Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer want to replace tire store with $300 million project on Boylston Street in the Fenway
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
Yippee! Boston construction lives!
This is great news. Thank you to Samuels & Associates. This will fill in under-utilized space on Boylston Street. I say, let's renamed that area "Samuelsland" or something similarly-catchy.
I love this:
The first stage will include "... 200,000 square feet of ground floor shops that will include an anchor department store that the company would not name" ...
Name it a Target and the Mayor will say, "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
It is Target. Another Boston
It is Target. Another Boston newspaper had the story a few months ago:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/05/25...
John, buddy, do everyone a favor and head to Sao Paolo. I'm sure the farmer's market, gym and customers that make use of the space now don't feel it's "Underutilized." That's just greedy developer code for "we don't like what's there, let us build something else." You know, like how the Filene's space was "underutilized" before the pit came around, or how the Trilogy space was so "underutilized" that it carried over to Trilogy, which had to sell units to Harvard at cut-rate prices just to break even. Plenty of demand for the first floor retail space, not so much for the overpriced blue-shirt bedrooms above. Yay frivolous Boston construction!!! Woohooo false notion of "density!"
Trilogy has been full for years-
It's mostly college kids, and college kids from abroad at that, but the building has been over 90% occupancy since mid-2007. Used to live there myself.
Yes, but...
those college kids are there as part of Harvard's housing initiative. Those aren't privately owned units. The developer actually lost money on the deal by making it a glorified dorm.
Just follow the rules
As long as the developer builds as of right or follows the process for changing the zoning (and the BRA obeys the rules too - which they usually don't) - they can build whatever they get approved. if the gym and the market want to pay the rent when the new building is done - I'm sure the developer will welcome them back. I'm not a huge fan of the architecture on "the new Boylston" as canyonization seems to be taking hold - but it's definitely an improvement over what was there and it's functional. If they overbuilt housing - that's good - it will help drive down housing costs which are too high and hurt our competitiveness in keeping young talent in the region. Just don't go asking for tax credits - Lib Mu already got too many!
I hear these concerns about "housing costs"
and wonder if anyone's seen Jamaica Plain, Cambridge, Somervile, the Fenway, etc. Remarkably, young people are finding properties just fine without developers building soulless utilitarian post-collegiate filing cabinets for them. This nonsense happens in and around just about every major city, but the Fenway area seems the most susceptible to this nonsensical housing theory. During the last half decade, developers had us believe that the housing stock was insufficient and that development was not just a necessity but a right. Then the bottom fell out, folks realized renting wasn't such a bad option and college kids disappointed that they couldn't buy urban property for less than $300,000 (which, of course, is bullshit to anyone who's ever shopped for or purchased condos in JP, Charlestown, existing Fenway and even portions of the South End) did the right thing and actually started saving. It's not housing that's keeping the "young talent" away, it's a general lack of excitement. Kids who go to New York, Austin, Chicago, San Fran, Seattle and even f'n Philly, for the love of god, have a more diverse offering of entertainment options that cater specifically to them without being either cheesy, pre-fab clubs, your mom's idea of a great bistro or corporate rock boxes. The bars, clubs, galleries, lofts, outdoor events, cool neighborhoods, cheap taxis, ample public transportation, late closing times and other items that make these cities more appealing to young people aren't just made -- they're part of the culture. When Boston tries to manufacture that atmosphere, its efforts fall flat and resemble those cities' suburban commuter outposts. In a word, they're lame. A square business base (personal finance and pharma/biotech don't exactly draw the cool kids) coupled with a puritanical bar and restaurant scene often too conservative to be anything but a step behind is the reason Boston loses the youngsters... not a lack of lame housing with gyms, saunas and porches local law won't let you grill on.
I've been to those places
And you're missing something-- well, more than one thing, but here are some of the main things:
1. The housing in these areas isn't necessarily any more fabulous or interesting, on average, than here. You think Austin, in general, has cooler architecture than here? Come on. Some of it, yeah, but most of it's fairly recent and generic. Most of the reason people move there is...
