Hey, there! Log in / Register

Gentrification: Not just for JP anymore

Post Somerville reports on some anti-yuppie sentiment in Union Square.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

probably best NOT to word heds like someone who just discovered there are development controversies outside Boston. also, there's a difference between worrying that you'll be priced out of your own neighborhood and being "anti-yuppie."

you could win some kind of award for parsimony with the FAIL-to-word ratio here.

up
Voting closed 0

One of the things that makes Universal Hub a bit different (I hope) is that it's not just a straight-news site - there's a lot of community going on here. For the past couple of months, no topic has generated more discussion in this community than Whole Foods in Jamaica Plain. Click on that link and look at the comment counts on the posts (they're low for, say, the Herald or Globe, but trust me, they're very high for UHub). That's why I wrote the headline that way - not for boston.com readers but for folks here, who hopefully will get it. A bit parochial? Perhaps.

As for being priced out of the neighborhood and being anti-yuppie? The whole point of that article is that people are worried they'll be priced out of their neighborhood by yuppies moving into that new condo building. Stop the yuppies and you stop prices going up. So somebody fighting gentrification is fighting yuppies.

up
Voting closed 0

In my experience, unless you are an indian and beat the pilgrims to your respective town, you are a yuppy.

The best yuppy comment I've received was when I was working at a restaurant in my hometown during summers in college and someone called me a yuppy even though I grew up in the town but didn't live there year-round anymore.

up
Voting closed 0

Stop the yuppies and you stop prices going up. So somebody fighting gentrification is fighting yuppies.

That literally makes no sense. It's like they were protesting against stinking garbage on the street, and you characterizing it as being "anti-buzzing-fly." Yes, when stinking garbage is left on the street, buzzing flies come. There are also other things that come as a result: rats, hungry dogs, itinerant recyclers looking for cans, etc.

You're saying "stop the buzzing flies and you stop the stinking garbage," which is exactly backwards. The protestors are saying "don't put in expensive housing and housing won't be expensive." It's actually not very complicated.

Were some of the protestors motivated by class prejudice rather than/in addition to concern about housing prices? Sure, maybe. To characterize the whole protest as "anti-yuppie" is grossly unfair and FAIL-y, though, even if it works as clickbait.

up
Voting closed 0

Stop the yuppies and you stop prices going up. So somebody fighting gentrification is fighting yuppies.

Seriously, what does that word even mean any more? And equating condos with yuppies in the Boston area is like equating dogs with barking. If you want to buy a place to live in the area, you will be buying a condo. Prices here are insane for what you get, but calling out condos like it's a dirty word is closing your eyes to the fact that everything for sale in the area is a condo.

If people were really worried about housing prices in Union sq, they should have fought the green line extension and keep the area frozen in time. The train will bring development, which will probably increase prices.

up
Voting closed 0

Stop the yuppies and you stop prices going up.

I'm not sure if you're making this argument or just paraphrasing it. But it's ridiculously wrong.

Prices go up when supply doesn't meet demand. That's elementary.

These protesters against the condo development are quixotically promoting higher prices for the area, by attempting to restrict housing supply.

“I moved into this place thinking I’d probably stay here for ever”

I know it does suck to get booted out, but unless you own the place, that's simply not a healthy attitude to take.

up
Voting closed 0

These protesters against the condo development are quixotically promoting higher prices for the area, by attempting to restrict housing supply.

If they were protesting against density qua density, they maybe yeah, you'd have a point. But they're not.

I know it does suck to get booted out, but unless you own the place, that's simply not a healthy attitude to take.

Even if you own a place, a case could be made that it's unhealthy to think you can hang on to it forever, given the ongoing foreclosure tsunami. The idea that tenancy-at-will is the default state is, I think, a big part of what motivates the reaction against gentrification.

up
Voting closed 0

“Not Another Davis Square"?

Oh, the humanity...

up
Voting closed 0

Union Square is getting a T station within 5 years. That will allow the area to support residential and commercial density greater than what it has now. It would be a waste if we didn't increase the density of the area.

