Hey, there! Log in / Register
The City that Always Sleeps says no to fun
By adamg on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 6:37am
Because the idea of a woman running up to a giant screen showing a droning mayor and throwing a sledgehammer at it was already taken:
Neighborhoods:
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
Seems like it's a bunch of
Seems like it's a bunch of navel-gazing college kids who think they know what's best for a city they've barely explored. It will be interesting to see if they actually "engage" people who have lived here for more than a few semesters and live outside the confines of the privileged Back Bay and the little college enclaves.
It's okay, Mr. Mayor
I thought they made you a little chubbier than you are, too. But they make a lot of good points anyways.
lazy and cynical?
This initiative is being promoted by the founder and CEO of karmaloop.com, Greg Selkoe... check him out if you don't know anything about up and coming power players in the boston scene. so things aren't what they seem to you.
You can remain lazy and cynical though. And continue your hate of successful residents of "privileged" back bay.
You are wrong about that
Mr. Selkoe has been around a while--seems like a bit of a renaissance man. He lives with his family in Boston, and I believe grew up in JP or Brookline.
http://www.boston.com/business/blogs/global-busine...
Shake it up, Greg.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the same Greg Selkoe who worked at the...wait for it....BRA in the late 90s. Nice angle, that.
In any case, I remember him as a nice and ambitious young guy. I'm not surprised he left government. All of us that were/are like that have/will.
James, You're using a trick
James,
You're using a trick that I think has worked for a long time but hopefully won't any more. Namely, you're implying that anyone who wants change is a spoiled newcomer, and if he were a real Bostonian he'd just accept things as they are. Guess what, there are lots and lots of us who are real Bostonians and think that the way this city stifles new ideas is terrible.
Completely Agree
That video is right ON!
And anyone who agrees should repost it everywhere they can.
I was thinking the same thing
But without any contact info, web site, etc anywhere within the video on the account that posted it to YouTube, it misses a great opportunity to get quick buy-in and mailing list adds.
Quick!
Someone refer this video's creator to HubSpot for immediate inbound marketing optimization!
Some free advice
Dudes:
Fill in that <title> field at the top of the HTML on your Web site. Otherwise, I daresay you're going to drive away some of the hot young Web thangs you're so keen on attracting to the parts of the city that lie north of the Fenway. Who wants to live in a place that can't get basic HTML right?
Harrumph, etc., and, yeah, feel free to run UHub through a validator for some lulz.
Is it just me
or isn't this a call to go back to the way things used to be?
Better business climate, laxer restrictions and removal of needless regulations, more mixed use, less worrying about the trivial. More emphasis on building organic neighborhoods bottom up and less top down decrees, ect.
IE, fix the problem the last 30-40 years, and a particular way of thinking, have caused.
A peculiar thing happens to neighborhoods after revitalization, where they tend to section themselves off and regress once they become livable to certain wealthy standards. That stagnation is a death sentence. It needs to be fought against, otherwise these same neighborhoods will just die when their inhabitants get tired and move on, or pass away themselves. West End is a great example, it worked for while but now it doesn't. Scared of change and scared of letting it grow into something else, people made sure nothing changed.
Privileged Back Bay
I'd say the views from the Privileged Back Bay are the issue here. (Really, and rich guy complaining about noise or their view being obstructed by new construction)
You know, the rich people that think a home in the city means they can keep their windows wide open all night and demand 100%, suburban quiet from the hours of 8-8. That think the city needs to be neatly partitioned into "places".
This city (and the state for that matter) does have a major problem with nex gen flight. It's going to bite them in 30 years, when rich retires purchasing overpriced condos start dieing off, and people who have started lives elsewhere refuse to move back.
I'd say a good 50% of my college educated friends have fled. Looking at my finances, I'm not even sure why I'm still here besides some illogical love of the city that keeps disappointing me. (not the city, but the people making sure it doesn't grow)
Anyways, hopefully something comes of this. There's a lot wrong in Boston, especially for a city that people generally want to move to, find work in, and start a business in.
nearly agree
I'd say the widespread notion that living with dignity, and being respectful of your neighbors, and having windows that open at all, and apartments that are built and maintained to the lawful code are all somehow privileges reserved for the wealthy. Self-respect and dignity should be the common birthright of all of us, regardless of income. Being 'poor' does not excuse or explain criminal behavior, and the dramatic improvements made to former hellholes like the South End by hardworking, creative, and NON-wealthy newcomers are testimony to that. It is one thing to accept occasional noise such as sirens, jackhammers, etc as an unavoidable element of city life. It is quite another to posit that unlawful screaming (disturbing the peace), graffiti, and litter are all automatically a consequence of same.