2. A huge party scene that Boston can't compare with. Boston won't, can't, and probably shouldn't try to compete with the likes of Austin or New York in terms of partying. New York's far bigger, and Austin might as well be in another country, culturally speaking. But the main issue why the party scene has fallen so far behind is...
3. It's too expensive for enough regular people to live here and be able to afford to party, at least out on the town. Sure, there are other legacies such as the Puritans and the related phenomenon of Boston being one of the most segregated big cities in the U.S., but the main reason why the party level tops out the way it does is the city's affordability generally. The cost of living in general keeps people in their apartments, and drives them out of the city. These luxury condos targeted at the very rich and/or empty nesters, and the businesses that cater to them, are an outgrowth of this.
And as for "personal finance and pharma/biotech don't exactly draw the cool kids"; OK, then, what does? What businesses should the magic fairy that lives in the sky conjure up for Boston that would draw the so-called "cook kids"?
You're really going to fall
You're really going to fall on "cost of living" when comparing Boston to New York, Chicago, Austin, San Fran, et al? Boston is a STEAL compared to any of those locations, giving renters hundred of square feet more space than at comps in the other cities. I think the elements you touched on before -- the conservative nightlife and the separation of both classes and cultures -- weigh on this town far more than the cost of living. The young people who do live here seem to find no problem picking up places in Brighton, JP, Somerville, Cambridge, Charlestown, Southie and elsewhere (Fort Hill/Highland Park, Brookline, etc.). If cost was the mitigating factor, all the kids would move to Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. It's not.
I agree that Boston can't and shouldn't match the amenities most post-collegians find attractive, but you can't blame affordability for keeping them away when the cities they're fleeing to are far less affordable.
Austin is far, far cheaper than here
Chicago is also cheaper. Austin-- from having been there this year-- is insanely cheap compared to here. You're right about SF and New York, but saying that Boston's cheaper than Chicago or Austin is just flat wrong. Go to any of those cities Craigslists, go to any cost-of-living calculator, and they'll all tell you that they're both cheaper than Boston.
As for young people picking up places in Brookline and Southie-- Jesus, have you looked at what places cost there, either to rent or to buy? And have you looked at what the nightlife is (not) like there? If you're 23 and live in Brookline, you're either a Trustafarian or you do something which requires enough sobriety at 9 a.m. to preclude taking advantage of 4 a.m. closing times.
Austin perhaps...
but certainly not Chicago. Having lived on LaSalle for a few years, I can honestly tell you that cost of living -- from rent to supermarket bills to beers out -- certainly dropped upon moving to Boston. In fact, both the United Bank of Scotland and Kiplinger's rank Chicago well ahead of Boston among the most expensive cities. In fact, Chicago was the 25th most expensive city in the world last year, while Boston didn't crack the Top 100. I have looked in both Southie and Brookline and, while Brookline's no peach, a two-bedroom can be had for $250,000 there. Southie? Surely you jest. Sure, a place in one of the megadevelopments near the W. Broad T stop isn't cheap, but just up West Broadway are some great condos and duplexes under $300K. Boston's ugly little secret is that it's not nearly as expensive or sought after as some members of its development community would lead you to believe.
And Chicago too, at least according to Kiplinger's
If you're going to cite a third party, at least get it right-- Kiplinger's actually ranks Chicago as less expensive than Boston, right here:
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/bestcities_sort/index.php?sortby=cost&sortorder=DESC
I don't deny your anecdotal experience of finding a cheaper place to live here; I'm sure I could move to, say, Arkansas and find a more expensive home than I have here, but we're talking about averages, not anecdotes.
Something fishy about this
According to that Kiplinger's list Worcester, Burlington VT and Portsmouth NH are all more expensive than Boston/Quincy/Cambridge. I'm having a hard time seeing how that's true.
