Take Back The Streets (...and alleys)

[DBM]

Just to be clear, is the argument that there is no point in creating a park because the homeless will just fart it up? Really?

Not even remotely. For starters, the "park" in question--Carl Barron Plaza (CBP)--has been in existence for decades. Someone upthread mentioned it. So I made the point-blank obvious observation that any holistic appraisal of what ought to be done with CBP would necessarily include a frank analysis of the best intervention/mitigation strategies involving the chronic homelessness issues there. Yes, I cited the scenario of it being renovated--and then the homeless descending back on it--but only to underline the basic point: that addressing the homlessness crisis in our country, if it is to be done humanely and progressively, is fiendishly difficult.

But since you mention it, yes, there is a larger issue of private entities/developers swooping-in to renovate public spaces, as part of much-larger redevelopment projects at adjacent parcels. AKA "mitigation" (extortion of developers by municipalities). The developer and the municipality enter into an LMI (License Maintenance Indemnification). The shiny new park/plaza/square/what-have-you is delivered. Ribbon-cutting, speechifying, etc. But then... ohmigod! The developer walks away from covenants of the LMI. And said public space gets junked-up. And the municipality is left holding the bag.

Point being: making developers do "mitigation" as a way to evade the fact that municipalities can't or won't perform badly-needed renovations of public spaces--and then compounding the error by signing LMIs--is a really crappy way to pursue urban revitalization. But it happens all the time, is my understanding.

 

[ra84970]

Not even remotely. For starters, the "park" in question--Carl Barron Plaza (CBP)--has been in existence for decades. Someone upthread mentioned it. So I made the point-blank obvious observation that any holistic appraisal of what ought to be done with CBP would necessarily include a frank analysis of the best intervention/mitigation strategies involving the chronic homelessness issues there. Yes, I cited the scenario of it being renovated--and then the homeless descending back on it--but only to underline the basic point: that addressing the homlessness crisis in our country, if it is to be done humanely and progressively, is fiendishly difficult.

In Massachusetts, we struggle to address the main problem of homelessness -- i.e. that they don't have a home. Our struggles are linked primarily to "the rent is too damn high" for almost everybody in the inner core. Were we (as the Commonwealth) able to enact "housing first" policies that get someone a home to call their own without conditions, we'd address the majority of the needs of the unhoused. We'd also have to address that the state keeps on defunding human service programs, clawing back staffing at these agencies, and that we don't have a policy and funding that puts housing first for the unhoused.

While it's important that any upgrades to the plaza and, to get back to the point of this thread, help us "take back" the streets and alleys, are completed in a way that allows for more people to enjoy our streets; in this context, it's also necessary to accept that unhoused people in Carl Barron Plaza need to be treated with common dignity until that day the state decides to prioritize housing, first.

But since you mention it, yes, there is a larger issue of private entities/developers swooping-in to renovate public spaces, as part of much-larger redevelopment projects at adjacent parcels. AKA "mitigation" (extortion of developers by municipalities). The developer and the municipality enter into an LMI (License Maintenance Indemnification). The shiny new park/plaza/square/what-have-you is delivered. Ribbon-cutting, speechifying, etc. But then... ohmigod! The developer walks away from covenants of the LMI. And said public space gets junked-up. And the municipality is left holding the bag.

Point being: making developers do "mitigation" as a way to evade the fact that municipalities can't or won't perform badly-needed renovations of public spaces--and then compounding the error by signing LMIs--is a really crappy way to pursue urban revitalization. But it happens all the time, is my understanding.

I think privately-owned public spaces is a bit a field from the conversation about taking back the streets and alleys. But, I recognize the same problems with these privately-owned public spaces. Carl Barron Plaza is not one of these spaces though.

 

[Scott]

Oh okay, I am learning a lot that I missed living here for the last 50 years. I guess you could say we need to make Central Square great again? So how do I recognize the homeless from say a drunken college student, and should they be dealt with too? Neither wears a name tag.

 

[bakgwailo]

In Massachusetts, we struggle to address the main problem of homelessness -- i.e. that they don't have a home. Our struggles are linked primarily to "the rent is too damn high" for almost everybody in the inner core.

Yeah, that isn't entirely true. There is a sizable homeless population that will/would remain homeless due to mental illness even if given housing unless we go back to the asylum system and force people into involuntary "housing". Much of the homeless population back in the day was from the asylums being shut down and patients given $20, a week's worth of meds, and a bus ticket to Boston. Not saying that housing and more housing for the homeless isn't a solution or path forward, but, I would also say it isn't the main problem of chronic homelessness, either.