For what its worth, I'm in complete agreement that there are entirely too many restrictions on businesses in this city. The insane neo-Prohibitionists at MADD imposed their Taliban view of alcohol and thus banned Happy Hour. A thoroughly corrupt city council relishes the graft-laden liquor permitting process. NIMBY nutjobs in various neighborhood associations extort millions from any ambitious and reasonable development project. If this guy can change some of this, more power to him.
Complete nonsense and utter balderdash
In what way is the back Bay privileged. No elementary school, no community center, it took them 20 years before paving the alley behind my house, and for the love of god - the friends group at the playground is literally begging the city just to give them some woodchips to sop up the lakes in the open play area after the rain (the mayor isn't coming for a coffee stop this year so they were told they get no woodchips as in previous years - woodchip, clean up and mulch budget is only for where Menino actually meets parents).
The Back Bay is one of the fastest growing neighborhoods in the city espcially outside the historic district which can't be developed and collectively pays more than their fair share in taxes by an order of magnitude - as a matter of fact there are almost NO large projects being developed south and west of Fenway (affordable housing attracts students to the schools but generates almost no new taxes) - but that will never help affordability of housing as just about no matter how much you build it will still cost $600 per sf and up to buy in the Back Bay. Most of the people I speak with would be happy to grow at 1-2% per year in the neighborhood which amounts to 1-2 new mid-rise condo/apartment buildings annually (still about double or quadruple the city's overall growth rate). What concerns us is that the city is trying to jam about 5% down our throats because they think we are a property tax ATM so they approve whatever comes their way no matter how ludicrous.
The real problem is places like A/B, Rozzie, West Roxbury, JP and HP that truly are like suburbs and want to keep them that way. When was the last time you saw anyone propose significanly greater density in one of these neighborhoods - especially the single family housing areas where you could really develop moderately priced housing near commuter lines? Happens - but VERY rarely.
I've never heard ANYONE in the Back Bay promote suburban quiet, much less 8 pm - 8 am (generally we just don't want people slamming steel trash lids at 1 am and garbage trucks tipping dumpsters at 5 am 25 feet away from our windows - which is actually an extreme violation of the noise laws already on the books). I've lived in NY and even NY was far quieter than my home in Boston in the middle of the night (most apartments are far enough from the street and generally no alleys at least in Manhattan - most downtown buildings have inside trash docks).
You make a lot of good points out here - this post is complete 100% fabrication.
Allston has residential density
And the strip of Brighton consisting of Comm Ave to Cleveland Circle too. The rest of Brighton is pretty sparse though. There's been some apartment buildings going up in Allston, so it's not entirely hopeless on that front.
The rest though, I completely agree. And I would add Dorchester, Roxbury, parts of Southie and Eastie to that list of suburban-like areas too. For better or for worse, the Orange Line was moved to the SW corridor, and development hasn't caught up at all, there's tons of empty land around it. And the existing development around the Ashmont branch is still pretty low density by city standards. The Blue line is underutilized and yet there's huge tracts of Massport-owned land that are lying fallow with great access to Maverick.
Jackson Square
Could prove interesting - a transit-oriented development and all that.
But let's not get carried away, and assume that all the outer neighborhoods are just ripe for Back-Bay like development.
First, there's no reason a city can't have low-density housing. Most New Yorkers don't live in Manhattan.
But also, aside from almost all of West Roxbury, these neighborhoods do have dense parts. Drive down Washington Street in JP or Roslindale; it may not be Back Bay dense, but it's certainly equivalent to Somerville (at least down to Roslindale Square), which used to be the most densely populated city in the country. Let's not forget Bromley-Heath (largest housing project in the city) and Archdale and Washington-Beech (now a bit less dense than it used to be) in Roslindale. And certainly Dot. Ave. is pretty urban, at least north of Ashmont.
