higher unemployment? I'll concede that 30-35% might have been more appropriate. Stretch goal?
 
Does a city even possess the legal authority to enforce such absurdly tilted outcomes? But in such a chilled political environment wtf would dare challenge it?
 
I think we are on the same page, just to clarify, the "71% white" figure for Metro Boston is white alone, not of hispanic orgin. 11% are of Hispanic orgin who may consider themselves white or black or mixed.
 
odurandina said:
Does a city even possess the legal authority to enforce such absurdly tilted outcomes? But in such a chilled political environment wtf would dare challenge it?
Click to expand...

Don't look for rationality or common sense when it comes to the racial third rail, it's all about feelings. So much pearl clutching and fainting couch drama from virtue signaling SJWs applying kumbaya idealism to complex real world situations. The only government enforced obligation should be equal opportunity for all, not guaranteed outcomes.
 
jass said:
A (barely) half court shared with hopscotch?
Click to expand...

What I want to know is who the fuck plays hopscotch? You can't even bet on that shit. And what happened to using a sidewalk and a piece of chalk.
 
Brad Plaid said:
Don't look for rationality or common sense when it comes to the racial third rail, it's all about feelings. So much pearl clutching and fainting couch drama from virtue signaling SJWs applying kumbaya idealism to complex real world situations. The only government enforced obligation should be equal opportunity for all, not guaranteed outcomes.
Click to expand...

No feelings here at all, just cold, hard rationality.
 
GW said:
No feelings here at all, just cold, hard rationality.
Click to expand...

After picking through that article, there are dozens of misleading and some plain wrong facts. Its amazing they call that journalism. They should be ashamed.
 
jass said:
^If you're not interested in having an actual discussion, save your trolling and fuck off to reddit.



Tennis is predominantly played by wealthier, whiter people.

Basketball is predominantly played by lower income, darker people.

"But Serena Williams!" "My black coworker plays tennis!" "Oprah said she hates basketball!"

Nothing is binary, but we can speak about majorities, or a preponderance.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your take on this. I haven't really had time to participate in the discussion, but I agree quite a bit with what you are saying, though I am quite a bit less able to articulate it (something I need to fix).
 
One important point that I think got lost in this discussion is that one can do something that has racist outcomes without having a racist intent going into it.

There is a difference between "you hate black people" and "your actions have unintentionally disadvantaged or discriminated against black people." I think the latter is mostly what we are talking about here.

This is why being "color blind" isn't a solution to improving racial disparities. It takes a concerted effort to understand the needs of different groups and the ways in which society has not put us all on a level playing field. It takes proactive actions to try to fix those issues and ensure that we do better today than we have in the past to fix long-standing issues and try to make Boston a more equitable and welcoming place.
 
cden4 said:
One important point that I think got lost in this discussion is that one can do something that has racist outcomes without having a racist intent going into it.

There is a difference between "you hate black people" and "your actions have unintentionally disadvantaged or discriminated against black people." I think the latter is mostly what we are talking about here.

This is why being "color blind" isn't a solution to improving racial disparities. It takes a concerted effort to understand the needs of different groups and the ways in which society has not put us all on a level playing field. It takes proactive actions to try to fix those issues and ensure that we do better today than we have in the past to fix long-standing issues and try to make Boston a more equitable and welcoming place.
Click to expand...

All may be true, but bringing it back to the article and the Seaport, I don't see any evidence of unintended or intended racism. So, if the ICA is only doing White Power exhibits, then I get it. If the Blue Hills Bank Pavilion refuses to book rap or hip-hop acts, that needs to change. But what I fail to see is what people wanted done to encourage more black residents to spend time there. There was a stereotypical comment from jass about more basketball courts. :rolleyes: Well, there is one down there FWIW. Beyond that, what else are we looking for? Should the city have dictated that a restaurant be opened up to cater to the palate of black customers? Okay, but then what do you do when the Brazilians, Vietnamese, Columbians, and Dominicans demand equal treatment? Or the Russians in Brighton who might want to hang out at the Seaport? And if you do mandate a restaurant like that, and it still doesn't attract business, do you force someone to subsidize it? Where does this all end?
 
Rover said:
But what I fail to see is what people wanted done to encourage more black residents to spend time there.
Click to expand...

If after reading the article and this thread, you still don't understand what people want done to try to rectify the situation, then you're not paying attention. There were many suggestions, most of which included reaching out to and being more inclusive to engage black residents of Boston in the planning and development of the neighborhood, especially when it comes to housing and amenities and what types of businesses and restaurants open in the neighborhood.