Will this price some folks out? Will Union Square lose some of its current character and look more like Davis Square? Yes, yes, and probably. But should we *not* build the T just in order to preserve what Union Square happens to look like in 2011?

up
Voting closed 0

Increased density is a good thing for cities. Bring more people to the area and you get increased tax revenue, increased vitality, even increased safety (if you're a Jane Jacobs fan). All the two and three story structures are wasting valuable space. The other thing is that in general it seems like the area has a housing shortage. As you increase the amount of housing, prices may even come down a bit.

Character of a neighborhood changes over time, as long as development is allowed to occur. And that's not a bad thing. Cities should evolve, lest they stagnate and become a backwater. The Boston area really seems ready to always fight any hint of change.

up
Voting closed 0

Union Square happens to be a place a lot of people call home. Changing the character of a neighborhood is not just an abstract decision about tax revenues or development priorities. What it entails in many circumstances is forcing people to leave their homes, take their kids out of their schools, moving away from family, etc.

Yes, it goes without saying that things change. What we're talking about is people having some say in the changes that affect them. Property owners and the city obviously have a large voice in those matters. But what you're implying is that any resident raising his voice to make a peep about proposed changes is opposed to any and all progress. That's a logical fallacy that was old when Socrates was in short pants or robes or whatever.

up
Voting closed 0

Certainly there is a current in the Boston area of "change = bad" and since the inception of the word "yuppie" Townies have used it to bash any and all changes in the n'hoods. But this attitude of "hey this is just the way it is...bend over" is not the answer. What people are saying is once the govt (at whatever level) invests in an area we should just let carpet bagger-developers come in and reap the benefits of those investments in the form of expensive housing developments while the people who have been living in an area without these investments for years are now forced out because they can't pay the new rents. Quite frequently it's been the complaints and pushing on the part of these people that has resulted in the investments in the first place.

There's no reason that an improved area like Union Square couldn't still support affordable housing and economic opportunities for people that have been living around the area for years. The new expensive housing going into former industrial areas are not displacing existing housing, but should incorporate at least a number of accessible living units. Commercial units should be doled out with preference for locally owned businesses before a wholesale doling out of spaces for Starbucks, Dunks, Boloco and all the other chains.

Everyone's got an opinion on the issue, but at the end of the day what I think everyone agrees on is that n'hoods with "character" trump commercial, suburban malls dumped into the city populated by people with no clue as to what once was there and plan to be outta town within 5 years, tops. Of course "character" is like duende, good luck defining what it is - but you know what it ain't. JP has its own character, although it seems to have gotten pretty self-conscious in the past few years. (Whole Foods does not have character. But somehow I doubt any supermarket or corporate entity would have it. They have brands.) Union Square has got character and is still fairly unselfconscious. I'd hate to see that squashed.

up
Voting closed 0

expensive housing developments while the people who have been living in an area without these investments for years are now forced out because they can't pay the new rents

You're mixing up cause and effect here. New housing developments don't cause high prices. The high prices come because there is severe demand to live in an area. And when developers see that demand, they respond by building.

up
Voting closed 0

...but it's a chain of causality. These developers don't walk into an area that isn't already starting to become desirable. The cause of their building in an area is the investment in a n'hood, such as transportation infrastructure (Davis and Union Squares), govt-financed development incentives (Fort Point) or the general improvement of an area by small business entrepreneurs, community groups and active residents (parts of JP). These things create the demand and then the developers move in to sell expensive housing to people who view the area as desirable for whatever reason.

The ironic part is that it is quite frequently this desirable character of the area that is destroyed by the coming of all these developers and people (Harvard Square is economically dynamic and still kind of fun, but it is a poor comparison to what it was in decades past -- it's practically a mall now -- and don't get me started on Kenmore Square).

If people want to make an argument of the market über alles, don't be surprised when you get a marketeer designed n'hood devoid of anything unique that results in people moving out looking for the cool n'hood.

up
Voting closed 0

I think there is a natural dynamic at work here, probably pertaining to human psychology. As soon as an area starts to become popular, it's no longer "cool" to live there (the "nobody goes there, it's too crowded" principle). Perversely, efforts by residents to restrict incoming development are probably going to exacerbate this trend.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't get what you're saying here. I think it's more than just what's cool or popular. For young, urban professionals with lots of disposal income and no kids there is a set of criteria as to what makes a desirable n'hood. For people with kids there will be a different set of criteria. I think the sticking point is when a developer decides to market housing for one group based on the presence of some of these criteria. It's not simply supply and demand, because we're talking about the supply of luxury condos or condos that obviously are geared towards people with no kids or simply to buyers as opposed to renters.