There may not be enough fallow land down here in the boonies just ripe for urban development, anyway (I can't speak to East Boston, knowing not all that much about it).
North of the Fenway, you have colleges and other non-profits. Down here, we have vast amounts of parkland and (especially in West Roxbury) cemeteries. Do we really need to carve up the Emerald Necklace just because some people object to people living in low-density neighborhoods? The one major exception: The several-hundred acres of the old Stop & Shop complex in Readville. Now that would be something.
Doesn't have to be everywhere
The nice thing about densely developed areas is that they can be relatively compact. If the city wants to get a good return on its transportation investment, then they should strive to locate those high density areas near frequent transit hot spots. Outside of that, there's plenty of room for more suburban-style development if it's desired.
Somerville's placement on "population density" lists is somewhat misleading. When you look at it on a smaller, neighborhood or block-level scale, it's mostly semi-suburban. The overall rating is high because of the peculiarities of town boundaries and the fairly consistent land coverage within. Roslindale is also semi-suburban in this sense. Even the Archdale project only has 40 dwelling units per net acre, the rest of Roslindale usually lies in the 10-20 range or less. By comparison, the Fenway ranges from 100-150 d.u. per net acre.
In general, the infamous housing projects of the 20th century don't provide as much density as you might think, because tower-in-the-park projects are so wasteful of land. They are also a really bad way of providing density, because segregating people by economic means is a sure-fire way to cause social problems. It would be a big mistake to build more projects like that.
There is a tiny smattering of density on Dot Ave where you say. But the vast majority of the blocks are under 40 d.u. per net acre. Take a look at Fields Corner: the areas abutting the station are either ~20 d.u. per net acre, or a giant parking lot. I don't advocate taking land, but surely over the last 80 years it should have been allowed to densify naturally as plot ownerships changed hands and stock was rebuilt/renovated.
Then there's the fallow lands surrounding Jackson Sq and Roxbury Crossing. Those are some mighty fine transit-accessible weeds!
None of this requires harming the Emerald Necklace at all and in fact would complement it by allowing more people to live within the city where they could enjoy such parks and facilities.
P.S. Most New Yorkers don't live in Manhattan, and most Manhattanites don't live in tall buildings. Brooklyn is the most populous borough and it is extremely large and varied. However, it also features some incredibly dense and popular neighborhoods. The lesson here is, I think, that densely developed, attractive residential neighborhoods don't have to have any tall buildings. Paris is, of course, the poster-city for this.
yeah
it probably wasn't an all too fair response, but tong in cheek response to james h. There's plenty of normal folk rich and poor in Boston's nice neighborhoods that want the same expansion and prosperity to continue; and aren't hung up on the worse aspects of NIMBYism.
My point was more that a few somewhat wealthy, powerful, and loud people / organizations always seem to be the ones running the "No" factory, and their interests don't always match up with the longer term interests of making Boston a better place to live. Think of those arguing a empty storefront can't be filled because it might change the "character" or the neighborhood. A variance to use underutilized space is a slippery slope!
It usually isn't the Hipsters, or "weird" kids who are usually the pioneers of area revitalization. Or the people that love the density and community of the city that move after. It's the third wave, once everything is sanitized to their standard, and come in and try to stop anything and everything that might change what they bought into. The ones who buy their way in at peak.
The few jackasses down in expensive condos by south station complaining about south street dinner hours comes to mind. Lucky for them, the rest of the community organized and was on their side. But all too often that doesn't happen.
Still fighting the last war
I think part of the problem is that there are still people worried that some of the old problems will creep back in - as well as a couple of new ones. For example - many of the people I talked to about the new condo tower proposed for Copley was not a totally bad idea - but it was way overdone - the bottom looks like an aircraft hangar for 747s (it's been slightly improved) and the tower was simply too tall. 300-400 feet probably would have been perfectly acceptable - but I think the proposal is almost 600 feet - taller than the westin and 4 times the size of the affordable housing development next door and 6 times the size of the brownstones on Columbus. I won't go into details - but the surrounding neighborhoods actually agreed that most of the area east of Copley can and should roughly double permitted construction heights - of course that's not news and nobody knows about it (again about 375 feet max - not 600 - part of the discussion was deliberately to maintain the prominence of the Old and New Hancock towers on the skyline). As I've said before - most people would be surprised that at least 90% of what is proposed passes right through the neighborhood associations. There's maybe 5% that is debated and opposed and about 5% where we the proposals are just way out of line and generally universally opposed. It's only that last 10% that ends up in the papers (or in UH).
