Hey, there! Log in / Register
Close to 1,000 residential units proposed for small stretch of Washington Street in Brighton
By adamg on Wed, 06/01/2016 - 11:50am
The agenda for the Brighton-Allston Civic Association this Thursday is top-heavy with residential development proposals - most notably a plan to turn the old St. Gabriel's monastery off Washington Street into a 680-unit complex aimed at graduate students.
Also on the agenda: Another project with up to 300 units at 139 Washington St. - next to the 12-acre St. Gabriel's property.
But wait, there's more: The group will also hear about plans for 114-unit building with 212 parking spaces stretching from Brighton Avenue to Gardner Street opposite Fordham Road in Allston and a and a 19-unit building with 27 parking spaces at 81 Chestnut Hill Ave.
The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the Brighton Elks in Brighton Center.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Good. We need more housing in
Good. We need more housing in this city.
Need at least another 10k+
Need at least another 10k+ units to catch up with demand.
The demand is not a single
The demand is not a single number, it will keep growing unless limited with policies because people want safe investment properties.
Well yeah, demand keeps
Well yeah, demand keeps growing because the population keeps growing, and the fraction of that population desiring to move to Boston does as well. So what policies are you suggesting? Internal passports to restrict migration into cities? Or perhaps cutting this whole "demand" problem off at the source with a program of mass sterilization?
No, you can restrict some of
No, you can restrict some of the well documented speculation and non residency ownership.
Residential Exemption
yeah baby
Demand is growing because people have jobs and like Boston
Investment properties are a factor in driving up the price but there are two more basic reasons which are generally considered good things:
1. People can afford the higher prices
2. The Boston area is a desirable place to live.
If and when these two things stop being true, housing prices will fall. Building 1,000 (or 10,000 more) units won't hurt but is unlikely to do much to stop the rise in prices.
If anyone truly wants to lower housing prices the quicker way is to greatly increase random violence AND/OR start a recession.
That would be a 3-4 year supply
Boston's housing demand grows about 1% annually. We got behind from 2008-2012 or so when almost nothing was built. If we're not caught up, we're getting pretty close. Within a year we should reach equilibrium - or even surplus with everything that's coming online in the Seaport, Bullfinch Triangle, South End, Southie and Fenway.
The bigger problem is whether we are building the right type of housing. Most of that is high end luxury (and could end up in a huge hangover). $5000 a month units don't become $2500 a month units - they sit vacant as developments go bust. The bigger problem is that if completed buildings go bust - you may see people walk away from partially built projects.
Criticize Walsh if you like - but one thing he's doing right is promoting lots of development like this in the neighborhoods. Menino mostly ignored middle class development for about 15 years - and now we are paying the price. Or at least anyone renting or trying to buy in around here is paying the price.
Walsh isn't doing squat
Walsh isn't doing squat beyond shaking down developers. It is developers and investors doing all the building in spite of the cronyism circus being directed out of city hall.
Boston needs an oversupply of housing to bring costs down and make things affordable for anyone which isn't an affluent tech, biotech, financial services, or international investor type or a subsidized welfare recipient.
An oversupply would reduce
An oversupply would reduce the values of homeowners. The city can only accommodate so much housing.
Good!
Have you seen the value of homes around here? They need to fall back down to somewhere even within sight of reasonable.
There isn't enough room to
There isn't enough room to build for everyone who moves here and wants a nice apartment in one of the most in demand cities in the country.
Or you have to start making
Or you have to start making more money. What if the housing prices are right but you just don't make as much money as you should to live here? And geniuses like you keep asking for more housing, which brings more people to Boston, so there are more job seekers than jobs, which brings wages down, which is why you folks cannot afford housing.
So...
You want only upper class people to live in Boston? I am solidly middle class, if not upper-middle. I don't see why we would want to push everyone but the very rich out of the city. That's only going to speed up the disappearance of the middle class and increase the income gap.
Walsh isn't doing squat
Well, for developers who use union labors, he did negotiate lower rates for using union labor on workforce housing. Believe it or not, that is helpful.
The pontification of an
angry Allston hipster. You seem to meld the development, real estate and finance knowledge of Bernie Trump.