As far as an area losing its cachet, well, the South End didn't, but it sure as shit got rid of a whole lot of long-time residents who could no longer afford it. This is is all part of the regular change in city, the question is how do we help guide this change in a a way that doesn't screw people over who are least able to put up a fight. South End, West End, Fort Point area, JP, North End -- they all have stories about this and there's alot of material to draw on. We should be able to get this right one of these days.

up
Voting closed 0

I was oversimplifying (to be slightly humorous). Nothing is simply supply and demand because there are many distortions in the market introduced by regulations or simply human tendencies towards inertia. However, there must be a reason why developers want to put in luxury condos. The money doesn't fall out of nowhere. Now some of the reason that they want to put in "luxury" condos instead of other classes of housing may come due to regulations. IIRC, they can avoid certain types of price controls by such a development. The other reasons may include demand for that kind of housing. How is that less legitimate than other kinds?

The reasons for the changes in the South End (increased desirability) are different from those in the West End (urban planning catastrophe). I agree in general though, that this is part of the life-cycle of the city. I also agree that it would be nice to help the residents. I just don't want to end up in the situation where the cure is worse than the disease (see: West End).

up
Voting closed 0

New housing developments don't cause high prices.

That's correct, they don't. High priced housing developments, however, do cause high prices. Suggest you read the original article, and maybe the DRC recommendations linked there.

The residents are not protesting any and all "new housing developments." That's a straw man of your own creation.

up
Voting closed 0

High priced housing developments, however, do cause high prices.

"High priced housing developments" can only remain high priced if someone is willing to pay.

The residents are not protesting any and all "new housing developments."

Of course. This is just one case.

But what happens the next time? And the time after that? Now repeat this situation dozens, or hundreds of times, and you end up with a really serious shortage.

If you think that this is an imaginary situation, then ask yourself this question: Why are the prices so high on such ancient and cruddy housing stock in many parts of Boston?

The high prices are coming with demand for location, not at the whim of some snobby housing developers.

up
Voting closed 0

This guy 'gets it.' If we didn't block new development housing would cost less for everyone. It's all about the demand in a location. If they built high-rise fancy-pants condos in Weymouth they wouldn't cost the same as something along the green line.

up
Voting closed 0

Because of the incredibly high and transient student population, which are only living in locations for four years maximum and then leaving, and thus don't care?

That's kind of a major factor you're ignoring here. I live near the area, students make up a substantial population group.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not ignoring it. Students are people too. I know plenty of students who live near Union Square as well.

What makes you think the demand from student populations is any less "real" than the demand from the working class and families? Those can be "transient" too, as the jobs come and go. And many students do care about the neighborhoods where they live.

The demand is there, but if people resist new housing development, then the prices are only going to go up.

There are only two ways for the housing prices to fall: (a) the location becomes less desirable, (b) more housing is built.

up
Voting closed 0

They built some big luxury condo buildings on Revere Beach and are not filling them up... the price, summarily, is going down. There wasn't much demand to live there despite the location on the T and there probably won't be until more improvements are made to the neighborhood.

up
Voting closed 0

Commercial units should be doled out with preference for locally owned businesses before a wholesale doling out of spaces for Starbucks, Dunks, Boloco and all the other chains.

Maybe you should look up the origin of the name 'Boloco'.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston Local Company is a chain, just like Dunkin' Donuts is a chain. Both are Massachusetts businesses.

Your point?

up
Voting closed 0

I stand corrected. I never paid much attention to Boloco as I thought their burritos were kind of nasty. The BOston LOcal COmpany seems to be doing their best to be good corporate citizens. Good for them. I'll have to try them out again -- shouldn't be too hard to find one of their locations. How bout we replace that hasty example with Chipotle or Chilis? Hell, bust out of the motif and let's say The Olive Garden!

up
Voting closed 0

Well, there are chains and then there are chains. Boloco is no Taco Bell, but I was reading "locally owned" to mean, well, locally owned.