That said - change comes. I've been a proponent of increasing liquor licenses in the Back Bay area because all the cool new restaurants seem to be opening up in the South End because Back Bay has become unaffordable to smaller niche restaurants. And therein lies the final rub - if you want change you have to join these groups and make your voice heard. Standing on the sidelines and calling people NIMBY's won't make someone a change agent. Keep in mind though that when you really dig down and look at some of the historical experience of the "NIMBY's" they often have good points. A lot of damage has been avoided thanks the "NIMBY's" - the biggest perhaps that there would be no Back Bay without people who looked at the West End and said "Not here you don't".
What's in a NIMBY?
You bring up a good point. The community activism which halted the spread of urban renewal resembles NIMBYism in many respects. You could say that they enabled NIMBYs by setting a precedent, and tilting the pendulum away from rampant neighborhood-destroying development and over towards stultifying neighborhood-preserving sentiment.
I think though, that there's a line to be drawn between community activism which helps people and the kind of NIMBYism which is a selfish impulse. At one end, you have people organizing to prevent catastrophic change and displacement. At the other end, you have people organizing because they are afraid of "unsavory (read: different) people moving into the area." I think a moral distinction can be made here.
Speaking of people organizing to keep out the "unwanted" here's a timely article.
Don't you mean privileged to
Don't you mean privileged to work your ass off to live in the Back Bay? Obviously the very wealthy live in the Back Bay as well as Beacon Hill and the South End, but I guarantee you that most residents have been busting their butts for years to be able to afford to move into these neighborhoods and remain here. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it's all silver spoons and inheritances. I grew up in New England and left it to work in the midwest for 8 years before I could make enough money to return to this area and live in a postage stamp sized unit off of a very noisy alleyway and very busy street in Boston. Windows open 24/7? Hardly ever, thanks to dump trucks and drunken idiots in the wee hours of the night and nasty black soot from the diesel trucks and buses.
Sure I would have loved to have graduated from college (state school, not in Boston) and then have moved immediately to Boston for work, but I paid my own way and there's just no way I could swing it as a single 20-something. That's reality -- not everyone has everything handed to them. Just because you see others having success, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. Get over it.
Students just can't seem to
Students just can't seem to catch a break. It's either, "Students are too transient, they don't care enough about their neighborhood!" or "Students are too young/new to the city to be able to have an opinion on where they live."
This guy may be onto
This guy may be onto something. Boston made the list of top ten cities to retire to on Boston.com... definitely not a list hipsters want to be associated with. To make matters worse one of the attributes of Beantown was the proximity of high quality suburbs.
Fighting the Power- on behalf on Nike?
The t-shirt thing is really not my rally-issue of choice. Wasn't that just a question of the Mayor bitching publicly about something that he didn't like, or did the cops actually try to shut the store down or something?
Other than that, some good points about licensing, the privileges of the connected, etc.
Yeah
I think the city, with the mayors backing, forcing the 2-3 cigar / smoke shop & bars to shut down is kind of a bigger issue.
The only reason being that workers have to deal with smoke. Whats next, telling cops they'll never have to deal with crackheads or guns?
Long interview with Selkoe
The Dig talks to him.
Good stuff
He's 100% right on a lot of it. Especially the lack of nice restaurants to hang out and drink (and not get fleeced). It's college pubs packed to the brim, or very expensive lounge/restaurants in this city. And even some of those pack themselves to the brim.
And it is telling, too, how the city is losing out on BIG tech. Both because it's hard to draw young entrepreneurs here, and a lack of vision from the local venture capitalists.
Facebook just had a multi-billion IPO, and picked up and left. They could have been a Cambridge / Boston based company. Zuckerberg is from NY and spent a lot of his childhood in NH and MA.