Hahaha. "Boston needs
Hahaha. "Boston needs oversupply of housing"? You should become a developer and build that oversupply. Do you think developers are stupid and will build beyond the point at which rental profits from their existing properties would start going down?
Within a year we should reach
Your numbers don't gibe with Barry Bluestone's, and as Barry Bluestone is a housing economist with a specialization in Boston, I'm going to side with him. Sorry, but even with the pace we're building at now, housing prices aren't going down, let alone stabilizing, any time soon.
source?
I see his numbers on Greater Boston through the Boston Foundation - but not on Boston itself.
According to this there are about 8000 units under construction currently:
http://realestate.boston.com/new-developments/2016/04/26/boston-quarterl...
That's a 3% increase in Boston's housing stock assuming nobody has broken ground since April. No way in hell that's remotely sustainable. Again - not saying we are building what we need - but that means an even bigger bubble in other parts of the market - especially luxury rental and condo.
Google Prof Bluestone's most
Google Prof Bluestone's most recent Housing Report Card. TL;DR: regionally, we need to add enough units for another Boston in order for prices to stabilize. That translates to a ton more in the city specifically than what is already being built, planned, or dreamed of. What we've got now is a drop in the bucket.
I did
Regionally yes.
I'm talking Boston - at some point people stop coming because it's just not affordable.
The construction problems are FAR worse in the burbs where you need 62 permits to build a dollhouse and the local select persons still probably won't let you do it.
You read the entire report
You read the entire report between when I posted it at 3:17 and your reply at 3:56? Maybe spend some more time with it.
assume much?
That report has less than 60 pages of actual text, most of which does not deal with Boston proper directly. I just easily read it in three-quarters of an hour - and yeah, I'm a good reader, but hardly a prodigy, I'm sure many others here are capable of that 'feat'.
Imo, the report does not contradict Stevil's supposition (which isn't to say that it's therefore true). According to it, Boston proper tops the region in new housing development units by a massive amount, and as % pop is only surpassed by Chelsea (also part of Suffolk county) and Everett. In most of the comparitive graphs in that report, the various neighborhoods of the city are broken out separately and *still* end up in the top tier. The city is currently leading the region in development rates, not lagging.
And aside from that, you are assuming that Stevil hadn't read it previously. Based on his post history on this forum, that seems a big assumption.
assume much? LOL. Okay.
LOL. Okay.
didn't have to
Read the table of contents and almost every piece of data is regional in nature - not Boston specific - a couple of exceptions:
However, it says on p. 19 that from 2000-2010 Boston grew at about 0.5% per year (less than my estimate of 1%). I would assume that number of households roughly paralleled that number. That dictates annual demand of about 1400 units per year. I usually estimate it at closer to 2500 units. Let's compromise and call it 2000 units.
It also says on p. 35 Boston built a little more than 8000 incremental units of housing from 2010 to 2014. The shortfall was probably a couple thousand units that we didn't build in 2008 and 2009. We currently have that many units (8000) under construction - and maybe more - as we write. Every person I know wants a piece of the Boston real estate boom as an investor, homeowner, realtor, lender or developer - which tells me it's overheating.
1) Yes - we built too little from 2008-2012 or so
2) That situation is almost remedied - especially at the high end of the market.
3) We may have a problem with undersupply regionally or at certain price points of rentals and owner occupied, but in Boston we are pretty close to equilibrium - ESPECIALLY in certain segments of the market - high end condos and rentals downtown.
I don't know if there will be a bust - but we are due for a shift. I see it as a slowdown in groundbreakings and a move down market - at a minimum. Hopefully we'll escape a full blown downtown bust - but I'm not optimistic - ESPECIALLY if interest rates creep up.
I would assume that number of
You're gonna have to show your work on your assumption, estimation, and then "compromise." Those aren't things you can just state as true and then move on. Again, I'm siding with the PhD. Sorry, Stevil.
It doesn't change much
Population per unit might go from 2.4 to 2.3 or 2.5 over the period in question - but in 5-10 years it's not like it goes from 2.4 to 3 (or 2) - if you know the first thing about demographics and large numbers it's a reasonable assumption - with or without a PhD. If it doesn't change - by mathematical definition housing has expanded/contracted at about the same rate as population.
