Submitted by OperationSpringAwake t3_yecc59 in boston
foxer2734 t1_itxa4qo wrote
God so man reasons. It’s becoming incredibly difficult and expensive to develop for so many reasons.
For one, all the “good” land is gone in this area. What’s available (and relatively affordable) usually has environmental issues ranging from old storage tanks to wetlands on the property.
Additionally, it really feels like a lot of towns see these industries as money makers - they’re going to add a ton of tax money into the town and attract earners who will then also add to the towns coffers. Housing simply doesn’t generate as much revenue. It can also put a bigger strain on a towns infrastructure and resources- infrastructure that’s already often already being pushed past its limits (not just pipes but school systems and medical care).
Add in NIMBYs with nothing better to do who will show up to every single hearing to demonize apartment buildings or “affordable” housing and a lot of people just don’t want to touch it.
I think we’re going to see the government having to step in with incentives to make it worth their while before housing development picks back up.
Maxpowr9 t1_itxlum8 wrote
Pretty much agree.
Especially with Boston proper, there really isn't any land that isn't already developed and if there is, there's a very good reason why it isn't (geological, toxic, preserved, etc.) The only real option for growth is to build up.
>I think we’re going to see the government having to step in with incentives to make it worth their while before housing development picks back up.
What eventually will need to happen is eminent domain property, especially near transit, to build denser housing. It's wildly unpopular but necessary.
Stronkowski t1_itxtw2g wrote
It's not necessary at all. If the government stopped actively preventing development it would happen naturally as people try to profit off their property.
giritrobbins t1_itziyo0 wrote
I'd disagree. There are still plenty of enormous parking lots around the city that can be redeveloped and the entirety of West Roxbury should probably be bulldozed.
Maxpowr9 t1_itzkec4 wrote
I think West Roxbury would be transformed if the Needham Line was merged into the Orange Line.
giritrobbins t1_itzl8nl wrote
I would love such a change. If it were to pass, it would need to come with a tax for the increase in the value of the land and zoning changes.
Maxpowr9 t1_itzlmu0 wrote
The big issue with the Needham Line is that it's mostly one-track so the entire Line, track and stations, would need to be redone to be added to the OL.
Victor_Korchnoi t1_iu08t29 wrote
That’s the best thing about allowing more dense development, they come with tax revenue. The 200 unit apartment building is paying a lot more property tax than the funeral home it replaced.
giritrobbins t1_iu0dy0b wrote
I know but I meant more as the concept of value capture. I currently own near a commuter rail station and my property would increase likely significantly in value if it became an orange line stop. The city or state should tax some of that increase in value to pay for those improvements.
https://www.lincolninst.edu/key-issues/value-capture-property-tax
Victor_Korchnoi t1_iu09c1g wrote
I think a better solution is to run the commuter rail more like a subway. Have 15 minute headways instead of 1 hour. Charge $2.40 instead of $6.50. Through-run the trains to North Station and beyond.
It would be a faster trip to Back Bay and downtown, and you could still connect with the Orange Line. Building the North South Rail Link and improving service would be easier than extending the subway to Roslindale, West Roxbury, Hyde Park, Lynn, Chelsea, and Waltham. We’ve already got the most expensive part, the right of way & the rails—we just need to use them more efficiently.
Maxpowr9 t1_iu09sga wrote
Said this before but the only way the N-S raillink happens is if Amtrak wants it to. It will be built for its benefit, not the MBTA's.
The Needham Line especially should run like a subway though.
Victor_Korchnoi t1_itzapoy wrote
We don’t need to eminent domain anything. People want to develop their land. In most cases, the zoning code makes doing that illegal. Take a look at the zoning map for your neighborhood. You’ll probably see that just about every building in your neighborhood is at (or above) the maximum that is allowed to be built. http://www.bostonplans.org/3d-data-maps/gis-maps/zoning-maps
If we loosen the zoning code, we’ll get the density we need.
giritrobbins t1_itziufk wrote
> Housing simply doesn’t generate as much revenue.
Single Family Housing doesn't. I'd be a mixed use development is nearly as good for a town or city as an office. It's just they don't want to allow that. Even though every single historic downtown is mixed use zoning.
foxer2734 t1_iu1b3cb wrote
Definitely- and I think we’ve gotten a lot better with actually attractive mixed used developments.
I want to generalize and say cities and towns just can’t get out of their own way to encourage this kind of development but honestly I think right now they’re having enough trouble just staying staffed and holding it together after COVID. They simply can’t keep up with the amount of development underway AND rewrite all of their code while handling the staffing shortages a lot of them have been seeing. I don’t know what the solution is here other than encouraging people to get on their local boards if they want to see this kind of change.
rip_wallace t1_ity2dl7 wrote
I never understood the schools argument when we have a declining population
-CalicoKitty- t1_itycixz wrote
>In fact, the total population in the state has increased greatly over the past decade, making Massachusetts the fastest-growing Northeastern state overall since 2010.
Lots of people have been leaving MA, but this is more than made up for by international immigration. Immigration slowed way down during the pandemic, but will presumably go back to normal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments