Comments
velkoz007 t1_ixkh0f1 wrote
Down in the South Shore, many towns water treatment plants can’t support existing housing let alone MORE housing. Until the infrastructure is upgraded our housing crisis won’t be addressable.
And people who already live here don’t want more people, our traffic already sucks…So why would selectmen rebuild 75 yr old water treatment plants when no one wants it?
It’s a chicken and egg scenario. We need more housing but don’t have enough sewer/water. See recent Summer droughts.
Jish1202 t1_ixlsa6k wrote
Most of the south shore doesn't have sewer in the first place
Distinct-Ad5751 t1_ixm61js wrote
My sister is a waste treatment operator on the South Shore and the Cape. The entire region needs upgrading.
AllGrey_2000 t1_ixn9q3b wrote
It’s lack of vision and good leadership as a region. We need public transit improvements and increased infrastructure BEFORE we increase housing.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_ixly5nj wrote
And we don’t really have the money to upgrade stuff, when the star is forced to send back tax surpluses because it rises faster than some predetermined maximum amount based on an expected increase in tax revenue we’ll wee out of luck
Nice for those of us who won the housing and work lottery I guess
Master_Dogs t1_ixop77o wrote
In addition we can only raise property taxes by so much due to laws from the 80's like Prop 2.5 which limit residential property tax growth. So even if tomorrow a city like Somerville said "yeah so we're going to jack taxes up to fund major infrastructure investments"... They literally couldn't do that. It's definitely a contributing factor to how we're piece mealing infrastructure improvements like only doing 1 street per year, at a rate so slow by the time we've addressed every street in a given City we'll have to start over again.
Oh and even if say Somerville or Cambridge decided to fix things, that doesn't matter if towns like Lexington, Concord, etc are allowed to continue denying any new dense housing buildings. We need every City and Town within MA to step up it's game, otherwise things will continue to get worse. No one town can fix things.
joebos617 t1_ixjeuhx wrote
every attempt to do something about this gets vetoed by 75 year old cranks because of parking space bullshit at the zoning board of appeal. it’s one thing being like “hmm why aren’t they doing anything” and another seeing first hand why it isn’t that easy day after day.
majesticbagel t1_ixklfpo wrote
I wonder how much of whats wrong with our politics comes down to old people having nothing better to do. The only people who can afford to spend their entire day becoming a local government nuisance are those who don't work.
CorbuGlasses t1_ixluvne wrote
It isn’t just the public, there are still lots of zoning board members in various communities that are stuck in car centric thinking.
I have an as-of-right project in an area with new more progressive zoning and one of the board members voted against because he didn’t like the new rules they had instituted. Nothing about the project, it was clearly political and he must’ve been outvoted and against the new zoning from the beginning.
Old_Travel8423 t1_ixm1pu2 wrote
That’s why Somerville just redid zoning and said “fine, new units don’t get on street parking.” Hopefully that will lead to more housing units approved.
dny6 t1_ixma0bm wrote
Cambridge removed all parking minimums very recently
nykwil3281 t1_ixji9nm wrote
As progressive as this state is, a lot of those progressive NIMBYs sure like to keep housing and progress out of their communities in the name of "Property Values"
writethefuture3 OP t1_ixjshuq wrote
Faux progressive, not actually progressive. You can see as much from the many NIMBYs in this thread.
imdoingmyroutine t1_ixkdofc wrote
So where do actual progressive live? Every left leaning city in the country has the same problem with this.
too-cute-by-half t1_ixkq37b wrote
Pro-housing advocates have scored a bunch of wins in California, by organizing to counter local NIMBYs and working through the state legislature and a good governor to override local vetoes.
Explorer_of_Dreams t1_ixls8z7 wrote
YIMBYs in California aren't progressive though
hamakabi t1_ixm3j63 wrote
Progressives live everywhere, they're just told to shut up and vote for the single dem on the ballot otherwise they're a nazi trump lover.
[deleted] t1_ixmaec2 wrote
[deleted]
hamakabi t1_ixn410k wrote
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter where the progressives live because they cannot vote for progressives. People don't vote for policies, they vote for whoever the Democratic party decides to endorse, which is always the candidate with the least controversial policies.
frenetix t1_ixn4o1i wrote
People who would vote for progressives are instead voting for who the Democratic party tells them to?
Vassukhanni t1_ixjutur wrote
"10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right when it affects them personally"
Proud-Ad-6004 t1_ixn3z2b wrote
It’s progressive until it effects them pretty much sums up the party
IC_Design t1_ixj5jui wrote
For every lab there should be X amount of housing units to be built by the developer
SergeantThunderCock t1_ixjc3i0 wrote
I don’t disagree, but it’s not as if the lack of housing construction is due to unmotivated developers. With the way prices are, they’d be throwing up townhouses left and right if we’d let them.
3720-To-One t1_ixjel83 wrote
The problem is all the goddamn NIMBYs who won’t let developers develop.
And the thing is too, just because all those jobs are located in Cambridge, not all the employees are living there.
Plenty are commuting from the surrounding suburbs… which is why they all need to pitch in in supplying more housing.
Why should they get to place all their places of work someone else, but they were never have to contribute more housing to the region to help support those same jobs that they enjoy getting to go to in the city?
pillbinge t1_ixjgtya wrote
Not everyone in the suburbs has that sort of job, and not everyone in the suburbs is from somewhere else. The individual towns never signed up for this and are a lot weaker on their own, but the appeal to pressure from the top to develop Boston into a larger city is stupid. Boston has plenty of space it itself can develop but isn't.
3720-To-One t1_ixjhj4p wrote
Yeah… and plenty of the people who work in these places do live in the suburbs, and benefit from the tax dollars that those businesses being into the state.
Those suburbs don’t exist in a vacuum.
They can suck it up, and help contribute to more housing supply to increase the overall stock of the state.
Not sure why it’s always up to the cities to build everything, and nobody else in the suburbs should ever have to contribute to the well being if the state as a whole.
They certainly gave zero problems having their job locations being built in the city. They certainly have zero problem benefiting from things that are built in other communities.
Never mind the fact that said suburbs only really gave value because of their proximity to said cities… so yeah, they do benefit from these businesses setting up shop in places like Cambridge and Boston.
pillbinge t1_ixjlp7u wrote
The suburbs don't exist in a vacuum, of course, but Boston doesn't either, and it was never elected king, or set as the only place that matters. Boston's status as this regional hub or anchor city is happenstance and a result of bad planning, due to the congregation of larger industries - industries that are flimsy and end up being volatile. Dense populations benefit them, and conversations around how to build up to suit their needs aren't around the benefits of people.
>They can suck it up, and help contribute to more housing supply to increase the overall stock of the state.
Or they could not, showing that your outlook is in a worse position and built on flimsier ground. That's what's happening now. Continuing on like you've all but cemented your views and you're waiting for history to catch up is naive.
>Not sure why it’s always up to the cities to build everything
It's not. For years, I've said that if companies are coming in, they should be made to go to plenty of places around MA. Plenty of towns that would benefit from one lab being put in. Plenty of rejuvenation to happen.
The second I say that, people go on about how workers there wouldn't like it, or it's not a sure bet, changing the conversation, again, to how we can appease corporate interests.
>Never mind the fact that said suburbs only really gave value because of their proximity to said cities
Sounds like you're more just dismissive of anywhere that isn't a big city. Lead with that. Let people know what's really at the core. I like my city that's a suburb, but really a city. If Boston fell off the map, I wouldn't leave. Maybe the idea that people like their town is foreign to you. Maybe you grew up here and are in the phase where you hate it. Maybe you didn't grow up here and don't understand how this part of the country has deeper roots than, say, California.
3720-To-One t1_ixjmizd wrote
I grew up in the suburbs of Boston, buddy.
I know what I’m talking about.
And all these NIMBY restrictions in suburbs are rooted in selfishness and greed.
Again, your damn suburb doesn’t exist in a goddamn vacuum, and is part of the greater community. This entire half of the state has a massive housing shortage because for decades, selfish-ass NIMBYs all think that their precious little suburban was ordained by god to never change at all.
It’s the epitome of “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
pillbinge t1_ixjn4hp wrote
So you're in the phase where you're growing up. That's fine. I was there too. There's a bigger picture you'll get eventually, when the numbing encroach of something bigger turns everything the same.
You can keep saying that "my" suburb, which is a city, doesn't exist in a vacuum, but I have everything I need here. And, when you say it, it still has the unspoken element of "and it should give way to Boston". Boston built up because companies could take advantage of what was in place. That may not exist, and the problems created today didn't exist before. These are problems we have to manage because of them.
>This entire half of the state
The whole state does, as do other countries. It's due to the financialization of housing as an appreciating asset at all, and increasing populations that aren't sustainable, and that are concentrated in fewer places.
Build a lab in Douglas, MA. But converting more space to lab space to homogenize the world isn't going to help. You're going to whine about this for the rest of your life if you don't recognize the real issue.
>It’s the epitome of “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
It isn't, but I get why you need to think that.
3720-To-One t1_ixjrh00 wrote
Yes it is, dude. It’s selfish.
NIMBYs come up with all sorts of excuses as to why their precious little suburban should never have to change or adapt, or allow anything other than SFHs to get built.
Everyone thinks their little suburb is special and precious, and ordained by god.
And yes, they restrict new development because they think that it’s the local government’s job to artificially inflate the values of their homes.
And yes, most people living in suburbs work in the city.
Again, suburbs don’t exist in a vacuum.
But I get it, you’ve got all your NIMBY talking points down pat. Your suburb should never have to change.
“I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
There’s high demand to live in this state. The state needs to build more higher-density housing, INCLUDING in suburbs.
pillbinge t1_ixkxd5h wrote
>Everyone thinks their little suburb is special and precious, and ordained by god.
You're going through something, and that's fine. But people are allowed to like their town without thinking it can only increase in importance if it becomes a part of something bigger that is already established.
The fact you think I'm a NIMBY is precisely what's throwing you off. I'm for more housing. I'd love that housing here. I can just look around at what's being built, how badly it's built, and how horribly it affects the areas around us to know that it isn't working. Your approach isn't working. We're basically trying it now, whenever a massive complex goes up.
>There’s high demand to live in this state. The state needs to build more higher-density housing, INCLUDING in suburbs.
Sounds like you think government exists to cater to people's needs in some sort of consumerist manner. I feel really bad for you. Especially when the demand to live in the area comes from the historic ignoring of other parts of the state. Real estate is far cheaper and abundant farther West. But sure, build up some of the densest towns in the entire country again.
wallet535 t1_ixl3qx9 wrote
I think your basic point is that companies should look beyond metro Boston. As someone who grew up in rural Central Mass. and who now lives inside Route 128, I would love to see a lab go into my hometown. The problem, however, is the needed labor isn’t out there in the sticks. Just like a trucking company can’t locate to somewhere far from interstates, knowledge-based industries can’t locate far from their workers. Biotech ain’t going there, trust me. The modern-day mill is a lab or an office tower. Mill towns were built back in the day for their workers, but somehow we don’t want to give today’s equivalent workers that same housing security. This might help to explain why your attempt to don the mantle of the older and wiser rings a bit hollow. I’m sorry if that sounds a bit rude, and it’s not my intention to insult, but that’s the reality today.
pillbinge t1_ixtcm10 wrote
There are far too many people here who are reading something like "don the mantle of the older and wiser" when I'm chiming in with what I've reflected on and nothing more. It's very bizarre, and I feel bad for a lot of people. Maybe there's something about internet comments that cuts right into people. I don't know. I'm not giving any "wise" statement like that. Your comment doesn't sound rude, it sounds kind of sad and misguided.
More to the point, this is a fundamental problem with government getting involved but not totally, and only in some areas. They aren't going to move there but that's a problem to overcome. If not, we'll keep getting the situation we have now where apparently these labs can be funded by intricate laws about money that protect them but we can't get the work to places that could use it.
wallet535 t1_ixteimq wrote
It's hard to take you too seriously, because you told u/3720-To-One: "So you're in the place where you're growing up.... I was there too. There's a bigger picture you'll get eventually...." If you actually feel bad for people, quit posting word salad and start advocating for policies that might actually help them.
pillbinge t1_ixviir4 wrote
It's probably hard to take me seriously because that wasn't a conversation with you or for you, but internet forums trigger something in your brain to make you feel like you're in the thick of it.
