South End Infill and Small Developments

But who decides what is good art? Who decides who is an artist? The government should not have the right to arbitrarily give out condos to people who call themselves "artists". What if I decided to become an artist, moved in, and suddenly has a change of heart and decided to become a financial analyst or an accountant? Do you kick me out?

The government should not be in the business of social engineering and promoting [useless and arbitrary] careers that it thinks will benefit society. Private societies can be formed and people can donate money to fund such projects if they want, but the city should not give a dime to such nonsense.
 
DudeUrSistersHot said:
But who decides what is good art? Who decides who is an artist? The government should not have the right to arbitrarily give out condos to people who call themselves "artists". What if I decided to become an artist, moved in, and suddenly has a change of heart and decided to become a financial analyst or an accountant? Do you kick me out?
You bring up a good point. I've always wondered what the selection criteria is for such units. How does one prove themselves to be an artist? What happens if they later choose a different career path? Does anybody know?

DudeUrSistersHot said:
The government should not be in the business of social engineering and promoting [useless and arbitrary] careers that it thinks will benefit society. Private societies can be formed and people can donate money to fund such projects if they want, but the city should not give a dime to such nonsense.
We disagree. And thankfully, so does most of the civilized world.
 
statler said:
You bring up a good point. I've always wondered what the selection criteria is for such units. How does one prove themselves to be an artist? What happens if they later choose a different career path? Does anybody know?

http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/econdev/econdev.asp#13

"Artists help make Boston a more livable city ? a city of people and neighborhoods, a center of cultural life, and a vital economic center. They function as small businesses by providing jobs and services for Boston residents. Since the late 1960s, artists have helped transform marginal neighborhoods into dynamic communities. Frequently, festivals, galleries, small performance spaces and small retail spring up in these same areas through the work of resident artists, generating a vibrant street life that acts as a deterrent to crime, dramatically enhancing the quality of neighborhoods for both the people who live there and people who visit.

At the direction of Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the BRA is working with other city agencies including the Office of Cultural Affairs and the Department of Neighborhood Development to retain existing spaces for artists and create new ones. We are particularly interested in projects that create spaces that:

are permanently dedicated to artists through deed restrictions or similar legal mechanisms;
are located in buffer zones between industrial and residential neighborhoods in locations that do not support traditional family housing; and
offer live/work spaces (space where artists combine their residence with their work area, typically in an open floor plan offering large, flexible work areas) or work-only spaces (where residential use is not allowed) for rent and for purchase at a variety of prices with a preference for Boston residents.
According to the Boston Zoning Code, artists in live/work units are the only occupational group permitted to live in industrially zoned areas of the city. For commercial and non-profit developers with an interest in developing space for artists, the BRA recently developed design guidelines to articulate minimum requirements to meet artists? needs (i.e., live/work units must be at least 1,000 square feet). Click here to access the BRA's Artist Space Design Guidelines.

The BRA has also piloted a certification process to ensure that only artists occupy artist spaces. Artists who are interested in becoming eligible to apply for live/work housing (rental and ownership) that requires artist certification can apply to be certified by a panel of peers through a mail-in application.


Artist Certification Applications

The next deadline for BRA Artist Certification will be March 1, 2007. Guidelines and application are available here. Completed applications with supporting materials should be sent to:

Boston Redevelopment Authority
Artist Certification
c/o Heidi Burbidge
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201"
 
The BRA has also piloted a certification process to ensure that only artists occupy artist spaces. Artists who are interested in becoming eligible to apply for live/work housing (rental and ownership) that requires artist certification can apply to be certified by a panel of peers through a mail-in application.
Interesting. But I wonder who choses the panel of "peers"?
 
I guess I'm uncivilized?

That's a dramatic statement, artists provide "an intangible benefit to society through their work, i.e. the world is a better place with art than without it."

So do actors. So do the people who wait on me at Starbucks. Neither of them are eligible.

I think the choice is arbitrary, that's all.

And, what if Thomas Kincaide asked for one of the condos? You're not going to say no, are you?

Most of the "artists" who live at Laconia Lofts are wealthy enough that they could have bough anywhere - they didn't need to be subsidized to move there.

It's all fun to say we're helping struggling artists. But, at what cost? And, why? To pat ourselves on the back?

Most artists are able to succeed or to produce wonderful art without getting a handout.
 
Re: I guess I'm uncivilized?

IMAngry said:
It's all fun to say we're helping struggling artists. But, at what cost? And, why? To pat ourselves on the back?

Most artists are able to succeed or to produce wonderful art without getting a handout.

There have been enough great artists who have died paupers to justify some subsidy of the arts.

This is a great debate, and I think the choice of whose profession gets subsidized is always going to be arbitrary to some extent.

In the end, it seems to me that the analogy to famers is off the mark. Farmers have a market based on supply and demand. The short reason for subsidizing farms and farmers is that they might stop farming, leaving us without food supply if there were ever a huge international crisis like WWIII.
 
Re: I guess I'm uncivilized?

IMAngry said:
That's a dramatic statement, artists provide "an intangible benefit to society through their work, i.e. the world is a better place with art than without it."

So do actors. So do the people who wait on me at Starbucks. Neither of them are eligible.
Actually I think actors, writers and even some young architects should be elible. Artists all. People who pour coffee are simply providing a service for profit. That's not art (to me). Which leads to the question of what is art and who say so? I guess that what this panel of peers is all about. It's not black and white and I think that's what bothers people so much about this stuff. I think it one of those I'll know it when I see it things. Not a perfect system,and we'll never get it exactly right, but I still think it is a noble and worthwhile goal.

IMAngry said:
I think the choice is arbitrary, that's all.
Pretty much, yeah.

IMAngry said:
And, what if Thomas Kincaide asked for one of the condos? You're not going to say no, are you?
If it were my call, yeah, I'd tell the hack to go screw. I think he has a lot more in common with the people who pour coffee then any real artist.

IMAngry said:
Most of the "artists" who live at Laconia Lofts are wealthy enough that they could have bough anywhere - they didn't need to be subsidized to move there.
A good point. I think there there should be some income requirements for these types of units.

IMAngry said:
It's all fun to say we're helping struggling artists. But, at what cost? And, why? To pat ourselves on the back?
Dramatic as it may be, I stand by my statement that the world (and our city) is better with art than without it.

IMAngry said:
Most artists are able to succeed or to produce wonderful art without getting a handout.
Really? Based on what?

IMAngry said:
Why does anyone deserve a handout?

To me, it's similar to the handouts to farmers and fishermen. Jeez - CHANGE JOBS if you can't make a living.
Again with the dramatics, but not everything that is valuable is profitable.
If everyone became an accountant or stock broker we would live in dull world.
I don't think artists should have everthing handed to them on a silver platter, but I have no problem proping them up enough so they don't have to give up thier craft to go shlep coffee at Dunk's so they can survive.
But that's just me..and most of the rest of the civilized world.
 
I think a comparison to subsidizing the sciences might be more apt. Certain careers in both the arts (e.g. The Beatles) and the sciences (e.g. the guy who invented Viagra) offer the possibility of great financial advancement.

The point of offering grants to these fields is to encourage work in areas that are less likely to make the artist/scientist piles of money, but which nonetheless are of general interest to society -- whether the government should be in this business at all is debatable.

Does having artists in your neighborhood really make it nicer? Like a park or a farmer's market? I don't know, maybe it does. :roll:
 
I know one thing ...

I know one thing ... having a porn shop downstairs doesn't help my neighborhood!
 
It's interesting this argument has come up. My father told me of one of his earliest projects he had when he worked for NY State was preserving an old shipworks on Staten Island. One of the things they did was convert part of the complex into artists apartments. He went back 20 years later and talked to the head of the complex about what had worked and what hadn't. She said the biggest mistake was the artist lofts because you would have some half talented schmuck come in, churn out some crap, call it art, and get a government subsidy to live.

I'm not against housing for artists but I think there needs to be some sort of time limit/income limit.
 
from Business Week:

February 26, 2007, 12:00AM EST

Bohemian Today, High-Rent Tomorrow
Creative types are essential to urban and regional economic growth. Here's why?and the cities artists should flock to now

by Maya Roney

Want to know where a great place to invest in real estate will be five or 10 years from now? Look at where artists are living now.

Sociologists and policymakers have long been touting art and culture as the cure-all to economically depressed neighborhoods, cities, and regions. The reason? It has been proven that artists?defined as self-employed visual artists, actors, musicians, writers, etc.?can stimulate local economies in a number of ways.