Cost vs. Salary
I think that is a kicker. If you live in NYC or SFO, chances are you are subsidized by parents or make a pile of money because everything costs more and pays more too. Boston jobs used to pay more than elsewhere - not sure if that is still true, but you have to look at both sides of the equation.
The cost of owning a car and the savings in not having to own one figure in too.
I'm not so sure about SF
But I actually think you can find a lot more cheap places to eat, drink, and shop in NYC if you really look for it. I lived in Queens a few years back and everything was cheaper there if you went to the right neighborhood store for certain items (paper towels, toothpaste, soap, furniture). Even DD coffee was cheaper in Manhattan than it was in Boston (not sure it that is still true). Plus there were so many cool bars that had happy hour, cheap pitchers and free apps. Tougher to find cheap deals in Boston in my opinion.
P.S.
On that last point: PR, consulting, advertising, Web companies, national media. Industries that attract the creatives bring the party.
You forgot marketers
Can't have a party without marketers. Put them in a room with some consultants and some Web designers, and look out.
Seriously, you're dumb. All of those industries are here already, although it could be strongly argued that some are in decline, at least partly because-- yes!-- it costs too much for people to live, and thus for companies to operate, here.
Are they really?
I'm sorry, having token representation for these industries doesn't make them "here already." It's not surprising that, in cities where these industries have strong representation -- Seattle, New York, Chicago, even Philadelphia -- the good times follow.
"You're dumb." Yep, you're "really a realtor" all right.
correction
cool kids. I'm sure you were in the middle of a devastating verbal girl-kick at me for a typo, but please, keep it to your and Kaz's fantasy Sim City game.
Hehehe
Wow, you get right down to the personal attacks when you're backed into a corner, don't you? It's not the typo I have a problem with, but the skewed view of the city's housing and its effect on culture that surrounds that typo.
this post makes no sense.
The property is underutilized because it is a single story structure with surface parking. It is an absolute crime to locate a building like that close to that many public transit options. No reasons those two tenants can't lease the ground floor of the new building. (Btw the gym and farm stand were always supposed to be temporary. They new that when signing leases.)
Come off it
Single story with surface parking... you mean like Jerry Remy's, the Burger King, the two gas stations, the entire complex that holds the Baseball Tavern, Fenway Cantina and The Machine? These are all viable businesses that flourish near public transit. You know, much of Brookline consists of single-level businesses and homes near public transit. No one complains about this and no one calls it underutilized... just because it's not a canyon, a facsimile of the seaport or a commuter commune like Danvers, Beverly, Cherry Hill, Yonkers or the Jersey City waterfront.
You come off it....
If you honestly think that the current GoodYear building is a good use of space, then it is doubtful anything I say will convince you otherwise, therefore i won't bother wasting my, or your, time.
The burger kind is slated for redevelopment also, btw.
We should just give Samuels &
We should just give Samuels & Associates the keys to the city. Theyve done a great job on Boylston, including agreeing with the city to set back their properties for wider sidewalks and bike lanes.
And yes, the anchor will be Target.
Edit: The globe article says 500 parking spots. I do not remember that being agreed to in the original purchase of the property. Thats way too many.
No Target/Wal Mart Please
Is a Target/Wal Mart type store the best the Fenway can get? This is one of Bostons great neighborhoods, and its going to get a big box chain? Menino really does want to turn Boston into Dedham doesn't he? What is his obsession with putting chains all over Boston so you wont even know if you're in the Fenway or Akron.
BIG BOX STORES, OH NO
The area already has a Best Buy, a Staples, and a Bed Bath & Beyond. The idea that Target will transform the neighborhood for the worse is a little dramatic. It's not like they are putting it in Copley Square.
Besides, I'm sure most of the residents in that area would welcome it.
Don't worry...I hear they are planning another Whole Foods nearby. That should help restore some of the yuppie balance.
Exactly. I lived in that
Exactly. I lived in that area for two years, without a car. I would have loved having a Target, because it would have meant that I didn't have to either rent a Zipcar, schlep things back from the Landmark Bed Bath and Beyond, or try to haul packages on the T. Not everyone who lives in the city proper has the luxury of a car or the money to shop at all of the "great local stores" on Newbury St.
Er, no
More accurately stated:
Menino really doesn't want Boston residents to shop in Dedham.
Whether you like Target or not is irrelevant to the fact that many Boston residents shop outside of the city at big box retailers. Many other Boston residents who lack a car have fewer big box options. There are some appropriate locations for such outlets in the city, let's get them built and keep the shopping dollars (and sales tax) here, rather than sending them to the suburbs.
bloop bloop bloop
bloop bloop bloop
I know many times developers
I know many times developers don't make the right calls, and I'm no fan of the BRA. Maybe the new architecture in Fenway isn't so interesting, but I feel like the only way to make rents in Boston lower is to build more. There is a finite amount of housing stock, so landlords can charge more. Look at Chicago, they overbuilt in the loop and you can get a luxo apartment for cheap.
As I posted on Twitter
If this thing is going to be another Trilogy, then piss off. This city has an absolute GLUT of "luxury" condos. You can not buy anything for under $400K anywhere close to downtown. This is a common lament, but it's still true. A new family of 2 plus baby making $100-150K combined looking for a 2BR condo would be foolish to be anywhere closer than JP these days.
What are the recent Back Bay developments at? 15% filled or something like that? In April, W's condos ($400K-$4M) were like 10% sold. Back in January, the same site reported that 45 Providence and Clarendon were also a paltry 10% each...both with average pricing around the $1M-1.5M range??
Even a $400,000 studio with under 1,000 sq ft will set you back $2K/mo in mortgage payments alone (assuming 4.5% interest rate on 30 year fixed). It only goes up from there and that's just not feasible for nearly anyone with a brain who can get 2-3x the space, maybe even a yard, and all they have to do is join the masses in the commute.
This city needs someone to grow some balls and create a condo building within 6 miles of downtown with $250K-$400K multi-bedroom units. It would sell out in a heartbeat. You might not get a super-high return...but at least you'd be in and out of the deal without tons of multi-million dollar units hanging over your head for years because NOBODY wants your overpriced CRAP. It's time for this market to self-correct. There's this development and the Yawkey Commuter Rail development that should bring some units to a great section of town that's well-connected to the rest of the city.
I can only hope that they recognize the needs of the community right now. We don't need you to recycle $1M+ condos with the 500 rich people in town hopping from new building to new building. We need something new, affordable, and convenient to life in the city.
These people built the
These people built the triology. It did well enough that they built 1350 across the street. That did well enough that now theyre building this.
Im pretty sure they understand the local demand better than you do, considering their success.
i agree.
there are a few multi-bedroom condos that are 250-400k within 6 miles of downtown.
dna lofts, granite lofts. if you shop around, you can find something.
Awesome...
Now find me some with some walls. Not everyone wants to live in their kitchen.
Um?
1100 square feet, 4 bedrooms here. We even have walls!
RE: here-- Where?
I think the debate was about the size/location/affordability question. If you're in Phoenix, or Detroit, then yeah, I could see it being affordable.
The DNA condos are well
The DNA condos are well within the price range of 200 to 400k.
The granite lofts in quincy are very nice as well and are just as affordable.
Problem with that is
those condos would be bought up by investors and flipped to sell them at market rate. so why would Samuels volunteer to lose money so someone else could make it?
What investor?
What kind of upsell could they put on them to flip them? There are places in the 400k-4m range that are at TEN PERCENT occupancy right now. There are places artificially propping up the market because they don't want to admit that they've got stock but nobody to sell it to.
I'm pretty sure
Steve Samuels understands business and the market a LOT better than you do.
I'm pretty sure...
...that that's irrelevant to Kaz, especially when he's in pipe dream mode. There are economic reasons why luxury buildings keep getting built, and there are reasons why such projects might still be profitable even if they're largely empty. You have to be a moron to lose money on real estate in this town, which is why very few people do.
As for the city "making a stand" and demanding that affordable housing be created-- OK, fine, but who pays for it? And why? Why should other people's money-- after all, it's not "the city's" money, it's everyone else's-- go to some kind of scheme in which the city artificially depresses the value of housing for certain select people? Given that there's a finite amount of money, and a finite amount of real estate, it seems like all you're calling for is a reshuffling of funds-- by the city, and we know how efficient and fair they are-- to conform to some notion of yours about how much things "should" cost. Sorry, but as bad as things are now, I'd just as soon not put your ideas into play.
Steve Samuels...
wouldn't know the economic realities of this city if they gave him a reach-around or iced him at a local bro bar. This is a man who thinks that hoisting up a tower of vacancies and waiting for better trade winds to blow in is going to result in anything but default or those buildings' sale to a local university. We've seen the morons who lose money on real estate in this town -- they're the same ones whose units get thrown up for auction at a third of their price and who plead for abatements to offset the costs.
Don't blame Kaz for your developer buddies not learning jack about the market conditions their greed created and don't blame him for actually suggesting an idea that would help developers turn a profit rather than taking hit after hit quarter after quarter and watching their margins dwindle to the size of a "luxury" studio with an all-stainless efficiency.
I can't and won't make the argument against box stores, because South Bay Plaza is a great example of the role they play in our city. However, I will make an argument that "luxury" (i.e. crap sheetrock boxes with Kohl's fixtures and a doorman) absolutely "need" to be build because some speculator deems it so. The Fenway is getting along just fine without those units and, considering the existing traffic at the Fenway stop on both the D line and the commuter rail, doesn't need the impact of those residents and, more importantly, can ill afford to become a new Allston if those units default to dorms and don't need the blight when they sit empty. While the pretty, empty space on the greenway is nice (the "lux" condos near the Garden, not the grass), it won't play nearly as well in a thriving community like the Fenway.
Here's an idea, son... take that real estate license you applied for when Framingham State got too tough, trade it in for a better education in some vocation that actually benefits society and stop playing SimCity with our rateables.
"when Framingham State got too tough"
Ooh, classism, very nice. Where'd Daddy get you into, big guy?
I didn't know...
calling someone dumb was any indication of their class. The state schools aren't a stepping stone like a community college, they're holding pens for people who couldn't make the grades and never aspired to. A glorified day care for those not skilled enough for a vocation, gifted enough for the arts or smart enough for upward mobility.
You forgot "or smart enough to be born rich"
What did your Daddy do for work, then? Or do you claim some kind of noble poor heritage, but you worked your way up through some combination of hard work and sodomy?
Just wondering
What is your basis for assessing the quality of programs and students at Framingham State and other "state schools"?
The population of Southborough and neighboring communities
Where I'm from and where half the high school goes to Framingham State when they can't/won't figure out what to do with their lives -- or until Staples or TJX gets an opening.
Hahah this is getting built
Hahah this is getting built and there is nothing you can do about it.
Resorting to name calling....extremely classy.
Steve Samuels
Built South Bay too, I think he knows a couple of things. there's a reason he's rich and you aren't. What are all of these "multi-million dollare condos for auction" that samuels has developed? Trilogy and 1330 are both rental and are doing just fine.
So what mistakes has Samuels made that would lead you to believe they don't know what they are doing?
hats off to this man. He
hats off to this man. He knows steve samuel's company better than steve samuels.
Niether building has defaulted, nor were they sold to any college. These are RENTAL UNITS, as were intended from the start.
Your last comment makes you look like a fucking douche bag.
Discourse dropoff
"Your last comment makes you look like a fucking douche bag"
Wow, way to disprove his/her point. You three blind anons just lost any shred of credibility you may have had and, worse, now make it seem like you have a direct interest in Samuels' project. For your sake, I hope you're not affiliated with his business, as phrases like the one above aren't exactly PR gold.