(In fact, using the latest estimates from the census bureau for 2014 population and the construction numbers cited in the report added to the 2010 census - it comes to about 2.34)
Again - I don't doubt that we have a regional problem due to lack of suburban development - especially multi-family/apartment construction. My area of focus is Boston generally and downtown specifically - that's where I think the epicenter of a bubble is brewing.
by mathematical definition
What housing economist is telling you anything other than that housing is incredibly sticky in comparison to population, both expanding (and especially) contracting?
No economist said that
You just implied it by asking me to prove numbers that are pretty obvious. So i did. I'm not questioning the good professor's numbers. He's talking metro boston. I'm talking boston only. Big difference.
move down market
"I see it as a slowdown in groundbreakings and a move down market - at a minimum"
So that's when Boston's middle-class housing stock will start to expand?
Hopefully
Looking at all those units they want to build along Washington Street, out in Allston and a few other western parts of Boston I have my fingers crossed that we ease out of the luxury, absorb it slowly and then get serious about groundbreaking for what at least passes for middle class housing in this city.
I'd say two things about this
I'd say two things about this concern:
1) A lot of what's getting built isn't really "luxury," it's just expensive because all housing in Boston is expensive, and because we require excessive amounts of parking (often underground!), which definitely adds to the cost.
2) Most markets will serve the highest profit customers first. If we don't allow developers to even meet 105% of the luxury demand, there's no way we're going to get them to build anything else. And this actually kind of makes sense for the rest of us because those luxury buyers are going to be the first in line at the nicest housing stock available, and if that nicest stock happens to be a regular, old triple-decker, the rest of us who can't afford anything better are SOL.
In the suburbs, the towns
In the suburbs, the towns have school budgets that are not easy to budget for when enrollment keeps growing.
They cannot stabilize unless
They cannot stabilize unless you limit demand from outside the area. The region is tiny compared to the amount of demand for stable investments.
Please ask Professor Bluestone
to clarify the financing and more importantly the liabilities of the debt. Who will hold the debt and who will ultimately hold the bag in the event of default? The taxpayer? Who is writing the loans with zero down payments? Where is the tooth fairy?
You cannot keep increasing
You cannot keep increasing the housing assuming the demand keeps increasing at that rate. There is only so much room to build, and the roads and transportation can not easily be scaled either. There is not ever going to be enough housing for all demand, and to try to build for it would create other problems that would have to be built for.
Don't be silly
Of course you can keep increasing housing to meet demand. That's what we do. As populations grow (either through natural growth, immigration, or both) and we build new houses. My house in Roxbury was a farmhouse surrounded by orchards when it was built in 1840 something. By the end of WWII, 100 years later, Roxbury had over 100,000 residents and metro Boston was one of the largest cities in the country.
Miami was a backwards nothing town until air conditioning and mass electricity availability came along. Since then its population has risen at a rate similar to what Boston experienced during the industrial revolution.
We have the ability to squeeze an almost infinite number of people into our region. There's absolutely no question about it. It's simply a matter of us deciding whether or not we want to do that. Some cities - NY, Miami, LA, London, Tokyo, etc. - decide that they're happy to keep growing. Others, like ours, try to limit growth for quality of life or other reasons.
We can keep growing if we want to. But if we don't want to accommodate the demand, we're going to have to accept that it will push prices higher. There's no way to simply stop growth AND hold prices higher.
Unfortunately the people in charge aren't willing to have a frank and open discussion about what we want to end up like for the foreseeable future. Do we want to be a big city that accepts growth and density, or do we want to be a lower density city that limits growth and accepts the trade offs? And if the latter, what methods do we want to employ to limit that growth?
Equally unfortunately, there's a huge group of people who somehow think that by limiting growth we can keep prices down. These are the people doing the most damage to everyone, since they're well intentioned but incredible in their counter productivity.
You don't seem to understand.
You don't seem to understand. Yes, there is more space to put housing, but that also requires increases in transit and infrastructure. No, you can not just keep building at a sustainable level.
"We have the ability to squeeze an almost infinite number of people into our region."
No, you can't, that's not even a serious suggestion. Totally transforming the region is not in its best interest nor is it sustainable.
