Del Boca Vista phase IV must be stopped
By adamg - 5/15/12 - 7:20 am
Karen Cord Taylor writes the city needs to do more to stop us from becoming an overgrown retirement community, starting with requiring developers to build more units with three bedrooms in their downtown projects and making BPS build schools downtown - presumably on the theory that the young'uns now fleeing Boston couldn't possibly want to live in the outer neighborhoods.
Comments
At age 35 peolple leave the city....
Because they have kids. See the story above on making sure the school system has an exact racial make up of teahcers to reflect the student population rather than making sure kids receive the best education possible. Too much time is wasted in Boston schools on the sins of the past.
I moved out of Boston because I wanted my kids to avoid the public and in many cases the even worse Catholic schools. Another factor was that my wife taught at a Boston public school and was shocked at the attitude and overall work performance of the teachers. Why subject your kid to a continuously failing social experiment run under the tennents of a federal order?
If this order is still in effect, may suburban schools with overwhelming white populations (not counting METCO students which skew racial demographics) whittle out minorities to reflect their racial make up?
I was 5 when the busses rolled up to Southie High in an effort to repair a damaged school system. I am now 43. It doesn't look that much better than 1974. The best way to dig yourself out of hole may be to throw away the shovel.
presumably on the theory that
Maybe they prefer West Roxbury, but their first choices would probably be the aquarium or at disney world.... that's why it's more about where the parents want to live
disgusting
she is disappointed we aren't "dying off"? Ageist claptrap. In our sick, youth-obsessed culture, it is a sin to not look like a member of the Kardashian/Jenner clan. We can't discriminate against gender, race or sexual orientation but somehow, old people are fair game. Screw you, Ms. Taylor.
Not What She Said At All
She says not only does she want old people to stay, but she is about in that demographic herself. She's not supporting one age group over another; she's saying a healthy city needs to support all age groups together. She's dead on correct (and I'm 30).
Talking about a healthy city,
Talking about a healthy city, I notice she doesn't mention the obesity epidemic.
Non sequitur.
She wasn't talking about physical health, you ninny. But you knew that. Go have a piece of celery and shut the fuck up.
Seriously, now everyone who has a suggestion for improving the city is somehow in error if they don't mention obesity? Take your blinders off, there's a whole wide world out there.
anon, my friend,
"Having a lot of seniors brings problems. They aren’t necessarily good for the liveliness of our streets."
She chose to attribute the liveliness, or lack of it, of our streets to seniors. You could attribute the same to people who could eat a little more celery and fewer pork chops and therefore do not walk the streets at a sprightly pace. But you are unlikely to attack a demographic that you are a part of. Easier to attribute a perceived problem, such as "lack of liveliness" to another demographic.
Her writing style, or lack, of it, could use work, too.
Fine, wealthy seniors
that good nuff?
Massachusetts
has the fourth lowest level of obesity of any state on the country, so I'd cool your jets a little bit. Not to mention, wealthy city-dwellers are among the least likely group to be overweight.
Still
20% or 1 out of every 5 people you walk pass on the street. And that's not overweight, but clinically obese.
Still a major issue, and a major health care cost that is only going to balloon in the future.
old people
bitch when us young ones come home late and puke all over other peoples property, raising hell and jumping off restaurants into the harbor.
nor any of the other 1,000
nor any of the other 1,000 off-topic factors of healthy cities
Good point, actually
Old people and fat people are two segments of the population that I don't want to have sex with. And having a lot of potential sex partners in one place is pretty much the only reason I live in an urban area.
People with kids can GTFO too, for all I care.
Sure, build some 3-bedrooms
Then the rich elderly couples won't have to sleep together, and there will be an extra bedroom for their live in maid / French poodles.
Not sure if this'll work.
Yeah, I'm a little confused about what she thinks an influx of 3-bedroom places downtown is going to do. BPS is bad enough that anyone who can afford a 3-bed downtown (which, remember, is going to be at least $3K a month in rent or a half-million dollar mortgage) is probably going to be leaving the city for a suburb with better schools, or be looking at private school. In the latter case, you're talking about couples making $250K+, and rich young people aren't all *that* demographically distinct from rich old people.
Did you read the article?
Young families are going to leave an entirely different economic and cultural footprint on a neighborhood than the elderly. They require different retail/commercial entities and lead radically different lifestyles.
I have no clue what you are talking about when you equate young, upwardly mobile families with the elderly. It's insulting to both groups and belies a teeny bit of economic jealousy.
Why would I want to move to an outer neighborhood?
Many young parents would prefer a more urban upbringing than W. Roxbury or JP can provide. And when it takes 45 minutes to an hour to commute to your office downtown from W. Rox, it sort of takes away one of the benefits of living in the city.
14 to 25 minutes by train
It depends which station you board at, and whether you disembark at Back Bay or South Station. It's an incredibly quick and easy commute from West Roxbury to downtown. JP and Roslindale are even quicker. Many young parents like these neighborhoods because they not only offer a quick train ride in to the core, but they also provide great urban amenities within easy walking distance, along with a better chance at having a decent yard for the kids to play in.
It's not an incredibly quick and easy commute, Henry.
First of all, the Needham line is rarely on time in the morning. The ride from Bellevue (the closest station in W. Rox) can approach 25-30 minutes to South Station. Add a ten minute walk to the train from your house, a few minutes waiting at Bellevue, and another 10-15 minute walk from South Station to your office and it approaches an hour on many days. Highland and W. Rox are even longer commutes. That's not a "quick and easy."
