Why Is There Such Little Resistance to New Office Buildings, Life Science Labs, Etc.?

Submitted by OperationSpringAwake t3_yecc59 in boston

Hi,

Pardon me if this has been asked before or if it comes across as elitist, naive, out of touch, etc.

We've all seen the complains for Boston's rental/ownership market - Just this one today. And it's obvious that Boston has fallen short on building for the past 40 (50?, 60?) years.

We often hear about NIMBYs in regards to housing, but I rarely seem to hear even a fraction of the amount of flack when new office buildings are proposed, or politicians institute policies that only inflame the housing shortage, such as asking workers to come back into work., also causing more traffic, a higher environmental impact, and so forth.

Most of these office buildings and labs have to go through various variance and special permit processes to be built, but anecdotally, by and large I hear little resistance to them. To be quite frank, we are often told these companies bring a lot of money to the local economy, but every job only adds to the housing shortage, our traffic problems, etc. I am sure an economist could share more insight.

So my question really is, instead of only trying to solve the housing problem with more housing, why don't we try to limit the those trying to bring more in-person jobs to the Boston market?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

riski_click t1_itx8il2 wrote

Good luck. I don't think you're going to have much luck convincing people that Boston needs less jobs, but I salute your effort.

21

man2010 t1_itxec92 wrote

I guess making the region a worse place to live by hampering the local economy is one way to bring down housing costs, but I'd rather not see Boston become like every rust belt city that lost a bunch of manufacturing jobs and never recovered. No one strives to be like Detroit

15

RhaenyrasUncle t1_itzgid6 wrote

We're not in danger of losing jobs any time soon.

I think his point is more easily summarized as, "Why are we creating 3 new jobs here for every 1 new housing unit we build?"

3

bobby_j_canada t1_itxvi6v wrote

Prop 2.5

Every town wants to hook a bunch of big fish commercial developments to pay for the schools and roads at commercial tax rates. Even better if you get enough commercial tax money that you can lower the already-low-by-national-standards property tax rates on your long-term residents (who are the only people that reliably vote in town elections).

15

Stronkowski t1_itx8xi2 wrote

There's tons of resistance to building offices or labs. It probably is somewhat less to housing because it avoids a few of the complaints NIMBYs will use, most frequently using up residential services/parking (and doesn't compete with their own housing, which often goes unsaid), plus often times these aren't in residential areas so they have fewer neighbors to be NIMBYs in the first place.

12

Exotic_Zucchini t1_itxitm7 wrote

There's an obvious solution (at least partially) staring us right in the face...and it's the one you mentioned...forcing people to return to offices. There's no need for that. There's also no need to stop companies from coming to Boston if it was the norm to WFH. It frees up office buildings that can be made into housing. I know the implementation is not overnight or simple. But, honestly, leaders (both CEO's and politicians) have low hanging fruit, and I don't understand why they're so hell bent on having people work in offices. This should be a relic of the past by now.

5

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.

3

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.

3

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.

1

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.

1

Maxpowr9 t1_itzkec4 wrote

I think West Roxbury would be transformed if the Needham Line was merged into the Orange Line.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

0

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.

2

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.

1

rip_wallace t1_ity2dl7 wrote

I never understood the schools argument when we have a declining population

0

-CalicoKitty- t1_itycixz wrote

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2022/01/21/viewpoint-census-outmigration-misrepresents-mass.html

>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.

2

Roman_Boston t1_itxqwfm wrote

I don’t believe it is that easy to build office space. But it is difficult to build housing, especially condos and such. A lot of it is related to local government regulations. If there were fewer bureaucratic rules I believe we would have more and cheaper housing. It’s the same with traffic, where bureaucrats add things like bike lanes causing more traffic which causes more pollution. It’s better we roll back regulations to the 1980s rules.

1

Roman_Boston t1_itxqz1u wrote

I don’t believe it is that easy to build office space. But it is difficult to build housing, especially condos and such. A lot of it is related to local government regulations. If there were fewer bureaucratic rules I believe we would have more and cheaper housing. It’s the same with traffic, where bureaucrats add things like bike lanes causing more traffic which causes more pollution.

0

hatersbelearners t1_itxxrm4 wrote

Capitalism ruins everything, is your answer.

Towns and cities will continue to whore out land and buildings to tech companies and rich people because it makes them more money.

It's all just greed.

−1

dpm25 t1_itxbbk7 wrote

Yeah, that's really what we need. Less jobs.

−2

Yak_Rodeo t1_itxbudk wrote

its not like boston has an insanely high unemployment rate

on some level, i kind of agree. what we really need is to increase wages for residents. luring new people to the area with high paying jobs helps residents…how?

4

dpm25 t1_itxcul5 wrote

I make a living building the housing and lab space this growth creates. I'm not alone

Growth is great for cities. Stagnation is deadly. It crushes property values, crushes demand, crushes local business.

3

Yak_Rodeo t1_itxhlaa wrote

growth without also scaling up infrastructure and housing is not great for cities. see: boston

2

dpm25 t1_itxhrja wrote

Place the blame where it belongs. Coat tail neighbors that refuse new constructionnin their towns and nimbys that have been empowered within Boston itself.

1