Union has a Market Basket, which is a chain, but it's also integrated into the community. Chains aren't, of course, necessarily bad: they can offer quality goods services at prices affordable by the local community. However, as you note, once a neighborhood fills with cookie-cutter stores it does lose some of its character... and perhaps more importantly can tend to cater more to people from outside the community than the people who live right there.

up
Voting closed 0

I used to think boloco was totally ehhhhh and then I tried them again...love them. Very tasty burritos, naturally raised meat, and yeah--local! And er...Nutella milkshakes. Seriously--I wish there was one in JP.

up
Voting closed 0

Now the Barneys don't want the neighborhood to change.

up
Voting closed 0

They live in Somerville now?

up
Voting closed 0

They do graduate from Harvard and move out of Cambridge eventually, you know. how long do you think the 'protesters' have lived in Somerville?

up
Voting closed 0

yuppies (those that lived in Somerville but did not grow up there) were called barneys. (pronounced bah-neys) Does anyone know the source?

up
Voting closed 0

A Barney was like...anyone who wore a hemet when riding their bike. There were a couple of ugly incidents. One of the characters in Good Will Hunting refers to someone as a Barney which made me wonder whether it was really a Southie word too or just something Affleck and Damon picked up in their Cambridge days.

up
Voting closed 0

It reminds me when they went to interview some of the middle class folks in Somerville about the Green Line extension and they were negative saying, "You never know what kinda people can just hop on a train and come out here." Whoa, that's the most veiled racist thing I had heard in years.

It isn't like it is Beverly Hills - there is a reason why people call it SlumerVille. Hey, when is the IKEA opening there, btw - 2048?

Cheap jokes aside, most of the people I know in Somerville are white, how can you gentify where the white people are? Yuppify, you mean? Who uses the term Yuppies any more? God forbid someone gets a degree and a non blue collar job and wants to live in your shitty town, and all you do is cry foul.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

up
Voting closed 0

Gentrification is a class issue, not racial.

up
Voting closed 0

o/~ Moving on up
to East Slumverville
to a de-lux triple decka
on a hill

o/~ oh yuppies are moving on up
to Camrbidge's white trash cousin
people who make over $60,000 can buy houses by the dozen

o/~ Now we living in blue collar hell
need to carry a gun or a bat
Maybe they'll open up a starbucks or a gap

up
Voting closed 0

Good grief. Boston has lots and lots of smart people, but unfortunately many of them seem to understand almost nothing about economics ... and very few seem to understand real estate development economics.

New construction is by definition expensive. That's why new construction is disproportionately "luxury condos." "Affordable" only meets "new" when there's a big and inefficient subsidy included to make the math work. This isn't the fault of politicians, developers, yuppies, or townies. It's just math.

Conversely, older housing stock provides bread-and-butter affordable units. As the shine wears off, and the rich people move on to something better, housing stock may be re-adapted. The entire South End - built very much as "high end" - provided tons of affordable housing for the better part of a century. Ditto Dorchester and Roxbury, where many former mansions function now as apartment buildings. We must remember that even the generic triple-deckers, by the standards of when they were built, were far nicer than the average living quarters of the day.

So what happens if we dramatically constrain the ability to build up, increase density, and add "luxury condos"? It's not like the rich people disappear, or the convenient neighborhoods become less convenient. Instead, you have massive pressure to renovate existing shells into "luxury housing" - and that's why there has been massive overhaul of the Back Bay, South End, and much of Cambridge in the last few decades, and the inevitable pressure on rents. It kills me when politicians like Marty Walz take the attitude of some of the posters above, suggesting that high-priced housing is "causing" the problem, or railing against density and shadows in areas that should be dense.

I do feel sorry for the poor slob who is going to (eventually) have to move ... but we have to recognize that if we try to artificially preserve a transit-central neighborhood like a wasp in amber we collectively will pay a huge price over the longer term. And if you are afraid of an area "becoming Davis Square" ... well, that comment is so stupid on so many levels I don't know where to start.

up
Voting closed 0

"We must remember that even the generic triple-deckers, by the standards of when they were built, were far nicer than the average living quarters of the day."

Could you please explain your comment "were far nicer than the average living quarters of the day."?

Tenement housing was the average living quarters of the day for many, many people. This type of housing was built to house the large influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe that came to our shores around the turn of the last century.

And, by and large, living in a tenement house or a "generic triple-decker" was no picnic. These cheaply built homes were built to warehouse the poor, as it were. Most were dark, poorly sanitized, prone to overcrowding and horrible disease.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure what you don't understand?