 

[DBM]

Yeah, that isn't entirely true. There is a sizable homeless population that will/would remain homeless due to mental illness even if given housing unless we go back to the asylum system and force people into involuntary "housing". Much of the homeless population back in the day was from the asylums being shut down and patients given $20, a week's worth of meds, and a bus ticket to Boston. Not saying that housing and more housing for the homeless isn't a solution or path forward, but, I would also say it isn't the main problem of chronic homelessness, either.

Very good point. It is hard to overstate the influence of Frederick Wiseman's "Titicut Follies" on American sociological reform, for better or for worse.

As history-altering, as a movement-catalyzing text, as "Uncle Tom's Cabin"? no.

But surely up there with, say, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" (both of roughly the same area of inquiry).

And with that, I will derail this thread no more (unless provoked to do so, of course)

 

[Scott]

Does anyone have any hard statistics that support the opinion this argument is predicated on? Maybe from the Cambridge police? Just agreeing with each other does not make something a fact.

Anyway, my perennial favorite for taking back the streets is Columbia Road in Dorchester. It's the missing link to the Emerald Necklace. It would be nice to be able to ride from the park to the ocean in a much safer manner than the current conditions allow. We have covered it before, but it is a project in the heart of the city that is worth considering and (I believe) it's unlikely that the homeless with destroy it.

 

[shmessy]

Problem I can see with with this is that these streets become wastelands in the winter as there is less people traffic and no vehicle traffic. That leads to people believing the area is dead.

Build more high rise residential. Let's make Boston the 24/7 REAL city it should be.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Build more high rise residential. Let's make Boston the 24/7 REAL city it should be.

Chicago has done a great job at building a lot of high-rise residential. Boston (and Cambridge) need to follow suit.

 

[Arlington]

DC and Arlington VA have become dense livable cities without going much more than 10 to 13 stories for residential. Part of nice dense cities can include that the sun reaches the sidewalk.

 

[Charlie_mta]

DC and Arlington VA have become dense livable cities without going much more than 10 to 13 stories for residential. Part of nice dense cities can include that the sun reaches the sidewalk.

If you do it right, shadows shouldn't be a problem. Vancouver BC has a huge number of high-rise residential throughout the west half of the city.

 

[BronsonShore]

Why WHY are we talking about height in here? Every. Goddamn. Thread.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Why WHY are we talking about height in here? Every. Goddamn. Thread.

Schmessy brought up a good point about more residential density/high rise residential being needed to enliven the night life of the city, which I agree with.

 

[themissinglink]

Build more high rise residential. Let's make Boston the 24/7 REAL city it should be.

Late night transit service is the key to making Boston into a 24/7 city, IMO. I feel like a big reason a lot of places don't stay open later is because rapid transit service ends at 12:30.

It would be a massive improvement if trains could run until at least 3 AM, and I'm curious as to what exactly would be needed in order for that to be possible. Is it simply because of the cost of late night service, or is it because there needs to be nightly upkeep and maintenance performed during these times?

 

[shmessy]

Late night transit service is the key to making Boston into a 24/7 city, IMO. I feel like a big reason a lot of places don't stay open later is because rapid transit service ends at 12:30.

It would be a massive improvement if trains could run until at least 3 AM, and I'm curious as to what exactly would be needed in order for that to be possible. Is it simply because of the cost of late night service, or is it because there needs to be nightly upkeep and maintenance performed during these times?

You need BOTH more residents/human density and late night transit - one or the other is just a “chicken or the egg” supposition.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Want a rocking city? Show up at zoning meeting and advocate for density, infill, entertainment districts, late closings, take out food permits, transportation, etc.

Also... totally not related... Did you ever notice how many smoking hot bodies show up at zoning meetings? It's disgusting? I mean... put some clothes on, girl! Just shameless. I also noticed how the beer is weak and the drinks are really expensive at zoning meetings -- I mean, if you can even get served. Also, they close waaaaay too early.

We get the world we advocate for. No advocacy, no change. Which why it's mostly cranky old white people showing up.
If everybody who wanted a party city picked up a pizza and a sixer on their way to a zoning meeting, the tone and debate would shift immediately. Instead, they'll stay home and play old games on their PS4 and bitch about how expensive and unavailable PS5s are. Elevate your game, son!

 

[shmessy]

Want a rocking city? Show up at zoning meeting and advocate for density, infill, entertainment districts, late closings, take out food permits, transportation, etc.

Also... totally not related... Did you ever notice how many smoking hot bodies show up at zoning meetings? It's disgusting? I mean... put some clothes on, girl! Just shameless. I also noticed how the beer is weak and the drinks are really expensive at zoning meetings -- I mean, if you can even get served. Also, they close waaaaay too early.

We get the world we advocate for. No advocacy, no change. Which why it's mostly cranky old white people showing up.
If everybody who wanted a party city picked up a pizza and a sixer on their way to a zoning meeting, the tone and debate would shift immediately. Instead, they'll stay home and play old games on their PS4 and bitch about how expensive and unavailable PS5s are. Elevate your game, son!

I definitely would, but I don't think current residents/voters of Montgomery County, Maryland carry much sway.

When I retire, and the wife and I move back, we'll attend in facepaint and bring the Santarpio's.

 

[Blackbird]

Want a rocking city? Show up at zoning meeting and advocate for density, infill, entertainment districts, late closings, take out food permits, transportation, etc.

We get the world we advocate for. No advocacy, no change. Which why it's mostly cranky old white people showing up.

Why do we need to have "zoning meetings"? Urban planning shouldn't be contentious and changeable enough to have such meetings regularly. Furthermore, meetings like that favor people who don't work or have kids to take care of hence why they may always be full of retirees. It's not a matter of lacking a desire to see change, its the means by which people are asked to advocate!

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Why do we need to have "zoning meetings"? Urban planning shouldn't be contentious and changeable enough to have such meetings regularly. Furthermore, meetings like that favor people who don't work or have kids to take care of hence why they may always be full of retirees. It's not a matter of lacking a desire to see change, its the means by which people are asked to advocate!

Short answer: Zoning is old, racist and normalized -- and very much responsible for nearly everything wrong in the built America. You have to go to meetings.

Long answer: A quick primer on Zoning's granddaddy - Harland Bartholomew - who pandered to the worst in human nature for funzies and profits. He left a long deep scar on the continent called exclusionary zoning.
Nuts and bolts: Zoning in 90 percent of places in the US orders residential builders of all sizes to build The Single Family Dwelling (SFD) to the exclusion of any other form of housing. Building denser homes often requires numerous variances. Variances require local hearings. Which makes builders hire lawyers, which adds to the adversarial nature of stupid zoning meetings. Then Old, cranky, white people show up to defend "the (often white) character of the neighborhood". Variance denied. Lather, rinse, repeat. 'Murca!

For the first time ever, there is a Federal movement to possibly stop this from being the norm. My cynical side thinks there are too many moneyed interests against it (Oil, Auto, SFD Makers, Highway builders, Banking, Insurance, Racists, etc) and the plan will die. The only real answer is to know the history, show up at those stupid local meetings (with beer), join a pro-TOD group, and get better laws written to de-codify the nearly universal building codes that got us literally underwater.

 

[shmessy]

Why do we need to have "zoning meetings"? Urban planning shouldn't be contentious and changeable enough to have such meetings regularly. Furthermore, meetings like that favor people who don't work or have kids to take care of hence why they may always be full of retirees. It's not a matter of lacking a desire to see change, its the means by which people are asked to advocate!

You sound like a certain majority (by population) political party which doesn't pay attention to grassroots local school board meetings, state legislature or election counting/ meetings and then wonders 'why on earth?' they keep having razor thin close or losing elections and judges and referendums.

If you want something, you need to make your voice heard - - - the NIMBY's/Q-Anons attend and control processes because the field has been forfeited to them due to indifference.

Just look at the ridiculously outsized voice the 8 troglodytes who protest outside of Wu's home have had. So, yeah, keep forfeiting the field to people who care enough to show up. At least we have this board to "tut, tut!" on. I can only do my part in my community (and I do).

 

[Blackbird]

You sound like a certain majority (by population) political party which doesn't pay attention to grassroots local school board meetings, state legislature or election counting/ meetings and then wonders 'why on earth?' they keep having razor thin close or losing elections and judges and referendums.

If you want something, you need to make your voice heard - - - the NIMBY's/Q-Anons attend and control processes because the field has been forfeited to them due to indifference.

But that's my point: it's not indifference, it's a lack of free time! It's the people who have too much time on their hands that can "show up" most consistently.