An attempt to sound smart ^.
Anon that you quoted here.
I was giving my personal opinion, using my own anecdotal evidence from observations of the area, as well as what i read online and in the newspaper. From what I have observed, the buildings are flourishing on the ground floor, and there has been no indication at all that Samuel's company has been financially trouble from these buildings. Similar projects (Namely the W hotel, which sought public bankruptcy protection, and The Bryant, which underwent a firesale auction) were both luxury CONDO's. Samuels builds apartments, which are a completely different set of financials.
Finally, are you really going to sit here and defend whoever made that absurd comment about Framingham State? He is a douchebag who hides behind a computer screen.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Samuels or Framingham State, nor do i have any interest in the real estate industry. I am simply a humble anon who takes hobby from watching places urbanize and grow.
Sometimes I'm glad no one remembers our neighborhood
This city needs someone to grow some balls and create a condo building within 6 miles of downtown with $250K-$400K multi-bedroom units. It would sell out in a heartbeat.
There are lots of $150K-$300K condos right here, three miles from downtown, 11 minutes on the orange line. And they're not all identical and many have yards and driveways and stuff.
+ 1
There is lots of solid and reasonably priced housing stock in Boston, but much of it is found in places people refuse to consider or don't even know exist. Roxbury, JP, Dorchester, Roslindale, etc., lots of really nice options close to downtown with good transit. Of course, if everybody were to look in these places, they would quickly become unaffordable, too.
Allston and Brighton
One of these days, someone will notice that $300-500K will buy you a two- or three-story house in Allston or Brighton, quite likely with a basement and a yard.
JP condos are $600-700K
And that's over the tracks.
In what universe?!!
There may BE condos that cost $600-$700k, but for the most part they're between $200-$350.
These aren't condos
They aren't building condos here nor are there condos at 1330 Boylston or Trilogy. They are all apartments for rent. There have been a lot of developments of high-end apartments in the city during the past half decade and, surprisingly, they appear to all be doing very well. The demand for $2,000 studios has not let up.
Affordable housing can be had in many neighborhoods - at least affordable in the Massachusetts sense. What is not going to happen is having housing that is affordable in the downtown neighborhoods, because the cost of land is so high and the cost of building is high.
In NYC, people live in Brooklyn and don't complain about coming into Manhattan, yet in Boston, people gripe that they can't afford to live on Comm Ave.
Increasing the number of rental units available in downtown Boston is a great thing but I would guess it will have a nominal effect on prices.
Just a guess, but perhaps it
Just a guess, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that NYC has a real public transportation system and Boston has not.
Park Slope to Midtown at rush is what, 40 minutes across 9 miles? Packard's Corner to Gov't Center at rush is approximately the same amount of time for half the distance. What's wrong with that picture?
While I agree that there is a
While I agree that there is a glut of luxury condos, I take issue with this:
.
Many people find urban living desirable - the ability to walk everywhere, close proximity to cultural activities, a very short, environmentally-friendly commute. What you're describing is the suburbs, not a city. There's a reason there's a huge demand city housing, not just in Boston, but cities everywhere (well, except for Detriot). People want to live in these areas, and they're tired of mcmansions and suvs and spending most of their lives commuting to and fro. Maybe you don't want to, but apparently plenty of others do.
What people want
What people want doesn't always match what people can afford...except in Detroit.
The problem Kaz...
If you create a condo building where all the units sellout in a heartbeat, then the units are probably underpriced. The real estate market (or any market), isn't that easy.
But I agree that there should be some tax incentives or something for develepors to make some medium priced housing units. There is some middle ground there somewhere.
Amen Kaz
My thoughts exactly.