When the triple-deckers of Dorchester (and Allston, Cambridge, Somerville, etc.) were built in the late 19th and early 20th century, living standards in these residences generally represented a HUGE step up from cold-water "tenements" of the North End, West End, and much of the South End of that time. They weren't and aren't posh by the standards of 2011, but poor people didn't get to live in new buildings then any more than they do now. Yes, in some areas the triple-deckers deteriorated fairly rapidly over the course of a few decades and were packed into the same "tenement living" standards experienced in the older housing stock. In other areas it was far more gradual, and in some areas (e.g., near Harvard) there wasn't ever much decline at all. But the general point has always been true: affordable housing is older housing.

Remember, Roxbury was middle class with a good share of upper class at the turn of the century, much nicer than the North End or South Cove at that time.

It's expensive to build new, even on a budget. An older unit is always cheaper, for the same reason that a six-year-old Civic is cheaper than a new Hyundai. Thus essentially all "new" construction is heavily biased toward high-end. This isn't some funny trickle-down theory, it's not a right-wing conspiracy, it's just basic economics. When we stoop to silly class-warfare restrictions that make it difficult to build, or try to preserve wasp-in-amber status for a handful of people, money doesn't go home, it just bids up the price of the building next door. Thus the would-be condo owners of Union Square, if denied the opportunity to live in a bigger new building there, may become the bidders who convert a multi-family townhouse in East Cambridge to a single-family. Without new builds, the net is a loss of housing stock and higher rents. And the most environmentally sensible new builds are near transit hubs and would-be transit hubs like Union Square.

The rabid NIMBY zealotry that makes it tough to build in Boston helps push overall rents higher, and nudge lower-income people out to Lynn and Brockton and beyond. Note that in Beacon Hill, which is fully built-out and where new construction is essentially impossible, census numbers show a drop in the last decade. This isn't because Beacon Hill has become less desirable, it's rather a natural consequence of prosperity. Rich people don't disappear or suddenly decide to live in less space or accept a longer commute. They don't have to. From the point of view of a renter, the best thing that could happen would be a massive speculative over-build of luxury housing, as happened in Phoenix, Vegas, or Fort Lauderdale ... yes, that has come with some negatives, but rents are currently very reasonable in those cities!

up
Voting closed 0

I think it's telling that the objections to the protesters - where it's not gross class-baiting - are all based on this straw man assertion that they want to "dramatically constrain the ability to build up [and] increase density" and "artificially preserve a transit-central neighborhood like a wasp in amber."

Very smart internet commenters may be surprised that townies as well as are fully aware of realities like the law of supply and demand and the cost of new housing stock. Very smart internet commenters may or may not be aware that there are actually a number of communities that have successfully implemented alternatives to crass gentrification as a development strategy.

Of course, if all you know is the Back Bay, South End, and much of Cambridge, then I guess the whole world looks like the Back Bay, South End, and much of Cambridge.

up
Voting closed 0

In addition to the tenements issue, if you're referring to those mansions in the Grove Hall section of Roxbury -- well, not that's not exactly a sterling example of urban transformation.

I think the point we're dancing about, both here and on the Whole Foods-Hi Lo threads has a lot to do with what you're saying, "understanding economics." If you believe that all human relations are best moderated by the unseen hand of the market or if there is some other set of criteria that should take precedence over whether something sells or not. Gravity is wonderful, it provides us hydroelectric power, but that doesn't mean we don't interfere when junior plunges out the window.

We do need more housing. It will help bring the cost down for some people and perhaps entice more people to stay in the Boston area after they graduate (so will good schools, efficient transportation systems and low crime rates). The process by which we identify areas for that housing should take into consideration that people that are already living there and the effect this market change will have on them beyond "feeling sorry for some poor slobs" (thank you so much, you're a real humanitarian). Pushing out existing residents of a n'hood does not always result in the loss of the character that attracts people to an area, but even if it doesn't why should one people's needs come before another? Simply because one group can afford to live there and another has gotten priced out? Apparently many people answer yes to that question -- because that's how economics works.

up
Voting closed 0

For the record, people, I grew up in a rather marginal two-family house in a dying city west of here and I've lived in JP, Somerville, and all over Boston in the past twenty years. There's no cash in my background, but hey, don't let that stop your fantasy assumptions about people who disagree with you. I was booted by a landlord, too, back in the '90s, when the 3-family in which I was renting the ground-floor flat was renovated. So yes, I've been the "poor slob" myself. And no, I'm not a right-wing Republican voter.