People use growth as a generic buzzword. Some of the nicest cities in the world are not growing.
"We have the ability to
"We have the ability to squeeze an almost infinite number of people into our region. There's absolutely no question about it. It's simply a matter of us deciding whether or not we want to do that."
That's absurd. Room to build housing does not necessarily translate into the ability to support everything that demands.
Your history lesson simply implies that because regions supported growth in the past that they will always be able to. That something was orchards 100 years ago today, and is not houses is not a strong argument for endless growth.
"try to limit growth for quality of life or other reasons."
So basically you are admitting that endlessly growing a region could reduce it's desirability.
Some of the most desirable cities in the world do not have large amounts of growth. The city is already one of the most built up in the country.
You seem to completely ignore that that there are sustainability issues.
"That's absurd. Room to build
"That's absurd. Room to build housing does not necessarily translate into the ability to support everything that demands. "
This is a straw man argument. These people are going to live somewhere, and wherever they live (be it Jamaica Plain or suburban Dallas), we will have to build the infrastructure to transport them. If they live in Dallas (or suburban Mass for that matter), we will need to expand the highway system because they will need to use a car. If they live in JP, we can add more and larger trains to the Orange Line. Guess which one costs more.
"Some of the most desirable cities in the world do not have large amounts of growth. "
Please name one that does not also have a serious housing shortage. The quality of life metric is a highly subjective one. Many of the happiest cities in the world are also denser than Boston. I personally wish that there were more people living in my neighborhood. I like having lots of foot traffic near my house and it makes experimental, fledgling businesses a bigger customer base to sell to.
"The city is already one of the most built up in the country. "
It's close, but it's not the top. And it's nowhere near the top in the world.
"we will have to build the
"we will have to build the infrastructure to transport them"
We don't even have the transit infrastructure now, so your argument doesn't work from the start.
"expand the highway"
That's a classic example of induced demand. Upgrading transit costs a lot as well, and more demand makes that harder.
"Please name one that does not also have a serious housing shortage."
Look at the lists, most of them do not have extreme amounts of growth. There isn't ever going to be housing for all of the demand in all of these places.
"And it's nowhere near the top in the world."
Most of those are not some of the most desirable. Generally, they are medium sized cities.
"We don't even have the
"We don't even have the transit infrastructure now, so your argument doesn't work from the start. "
Actually we do, which is why we're able to have a population density 4x that of Houston but we actually have fewer traffic problems. Also, when more people are living closer together, more things can be accomplished with walking alone, and the infrastructure for that costs next to nothing. I just don't understand how anyone can think that forcing people to live further apart from one another is ever going to be the solution to our infrastructure woes.
"That's a classic example of induced demand. Upgrading transit costs a lot as well, and more demand makes that harder. "
Yes, that's the whole point: We improve the transit system so that more people can live here, which means more people use the system, which means we expand it further. This is what you do when you want to grow an economy. Induced demand isn't really a problem for transit because, unlike roads, the cost of accommodating each additional user actually goes down as the number of users go up. With roads it's the opposite: Making a road twice as wide does not double its usable capacity. Basically, encouraging people to live in dense cities will most likely save us a ton of money on infrastructure in the long run.
"Most of those are not some of the most desirable. Generally, they are medium sized cities."
It's true that a lot of the cities with greater density than Boston are in developing countries (China and India mainly), but I think this mainly because people in poor countries cannot afford cars, so sparsely populated cities are not possible. There are, however quite a few pretty wealthy cities near the top of the list:
Paris: 2.24m; 55,673 ppl/mi^2
Seoul: 17.5m; 44,691 ppl/mi^2
Taipei: 5.7m; 39,368 ppl/mi^2
Singapore: 4m; 21,626 ppl/mi^2
Kyoto: 16.4m; 16,576 ppl/mi^2
London: 8.3m; 13,209 ppl/mi^2
Boston: 645,966; 12,907 ppl/mi^2
Hahaha. As a Houston native
Hahaha. As a Houston native and a Boston transplant, just... laffo. No. The thing is that Houston has traffic problems constantly, all the time - but when those occur, they do not paralyze the entire city. Katy Crawlers have nothing in common with the people who grind up and down Wilcrest, who in turn have nothing in common with the Galleria area commuters, who have nothing to do with the NASA crowd.
I endured several different awful commutes in my time in Houston, each horrible in its own way, but the bottlenecks were distributed over a huge swathe of geography in a way that is simply not true here in Boston. And those commutes took less time to cover MASSIVELY larger areas, some of which (like Clear Lake) are weird little fingers of annexation for tax purposes that make any analysis of "Houston," as a homogeneous zone, patently absurd.
There is no useful comparison between Boston and Houston traffic patterns. None.
Those are the exceptions on
Those are the exceptions on lists that generally feature far more places.
That's the whole point. Those
That's the whole point. Those cities prove that density does not preclude livability as long as you do it right. The rest (mostly in India and China) just prove that far flung suburbs can only exist in countries where car ownership is commonplace.
No, the majority are not
No, the majority are not large or very built up places. The ones you posted were the smaller number of exceptions. This is easily verifiable.
Yes, the exception that
Yes, the exception that proves the rule so to speak. If Paris can be entirely 6 story buildings and not be ugly or unpleasant, why can't Boston?
eherot wrote: "This is a
eherot wrote: "This is a straw man argument. These people are going to live somewhere, and wherever they live (be it Jamaica Plain or suburban Dallas), we will have to build the infrastructure to transport them."
Not if they just stay in their own countries.
eherot also wrote: "I personally wish that there were more people living in my neighborhood. I like having lots of foot traffic near my house"
But there are also people, including your neighbors, who don't like what you like (high density and street traffic), and many of them were here before you. So why do you wish to force changes on them that they don't want. Why don't you just move to a very dense congested city? You probably would love to live in Manhattan. Can't afford to live there? Of course. This is what happens when you overdevelop a desirable city. It can never revert to being affordable again.
"Not if they just stay in
"Not if they just stay in their own countries."
Why would they do that? These people are usually richer than you and me. If we're bidding against one another for a house, guess who's going to win? If we don't build enough housing for both of us, it's me who's going to end up homeless.
"You probably would love to live in Manhattan. Can't afford to live there? Of course. This is what happens when you overdevelop a desirable city. It can never revert to being affordable again."
Correlation does not imply causality. New York was the first city in the country to enact limits on height "to preserve the character of the neighborhood" (which was widely understood at the time to mean "prevent the arrival of black people and immigrants"). Also, San Francisco is *far* less dense than Manhattan, and yet rents are higher. Palo Alto is even worse.
On the other end, we have Toronto, which has been building high rises at a fairly steady pace, and their rents have roughly kept pace with inflation.
I'm sure you're right that many people would prefer to live in a neighborhood with great access to transit, no tall buildings, and affordable rents, but the only way you're ever going to have that is by having high unemployment. If people understood that they had to choose EITHER suburban-style living OR affordable rents, they might think about density a bit more favorably.
Those are just exemptions to
Those are just exemptions to the rules. The vast majority of the cities on the publishes rankings of the nicest places are mostly not the largest.
Mostly not, but there's also
Mostly not, but there's also no inverse correlation that I'm aware of. All I'm trying to point out is that density doesn't seem to cause people to become *less* happy.
The only issue I take with
The only issue I take with your otherwise nicely written post is that you include NY on the list of cities willing to grow.
I would say no, NY has a major NIMBY problem just like here. They did their growth in the nineteenth and early 20th century largely, but now NY is majorly underperforming in housing growth. Which is why prices are skyrocketing there too.
Tokyo is an interesting example. It's a city where you can get a single-family home (albeit small, Japanese-style) in a core neighborhood (e.g. Shinjuku). Yet, neighborhoods such as those are still somewhat densely built, by our standards. They just don't waste space on idiotic things like parking lots, and they keep most of their streets nice, small and human-scaled. Tokyo has a reputation as a densely populated megalopolis but it's really a bit of a strange mix. They don't use American-style (racist-origin) zoning, so it's quite possible for apartment buildings to be next to single family homes, and nobody really freaks out about it (again, single family home zoning is unique to America's historically racist politics, so it's not something you find the same way in the rest of the world).