Regarding your "what about group X, Y, Z" question, yes, if there are things we should be doing to make people from those groups feel welcome, then yes we should be doing that too.
 
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Now let's look at the rampant crime theyre worried about:
Quote:
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!"

Way to go Jass. The nerve of white people complaining about crime amiright? Since you would surely be so "down" with it how about this: let's put a full-court right next to where you live. No wait that's just racist tokenism. Let's put in a dozen full-courts instead. And while we're at it let's have your building converted to all Section 8 except for you, that would be so woke, yeah? You're welcome!
 
The more one attempts to argue for clarity on this subject, the more complicated the notion of a remedy seems to become.

Maybe everyone can simply agree that we can't fully understand what it means to walk in someone else's shoes no matter how we might try. Look at the differences, for instance, between northern and southern whites. Same race. Different cultures. Different views. Different experiences.

Would most northerners feel comfortable in a Dixie bar? They would if they had a financial interest in the place.

Including minorities in the developement-building-real estate trades will help to diversify neighborhoods. That is good.

Seaport is new. It is still in the making with much to come. It is evolving in some ways we can forsee, and some we can't.

The first stakeholders in any endeavor - the original risk-takers - are most often about making as safe a bet as they can. Witness Seaport.
 
Yeah, the point is well taken about unintentional racism, but how does it exist in Seaport? I asked for specific examples (out of genuine curiosity) a few pages back and no one gave me any, so I'm still at a loss as to how there was even unintentional racism there.
 
Brad Plaid said:
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Now let's look at the rampant crime theyre worried about:
Quote:
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!"

Way to go Jass. The nerve of white people complaining about crime amiright? Since you would surely be so "down" with it how about this: let's put a full-court right next to where you live. No wait that's just racist tokenism. Let's put in a dozen full-courts instead. And while we're at it let's have your building converted to all Section 8 except for you, that would be so woke, yeah? You're welcome!
Click to expand...

Brad, you are missing the 2 key quotes that I posted from the article Jass had linked to, and that Jass conveniently ignored in her 1-sided diatribe.

"But a spate of courtside fights among rowdy visitors, punctuated by gunfire last year, has prompted the police, at times, to shut down Pier 2, where the courts stand."

"Courtside fisticuffs, they say, are just a result of teenagers being teenagers — and isn’t that what happens in parks?"

To the first quote, I said I could see why gunfire might be unpopular with the locals. To the second quote, I said I don't recall that happening in the parks I used to go to!
 
jass said:
Again, thank you for proving my point.

Let's browse the comments:










Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


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



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.
Click to expand...

I didn't read through the comments when I linked the articles yesterday, but if you were to post snippets, at least include the part that involved a physical beating of the said girl by a group before the theft. Why leave it out? I don't know the circumstances of this as much as you do, but whatever it was, it was enough to have the park closed down.

The comments are pretty cruel, but also perhaps hint at on-going issues, growing frustrations amongst residenjts, and other incidents not individually reported vs. an isolated instance. Otherwise, the comments would seem to be shockingly overreactionary.

Anyways, my initial intent was to simply say that public amenities are all well and good unless it results in increased crime, vandalism, etc.
 
cden4 said:
If after reading the article and this thread, you still don't understand what people want done to try to rectify the situation, then you're not paying attention. There were many suggestions, most of which included reaching out to and being more inclusive to engage black residents of Boston in the planning and development of the neighborhood, especially when it comes to housing and amenities and what types of businesses and restaurants open in the neighborhood.

Regarding your "what about group X, Y, Z" question, yes, if there are things we should be doing to make people from those groups feel welcome, then yes we should be doing that too.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this line of thinking. It's one thing to debate public planning, zoning and amenities (which I agree should be inclusive of the entire community). However it's another thing entirely to tell private property owners what types of restaurants they can open or what sorts of stores they can run. How would this even work? Would there be different zoning classes such as "Retail - Black" or "Housing - Asian"?
 
FenwayResident said:
Yeah, the point is well taken about unintentional racism, but how does it exist in Seaport? I asked for specific examples (out of genuine curiosity) a few pages back and no one gave me any, so I'm still at a loss as to how there was even unintentional racism there.
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question there. It's not racism.

Maybe people just want to be upset because the area is expensive. Maybe they want to think their dollars went into it. If they do want to go with that though, they should also complete the other side of the equation and quantify how much in annual tax dollars are going back to the state coffers from businesses, employees, and residents there. Hint: it ain't no small thang.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top