Artists are often an early sign of neighborhood gentrification. "Artists are the advance guard of what's hip and cool," says Bert Sperling, founder and president of Portland (Ore.)-based Sperling's Best Places and compiler of BusinessWeek.com's list of the Best Places for Artists in America.
Creativity Leads to Growth

Artists, because of their typically lower incomes, usually need to seek out less expensive, developing neighborhoods where they can afford the rent. But because of their creativity they are able to fix up these areas, eventually attracting hip boutiques, galleries, and restaurants. Not all artists are starving. While some are able to achieve success writing, acting, painting, or dancing, others get tired of scraping by as waiters or bartenders and sometimes apply their abilities in more entrepreneurial ways.

Anne Markusen, an economist and professor at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and a leading researcher on the effects of the arts on regional economics, once profiled an abstract painter whose work is now displayed on ceilings and in MRI machines in hospitals across the country. In Markusen's research, artists have also been found to stimulate innovation on the part of their suppliers. A painter may need a certain type of frame that is not manufactured, forcing the frame maker to create a new design that happens to also work well for other artists.

But Markusen also maintains that artists bring more than culture to a community. "Businesses don't often understand the extent to which art affects them," Markusen says. "[Artists] are just as important as science and technology companies."

Nonarts businesses also use artist contractors to improve product design, help with marketing, or even use dramatic theory to solve employee relationship issues. Being a cultural center also helps local businesses attract employees who want to be able to regularly go to the ballet or the theater, hear authors read from their latest books, or attend art gallery openings.
Follow the Money

Due to the individual nature and economics of their work, artists are also some of the most itinerant professionals out there. When relocating, they often look for cities and towns that already have high concentrations of artists and a young, racially and ethnically diverse population. The presence of a nurturing art community in the form of art societies and centers is also essential, especially to young artists.

A low cost of living is important, but many artists make financial sacrifices to live near an art-rich urban center or live in a cheaper neighborhood. Few struggling artists can afford to live in neighborhoods like New York's SoHo and Greenwich Village, or even Williamsburg, which once were artistic havens before attracting wealthier residents. Now you are more likely to find New York-based artists in the Bronx, Brooklyn, or even Philadelphia.

In addition to the presence of like-minded individuals, proximity to wealth is also important. The fact of the matter is that artists can seldom earn a living, let alone become rich, selling to other artists. They need wealthy benefactors to buy their paintings or support their local symphony, which explains why each of the places in the U.S. that we found to be the best for artists are in or located near centers of wealth. Los Angeles, No. 1 on our list, is most commonly associated with the film industry. While the city provides great opportunities for actors and directors, there are equally rich prospects for musicians, artists, writers, and dancers. Of course, the majority of these people can't afford to live in Beverly Hills?at least not until they get their big break?and instead opt for more affordable digs in areas like Echo Park.
Where to Go Now

BusinessWeek.com and Sperling's Best Places came up with a list of the best places for artists in the U.S. by identifying the metro areas that have the highest concentrations of artistic establishments. We also looked at the percentage of young people age 25 to 34, population diversity, and concentration of museums, philharmonic orchestras, dance companies, theater troupes, library resources, and college arts programs. Lower cost of living played a part in the selection of some cities but had to be overlooked in others because of other very favorable factors.

Some of the top ten are traditional art "super cities"?one of the reasons Los Angeles leads the list is because it has 56 artistic establishments for every 100,000 people, a diversity index of 84.2, and an arts and culture index of 100 (on a scale of 1 to 100). New York City and San Francisco are also in the top ten. Other places are midsize cities, like hippie havens Santa Fe and Boulder, and country-music nucleus Nashville. Smaller, less-obvious additions include Carson City, Nev., which ranks third for its high concentration of art establishments, and the city of Kingston in New York's Hudson River Valley.

Ready to quit your day job and make art your profession? These metro areas are good places to start. And with all the economic benefits you'll be providing, they should welcome you with open arms.
Boston didn't make the top ten...
 
Hmm

Walking home, I thought a bit more about this.

Yes, I'm against subsidized housing, per se, but if I was to consider the idea, seriously here's one thing I would need to understand.

What is the rationale behind having set-asides in new construction for affordable housing units?

The developer of a new project is motivated by profit (read: greed), right? Those who want to live in the project are willing to pay top dollar to live there, right?

We, the rest of us, benefit from the new project because it brings in property taxes, where before, there were none. We benefit in other ways: our new neighbors spend their money in our restaurants and shops.

So, why are we limiting the profit on the projects and/or why are we limiting the number of high-end units that can be built?

Don't pre-judge what I'm about to say. I'm serious (if naive).

Wouldn't it make more sense to let the developer build whatever it wants, to make as much money as possible, and then deal with the affordable housing issue, outside of that project?

My understanding of the city's "affordable housing" law is that in some projects, developers can just pay into a fund and affordable housing will be built somewhere else, whereas in some projects, developers have to set-aside some units within the building, itself.

That doesn't seem logical.

I don't think separate buildings are the solution, either, since you'll end up having blocks of housing for "the poor people" but maybe the money raised could be used in another way.

I don't think having three affordable units at Atelier 505, across the street, helps anyone, beyond those three owners. I don't think it benefits the rest of us as much as having three rich people would.

I'm looking for suggestions here, not criticisms.
 
Re: Hmm

IMAngry said:
I don't think having three affordable units at Atelier 505, across the street, helps anyone, beyond those three owners. I don't think it benefits the rest of us as much as having three rich people would.

re: benefits of the units going affordable, i'd say it depends on two things: how you define benefits, and what your frame of reference is.

if you think the city is benefits when it has a diversity of income levels, and you are looking at a time frame that extends beyond the fiscal year, you probably have a better chance of going with the affordable units.

the argument for favoring diverse income levels might include the fact that many different levels of income will make for many different approaches to business, employment, entertainment, style, etc. -- which will tend to generate more new ideas more quickly. moreover, this kind of "more new" environment will probably get into a virtuous cycle as new niche markets, experiences, goals generate new commercial entries and opportunities that take advantage.

something similar in the world of start-ups, new products and services, and new ideas gets Massachusetts to the top of PPI's New Economy Index. interestingly, Boston itself doesn't do as well as the state as a whole in measures by the same organization. not sure why -- didn't read that one in detail.
 
Re: Hmm

IMAngry said:
Walking home, I thought a bit more about this.

Yes, I'm against subsidized housing, per se, but if I was to consider the idea, seriously here's one thing I would need to understand.

What is the rationale behind having set-asides in new construction for affordable housing units?

The developer of a new project is motivated by profit (read: greed), right? Those who want to live in the project are willing to pay top dollar to live there, right?

We, the rest of us, benefit from the new project because it brings in property taxes, where before, there were none. We benefit in other ways: our new neighbors spend their money in our restaurants and shops.

So, why are we limiting the profit on the projects and/or why are we limiting the number of high-end units that can be built?

Don't pre-judge what I'm about to say. I'm serious (if naive).

Wouldn't it make more sense to let the developer build whatever it wants, to make as much money as possible, and then deal with the affordable housing issue, outside of that project?

My understanding of the city's "affordable housing" law is that in some projects, developers can just pay into a fund and affordable housing will be built somewhere else, whereas in some projects, developers have to set-aside some units within the building, itself.

That doesn't seem logical.

I don't think separate buildings are the solution, either, since you'll end up having blocks of housing for "the poor people" but maybe the money raised could be used in another way.

I don't think having three affordable units at Atelier 505, across the street, helps anyone, beyond those three owners. I don't think it benefits the rest of us as much as having three rich people would.

I'm looking for suggestions here, not criticisms.

This is the argument that I have made, albeit in a much more argumentative, demeaning, and aggressive way, numerous times on this forum.
 
You are just looking at one person. What about the ripple effect? When that one new condo tower goes in and the neighborhood starts to get cleaner and more attractive, EVERY person who owns land there will start to jack the prices and force everyone out.

They then must migrate to a weak working class neighborhood where most the the population is on the rise. There the property values will decrease creating a new ghetto area.

The artists then move in and try to clean the place up. When the hip and hip-alike come to visit they decide to stay to be around the new art thus attracting high end retailers and condos.

The cycle of urban life.
 
The Penny Savings Bank on Washington St.

pb1.jpg


pb2.jpg


pb.jpg
 
Interesting. I like it except the facade looks a little fake(it is fake, correct?). I will hold my judgment till the end though.
 
I walked by this project plenty of times last summer while it was being gutted, but I had no idea they were adding anything to it. I'm shocked, and not in a good way.

******

Palindrome, that facade is not fake. It was originally the Penny Savings Bank (hence the name), completed in 1917. The AIA guide doesn't have an entry on it, so let that say what it will about its architectural merit.

Bizjournal article from '05: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/03/21/daily66.html
 
...

wow. its an abomination, of the type I thought we had left behind in the 70s.
 

Back
Top