But arguably Tokyo is underbuilt in many places and so it also suffers from sprawl. But it's a different kind of sprawl than Houston -- it's railroad sprawl. People live far out on (very well built) rail lines and commute long distances, so the rush hour does not occur on the streets but rather in the stations. They also don't have the same obsession with historical preservation that we do -- much of the city was destroyed in the war, and Tokyo didn't really exist as a city ~150 years ago anyway (just a village, Edo) -- so they are willing to build and rebuild frequently.
Tokyo embarked on an intense program of housing development and has turned its reputation for high prices around, showing that it is actually possible for a big city to tackle high housing costs through construction.
One little problems with your
One little problems with your extolling of Tokyo's virtues: if I wanted to live in a place like Tokyo with tiny little houses and apartments, I would not be living in my place in Boston, where I'm quite happy, thank you very much. So anyone trying to convince me that this city should be like Tokyo is just ludicrous to me. Your whole thinking (including calling zoning "racist") is based on a sense of entitlement. To your mind, residents of this city have no right to protect their quality of life, and should be prevented from doing so, just so any Dick and Harry who wants to live in Boston can do so, as if it was their birthright. No.
"underperforming in housing
"underperforming in housing growth"
As if to imply that housing growth is sustainable or needs to be maintained. It doesn't if you have stable demand, and that is better of the long term.
You wrote: "Equally
You wrote: "Equally unfortunately, there's a huge group of people who somehow think that by limiting growth we can keep prices down."
It is clear you cannot fathom it, but what if they are right and you are wrong.
When you decide that the city should grow, you bring a lot of newcomers who end up competing for jobs with the residents who already inhabit the city. This means that employers can be picky, they know people are desperate for work, and that brings wages down. The cost of housing keeps going up, but wages go down, and you get what we have now.
You overestimate the positive effect of adding housing supply. If the demand keeps going up as well, adding supply does not lead to lower housing costs. So in fact limiting growth can be good. Constant growth is unsustainable and bad for the planet.
"If the demand keeps going up
"If the demand keeps going up as well"
You mean because the number of available jobs keeps going up as well, which means more people are able to be employed? Tell me how this is a bad thing, again.
It raised prices and does not
It raised prices and does not necessarily mean everyone has a job, and building for more growth is expensive and not sustainable.
Err, it is the availability
Err, it is the availability jobs that is attracting people to live here. And I don't understand what you mean by "building for more growth is expensive." Expensive compared to what?
It's expensive generally,
It's expensive generally, which is why it has not been expanded much.
More like we're just not
More like we're just not willing to pay for it. Plenty of other states and countries have expanded their transit networks substantially over the last few years without bankrupting themselves (Los Angeles, even!). We're not doing it because the funding model for our transportation system is too broken to support it.
Yes, but not beyond what our
Yes, but not beyond what our transit can support, because it's not easy to improve it. More demand just makes that harder. There's always more demand no matter how much we build.
Uh ...
If transit isn't supporting this, then transit needs to be improved because are roads and transit are not supporting those people headed to other places, either.
The problem is that transit
The problem is that transit can't easily be improved, and that's why there are practical limits to growth if we want to maintain a region that's desirable to live in.
"transit can't easily be
"transit can't easily be improved"
This isn't a technical problem, it's a problem of political will. Our transit has *lots* of room to improve: More frequent trains, longer trains, more subway lines, etc. All of these things cost less than expanding the highway network.
It's a problem of funding as
It's a problem of funding as well. It's extremely expensive. Either way, it's not easy, and that's why building first and expecting transit to improve after is not sustainable.
The building is going to
The building is going to happen somewhere. Left to its own devices it will happen in far flung suburbs where there are fewer restrictions on land use. Then people will drive to work from those places, which will cause more traffic, which will cause people to demand further expansion of the roads. Building better transit in the city is *much* cheaper.
Also, politically it makes a lot more sense to build first and then expand the transit, because it's mainly voters that are already using the system that are going to bother demanding that their politicians improve it.
"flung suburbs where there
"flung suburbs where there are fewer restrictions on land use."
Far flung suburbs are adding more restrictions on development.
" Building better transit in the city is *much* cheaper."
It's barely happening now and will only be more expensive with more demand.
"Also, politically it makes a lot more sense to build first and then expand the transit"
That is not how cities should be developed because it's assumes that transit will expand later.