I never said that the "invisible hand" should be left to dictate everything in our society, but the assumption that we should twist ourselves into knots to keep residential neighborhoods just-so is patently foolish and very costly. You focus on the anecdote and ignore the cost. Junior isn't plunging out of the window here - so please, spare us the Chicken Little analogies. All that's happening in Union Square is that the prospect of a transit improvement is leading to redevelopment. Will some people see their rents rise or be forced to seek other apartments? Yes. But if you want to throw around subsidies to keep them there - or to institute some nutty rent-control like regulation to keep owners from developing their properties - you ought to be asking yourselves, "of all the people in Boston who could use some help paying the rent, are these individuals the MOST deserving of an expensive subsidy?" and "if we DON'T allow redevelopment near transit hubs, how will we ensure that the most people possible benefit from the huge infrastructure investment?"

This is not to say that government can't channel activity a bit around the edges. Current Boston plans to sell off some valuable downtown city-owned real estate and relocate some city departments in Dudley and other neighborhoods that could use a boost in employment and occupancy are smart - these initiatives don't entail swimming upstream against an economic and demographic tide.

The redevelopment of Davis Square was a good thing, and if something analogous happens in Union Square, that will be good as well. It won't be perfect for everyone, but it will benefit far more than it hurts. This should be our goal. To argue against inevitable improvement in JP or Union Square is not one whit different than Jimmy Kelly arguing for a ban on roofdecks to stop the yuppification of Southie a decade ago ... it's backward-looking conservatism.

up
Voting closed 0

+1

I'd love to see you register as a regular member, InTheHood.

up
Voting closed 0

Wasn't it the end of rent control in Cambridge back in the 90's that sent a flood of Cambridge residents over to Somerville in the first place, driving rents through the roof and spurring the huge wave of condo conversions, etc.? Here's what I remember: I lived in Union Square at the time, paid a pretty reasonable rent, shopped at Market Basket, walked or took the bus twenty minutes to get anywhere. Friends in Cambridge who lived in cooler neighborhoods, closer to the action, either paid vastly higher rents OR had wangled a rent controlled apartment for ridiculously low prices. It seemed nuts to me, especially considering that the mayor of the city had a rent-controlled apartment ( and when rent control ended he immediately bought a pricey condo). It was unfair to landlords, bad for the housing stock, and didn't seem equitably distributed to help poor or working class people. So I'm totally against rent-control type schemes, but at the same time, I can't afford to live in Cambridge OR Somerville today even if I wanted to. Ideas? Solutions?

up
Voting closed 0

I think it's kind of clear from people's comments, "pay up or move out." I'll spare the chicken little analogies (and will also spare you telling you all my unverifiable private life story that lends added credence to my argument, because I LIVED IT damnit), because the sky isn't falling. Union Square will slowly get cleaned up and be a "nicer" place to live for those who will be able to afford it. Outside of a few govt or natural disaster induced examples, gentrification slowly accumulates over decades.

Improving n'hoods is not a bad thing. It's too bad that for people living in an area, trying to improve it means also potentially converting it into a place that neither you nor your children will be able to afford. What is the idea or solution to prevent this...there isn't one. If a developer wants to build something s/he should just be allowed to do it as it would be unfair to prevent people with money from doing what they want to (make more money and split).

Less cynically I would say that Community Land Trusts are an option (like Dudley Neighbors Inc.) -- but outside of that, I don't know of many other examples that do not run afoul of the market fetishists.

up
Voting closed 0

I doubt Union Square will become as trendy as Davis Square. There are nasty traffic patterns in the square which are not fun to navigate. The green line will be only a spur which will never be as popular as a red line stop. Finally you don't get the Tufts students looking for trendy spots like you do in Davis.

Even if it does happen, there is tons of relatively affordable housing in the general area. Just go west a bit on Somerville Ave, or head north toward Broadway and Winter Hill, or anywhere along McGrath. These areas are relatively affordable and have decent transportation connections. I just don't see them gentrifying anytime soon.

up
Voting closed 0