Second, you're on a commuter rail line. Good luck if you happen to work after 7, when the wait between trains approaches and exceeds an hour. You're beholden to the commuter rail schedule. Contrast that commute with the 15-25 minute commute from pretty much anywhere in the south end, downtown, back bay, beacon hill, etc. and it's easy to understand why some families would prefer to spend the extra hour a day with their kids as opposed to a bunch of strangers on the commuter rail.
West Roxbury is a fine place, but it's essentially semi-suburban living. It's a totally different experience than living inside Mass Ave.
Huh?
Living "inside Mass Ave." is certainly a different experience than living in Roslindale - you can purchase a large house abutting the Arboretum in Roslindale for the price of a closet abutting public housing in the South End. However, an hour from Roslindale to downtown it is not. The Needham line is rarely late (it does not share any tracks with CSX) and I am at my desk in the Back Bay within 30 minutes of walking out of my front door in Roslindale. I'll agree that it takes some getting used to adjusting your schedule to the commuter rail in the evenings, but it becomes second nature. Although Roslindale lacks some of the amenities of the South End, like filth, it shares many others, like a cheese shop, a wonderful wine shop, many great restaurants, boutique'y gift shops and a model train museum to boot.
Orange Line
Would you support extension of the Orange Line to Roslindale for more frequent subway service, in place of Needham commuter rail?
Maybe
If you are asking about expansion in a perfect world - i.e. setting aside the T's fiscal woes and the impact that expansion of the orange line would have on its finances, I suppose I would support replacement of the commuter rail to Roslindale with the orange line. However, I'm not sure how well the orange line would service people in Needham. If you are talking about extension of the orange line past forest hills along side of the existing commuter line, I would not support it unless they could somehow do it without a significant taking of property to create the right of way, which I am not sure is possible absent a tunnel, which seems so far beyond the realm of reality from a cost perspective that I can't imagin it, even in the perfect world.
Why not?
I'm not sure the ridership would support such a thing, though. The Needham line is not exactly chock full of riders.
To be fair....
... those of us who live around the southeastern edge of Rolsindale and depend on the # 50 bus do have to budget an hour to get downtown (and hope it will take a bit less time).
Good luck getting a response to this one, Michael.
He's living in a fantasy world where Roslindale is more cosmopolitan than the South End and the Disney monorail delivers you to heaven in downtown in mere minutes!
I think Roslindale is a wonderful place to live, but...
... in terms of public transportation, once one gets away from Washington (or Hyde Park Blvd), it is a bit problematic (especially during off-peak periods).
I wasn't talking about Roslindale.
But thanks for weighing in and attacking my unassailable point about living in W. Roxbury and commuting to a place of employment near South Station (where the majority of people work).
Your attempt to compare the restaurants in Roslindale to the South End is note, considered, chortled at, and rejected. I enjoyed more than a few meals in Rozzie, but Christ, let's be realistic. If you think you aren't missing something, you don't know any better and you might as well head west on Providence Highway and dig in somewhere at Legacy Place.
Affordable 3 Bedrooms
You can require that builders build as many 3-bedrooms downtown as you'd like, but how many families will be able to afford them? Is she talking about subsidized 3-bedrooms?
I hope so.
You are correct - if some of the units were subsidized, it would draw more young families closer to downtown.
Well, Supply/Demand
Prices are high because the supply of housing is lower than demand, so technically speaking building more would lower prices and you wouldn't need subsidies. Of course building in Boston isn't easy because the only thing residents love more than the Sox is complaining about construction. In the meantime we all get to deal with one of the highest costs of living in the country.
That's funny, just the opposite out in the burbs
You'll find that out here in the sticks, towns will encourage townhouse/condo developments to have no more than 2 BR. The thought is that people without kids would move there and not stress the school system.
55+ units were big for the same reason - until the market tanked and developers couldn't unload them. Existing 55+ associations were asking to convert to non-55+ because existing owners couldn't re-sell.
Boston
has an affordable housing problem period. 3 bedroom family housing to 1 bedroom new grad haunting.
Luxury and NIMBYism against construction and density is the bid issue. Also doesn't help there's really only 4-5 major developers that are allied with the mayor and city council.
anon² - 5/15/12 - 2:16 pm
Earth to anon² - 5/15/12 - 2:16: ALL desirable cities have an affordable housing problem!
You're all right!
Ms. Taylor is right that we need a mixture of ages in our city in order to keep it vibrant and growing, but how we get there, who knows?
The Bryant development on Columbus Ave was 50 3-bedroom condos, priced $1 million and above. It went to auction because no one bought them. (It was also a victim of timing plus its location was less-desirable.)
You can't build downtown condos and apartments with three-bedrooms because there's limited demand and the pricing is so high. And, yes, developers are greedy and only want to build what the current market wants - that's two bedrooms and one bedrooms. (More than 45% of housing units in downtown Boston have just one occupant - ONE! http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?view=SoloHousingView2010&lat=42.3500&lng=-71.093&l=13)
The housing stock in the North End, Beacon Hill, and South End are not built for large families - the typical floor plan in the South End is 750 square feet. So, you need at least two floors.
I guess I don't have a solution. She's recognized a real problem, though.
As you all suggest, perhaps we need to get people to look outside a few select neighborhoods, where prices make family living cost prohibitive.
North End not built for families?
Wasn't that long ago it was full of large Italian Catholic families with lots of kids. Not many buildings have been demolished since then.
North End was built for families
Americans got fatter, in the meantime, though. ;)