"Far flung suburbs are adding
"Far flung suburbs are adding more restrictions on development."
Yes, but they have fewer restrictions right now.
"It's barely happening now and will only be more expensive with more demand."
This makes no sense. How does "more demand" make expanding transit more expensive?
"That is not how cities should be developed because it's assumes that transit will expand later."
Your alternative suggests that we should build the infrastructure now (before the voters arrive to support it) in the hopes that growth will happen later. You really think that makes more sense, politically?
But there is no money for
But there is no money for meaningful transit improvements because we are growing too fast, and as a result more public funds are needed for education, policing, and subsidized housing for poor/older/immigrant folks. Population growth is not necessarily a good thing - it only helps corporations because it drives wages down.
"But there is no money for
"But there is no money for meaningful transit improvements because we are growing too fast"
We have no money for transit improvements because (among other things) we refuse to raise the gas tax. If Massachusetts were a country, it would be one of the wealthiest in the world. If we decided we wanted to tax people to pay for transportation infrastructure, the money is there. Boston's growth rate is lower than many other cities in the world that have managed to keep abreast of their transportation needs. The problem is political will.
"Population growth is not necessarily a good thing - it only helps corporations because it drives wages down."
This is just wrong and it is easily disproved by a very quick Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=population+growth+drives+wages+down&ie=u...
The reality is almost always the opposite: Population growth is good for all involved. But even if it weren't, the rising housing costs that come with refusing to build enough housing are *definitely worse*, especially for the middle class that already live here.
Link to a list of search
Link to a list of search results doesn't disprove anything. If you actually look at some of the results of you posted, you do find some that say there are negative effects to growth. There are studies that show both sides, if you are willing to search for them.
The main point is that expanding the public transit is expensive now for a variety of reasons, and would only be more expensive if the improvements needed are even greater. You can try to explain that away all sorts of ways, but that doesn't change the cost of expanding demand.
Yes, expanding transit is
Yes, expanding transit is expensive, and expanding it more is (obviously) more expensive. But the cost PER RIDER goes down as the size of the expansion goes up, and compared to the macroeconomic costs of having everyone sit in traffic, it's a relative bargain.
expanding transit, typo
expanding transit, typo
This almost makes me want to
This almost makes me want to go to the meeting, there will definitely be some serious consternation about these projects.
When my wife was blown away by this in the email last night, I assumed it would be like most other projects I seem to see here.
Ask for 600 units, and then scale down to 400 which is what they really wanted anyway.
Will this get past Bill Galvin? Given his frustration with the new St Es emergency room and the Brighton Marine project I know he is pretty protective of that bit of Brighton.
The B line can't handle it
The B-line is overcrowded now, and there is no hope for three-car trains, according to the T. The 57 has its issues, too. Certain times of the day the buses are full and sail past stops that have plenty of people waiting.
The St. Gabriel's proposal and the adjacent project seem too dense for the area. 680 units is a lot, I'm curious what the design will look like. It's a big increase over the 400 to 500 apartments mentioned in the January Globe article. I doubt they will be able to limit to grad students only, many live in group situations to keep costs down. No mention of parking, some will be needed. The BRA has had a strong preference for higher density on the St. Gabriel's site for years, since the Kevin White administration, and I think that will be at play here.
The Brighton Avenue/Gardner Street proposal may have too many parking spaces. One per unit ought to be enough, maybe fewer. The streets behind Brighton Avenue are low-rise buildings and larger homes that usually house two to four units each.
The 139 Washington Street proposal is part of the same St. Gabriel's campus, and is the address of the former rectory and school of St. Gabriel's church. The city lists the Archdiocese of Boston as the owner. The church and school were closed many years ago. The church interior has deteriorated badly, not sure what the use the school and rectory may have now.
So, update the signals and
So, update the signals and run trains more often. The increased tax base from an additional thousand people living and working there ought to help.
It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't work that way. You don't get a proportional increase in funds for transit relative to demand because there are other expenses that also increase.
Because everything about the T is easy?