Everything that is old is new again
Do you remember the mantra, popular at the height of the housing bubble, "we don't have a housing problem, we have a transportation problem"? That is still true. The thread seems to be harping on something "affordable" within 6 miles of downtown. You can build all the affordable housing you want within 6 miles of downtown, and if it takes you 60 sweat-filled minutes to get there on the T, people, particularly those in the example given (two income young couple with one kid), are simply going to find an "affordable" single family house and drive 60 air conditioned minutes to their jobs (also in the suburbs).
The T' I ride blasts the a/c
The T' I ride blasts the a/c full force. 60 minutes? Seriously? Maybe if you are coming from Brighton on the B line, maybe. I have a 12 minute ride on the 'T and I live just under 6 miles from downtown.
You must be able....
...to get to Forest Hills without needing to rely on a bus. Add on unreliable bus links to Forest Hills and your commute gets much longer (and iffier).
The A/C on most Orange Line trains I've been on lately has been pretty marginal. (Was just in NYC -- and found the A?C much more dependable on the subways there).
There is more to public
There is more to public transit in Boston than buses and subway. Actually, I walk to the commuter rail (about a minute), then the train is 12 minutes to Back Bay, so really it's a 13 minute commute. Obviously, I'm presenting a fairly ideal situation, and not everybody has a comparable option (see Swirley's description of her commute). But the statement was put out that 60 minutes is required if you live in an outlying urban area, and that's not universally true. Now, if I don't take the commuter rail, these are my typical choices:
There is no 60 minute commute option for me. :(
We live midway along the #50 bus route
...and hour long (or close) commute times are not infrequent. ;~{
Roslindale
My ride on the commuter rail to South Station is 18 minutes on the Needham line, which is very rarely late (certainly late less often than my old red line ride in from Central Sq.). I practially live in the Arboretum. There are houses in my neighborhood for under $400K (also many over that too) and lots and lots of condos for less. Join the migration to Roslindale. You won't regret it (unless you enjoy loud noise or hate children).
Loud noise in Roslindale
I've been worken up by the birds at 2 (or 3) in the morning!
LOL -- that's why you are
LOL -- that's why you are stuck waiting for the 50. Down near the square where I live, there is plenty of noise from traffic, but then I never wait more than a few minutes for a bus.
If we had the money....
...we'd LOVE to live right by the Arboretum. Rozzie Square itself might be too noisy too much of the time. And we would get too fat (even fatter) sooner -- living so close to all those bakeries. ;~}
6 miles, 60 minutes
If I catch the 134 bus that passes 1 block from my house at 8:15, I get to work at 9:15
If I walk 1/2 mile to the 95 that passes at 8:25, I get to work around the same time if I'm lucky enough to be able to get on the first train at Sullivan.
If I bike 2.5 miles to Davis, it will also be about 9:15 when I arrive at work.
Bike to commuter rail can be 45 minutes - if I can get my folding bike on and use it to get the mile from North Station to my office.
Otherwise, its a $2.80 premium for the express bus - and that's still 1/2 mile walk on each end.
If I bike 8 miles (a longer route as I can't take 93 and like the bike lanes), it works out to about 50 minutes to an hour by the time I get my bike into the garage, lock it up, and get up the elevators.
How'd you know it was the green line?
yep, that's about right. And as for the a/c, it is completely overwhelmed on the Green Line at almost all times. What is particularly infuriating is that the drivers, who are usually sitting next to their open windows (while above ground) and separated from the rest of the steaming human mass behind them, often don't think the A/C needs to be operating full blast because THEY'RE not warm. Even on a relatively cool day with reasonable humidity, the temperature is often very uncomfortable on the Green Line because of the sheer number of people standing in such close proximity to each other.
Also, and as others have pointed out, I was not referring to only the so-called "rapid" transit lines. not everyone has access to one of those, and the bus rides are even worse. Ten years ago, it used to take me 25-30 minutes to go from the corner of Western Ave and N. Harvard St. to the Red line at Harvard Sq. on the 66. I would have walked but for the fact that it was one of the hottest summers on record in Boston, and I would have sweat even more if I had done that.