A recent meeting about the B-line, the MBTA GM made the point that the Green Line will not be able to add major capacity for quite a while, for a number of reasons. Signal improvements and other changes will help, but not enough to meet demand. http://willbrownsberger.com/changing-expectations-for-the-green-line/
Increased tax base goes to
Increased tax base goes to the city. The MBTA is a state agency. The city does not finance MBTA improvements.
It seems like developers are
It seems like developers are gearing most new large structures toward young childless professionals who bike to work so additional T burdens shouldn't be an issue.
There's no way to limit that
There's no way to limit that just because a building is marketed a certain way.
There's no long term way to
There's no long term way to limit it to grad students unless the schools owned them.
Subway!
In my fantasy world, the A line would be resurrected as a subway line, bringing actual rapid transit to Brighton. Yes, I know we don't have the billions this would cost; that's why it's a fantasy.
Prefab elevated railway
Prefab elevated railway system using the same stuff as highway ramps
http://www.alexblock.net/blog/?p=3051
Turning the B line into a system like that to eliminate all delays at grade crossings and reintroduce the A line.
"The Brighton Avenue/Gardner
"The Brighton Avenue/Gardner Street proposal may have too many parking spaces. One per unit ought to be enough, maybe fewer." WHAT are you talking about? That project has 0.5 parking space per unit, and nearly half of them are in tandem.
139 Washington?
Adam, did the agenda say anything more about 139 Washington? The BRA doesn't mention anything on its website, and the assessors and registry still seem to have it under the archdiocese's control.
No, it didn't
The agenda was very barebones. So I guess I know where I'll be Thursday evening.
Don't forget another 73 units
Don't forget another 73 units right down the block:
http://www.universalhub.com/2016/brighton-synagogue-ritual-bath-center-p...
212 parking spaces!
That's not a housing development, that's a parking development where some people might incidentally live.
That's more car oriented than the Auto Zone it's replacing.
All about what I can get
I don't care if they add 2000 more residences.
However, if they add a pool, then they have to let the nearby community purchase annual passes for it at a discounted rate.
Eh?
Why in the world would the owners or renters want to spend their condo fees or rent on maintaining the pool that gets trashed by outsiders on a daily basis?
Because that's how these meetings work
Someone wants to change the neighborhood and the current residents go and make absurd demands in order to hold the project hostage to the fact that they were there first.
I want cheap access to a pool in the summer. They want to build a bunch of housing that will instantly make them a boatload of cash. I'm sure we can come to some agreement.
This is called Judas
This is called Judas neighborhood activism. Sell the neighborhood for personal benefit. Frankly, I find it disgusting.
1000 units = 2000 cars
Hi all,
These arguments are very interesting on both sides. I'm, in general, ok with more units in my area as long as the infrastructure can handle it.
1000 new 2 bedroom units , no matter what they say, will bring between 1750 and 2000 cars to the area. This is a one smalllllllll block area. This neighborhood is already filled to capacity with cars. And already Washington Street and Comm ave is an avoid at all cost driving area, especially at rush hours. Imagine close to 2000 more cars coming and going at 7 to 9am and 5 to 7 pm.
Imagine what that would be like if all those cars were housed on the respective properties. Now imagine that these three developments will be able to handle less than half closer to 1/3rd of the cars they will generate. That means the rest of the cars will need to be parked somewhere other than on site. And that somewhere is a series of concentric circles out from them. That means close to 1200 cars will need parking spaces on the street in my neighborhood.
Now take that a step further, and imagine a snow emergency whereby many streets around here are forbidden to park on. Imagine the disaster that will be here.
If these developments can handle the additional cars on site I'm more inclined to be ok with them. However it still means a tremendous traffic burden on an already overburdened area.
"1000 units = 2000 cars"
"1000 units = 2000 cars"
Citation needed. This is way above the existing ratio for any neighborhood of Boston, but especially this one.
"These arguments are very interesting on both sides. I'm, in general, ok with more units in my area as long as the infrastructure can handle it."
But because there is zero possibility of ever expanding the road network in the area, especially not enough to accommodate anywhere close to the number of cars for every needed unit of housing in Boston to be able to come with two cars, this is effectively a very tight limit on development and will definitely contribute to the further rise in housing prices.
For us to actually build the housing we need, we will need a lot MORE people to choose not to own cars. Not building more parking is the single most effective thing we can do to ensure this.