>start advocating for policies that might actually help them.
Literally what I'm doing. You keep going on about how things should be while we can see things slide more and more where you don't want them to be.
dny6 t1_ixmbf00 wrote
You act as if you have a god given right to your suburban life style even as the region chokes
pillbinge t1_ixtcbq6 wrote
On one hand, people in the suburbs (where I don't live) do. They have what our society considers a god-given right to vote, to democracy, to their land, and so on. It's very strange to say they don't. It's also odd because there's some sort of inference to be made about what right Boston or the region has to other people's land.
On the other hand, I'm not invoking any of that. I think you're having a conversation that you've had before with someone whom you haven't met and isn't having that. I simply recognize where we are and am trying to build a real path out, instead of bitterly whinging.
dny6 t1_ixufzb3 wrote
Except we’re not talking about their land. We’re talking about other peoples land that they think they can control.
But yes, you’re right
pillbinge t1_ixviu8k wrote
I'm not sure I know what you mean. This is what democracy is - you get to vote on things that affect everyone as a whole. You get to do it at the local, town level and at the state level. You don't have to worry about "their" land since it doesn't make sense to vote on personal property. In this case, we'd probably be talking about making all property that of the state's, or closer to it; putting control of these issues in a small group so that decisions can be made more easily.
dny6 t1_ixvz6s0 wrote
If you have any interest in looking in to the history of housing zoning laws, you will find that they have nothing to do with legitimate democracy.
I have no idea what this has to do with state control of anything. Housing zoning laws have barely been around longer than most of us, “coincidentally” popping up all over the country following the civil rights movement of the 60s. They are new and failed policy with a horrible history.
Just build housing. It isn’t complicated.
By and large, you are mostly right though — in that the problem will be solved democratically. People need homes. Nimbys can live in denial about that all they want, but young people are clearly getting fed up
IC_Design t1_ixjg551 wrote
I am pretty sure profit/sqft is proportional to density. Put more units upward, make more money. And the individual units will be cheaper which will make them sell fast. The problem is zoning and lack of by-right building.
Vassukhanni t1_ixju9b0 wrote
If someone isn't supplying something that there is demand for, that's a policy failure, not the fault of anyone's personal vigor.
writethefuture3 OP t1_ixjsjtu wrote
All height minimums, lot setbacks, and "historic" restrictions should be immediately removed.
CorbuGlasses t1_ixklkvz wrote
Architect here. I wouldn’t go this far, but changes need to be made. The funny and sad part is that some towns have changed their zoning recently but there are still holdouts on most boards who will vote down projects that are as-of-right under the rules they wrote.
Master_Dogs t1_ixorg78 wrote
Interesting. If something is by right, why would the zoning board be involved? Do they still approve/disapprove by right proposals?
CorbuGlasses t1_ixov2mh wrote
It depends on the municipality but in the case of that particular project it’s technically a planning board so it’s both design review and zoning review. The hearing is for all projects of a certain size and also serves as the public meeting. They wrote the zoning and oversee it, but because it’s not strictly a zoning board there is subjectivity in the approvals.
It’s a joke and the night before our hearing and a month after we submitted all the required documentation the deputy planner sent us a list of questions that pretty much showed they didn’t know their own zoning rules nor did they spend the time to thoroughly review what we submitted. Every response was basically “see submission” or “that’s not actually what the zoning code states”.
dny6 t1_ixmbj6w wrote
These boards shouldn’t even exist. They’re filled with people with no professional qualifications other than being old and wealthy
IC_Design t1_ixju2b5 wrote
Agreed. Desperate times call for Desperate measures
middlewingding t1_ixjfvc2 wrote
Where are the labs going to up and move to? San Fran? Austin? Hip and techie but outrageously expensive too.
gregzhoba t1_ixkdi2w wrote
A lot of them are moving out to the suburbs. I know multiple biotechs/pharmas that moved to Lexington, concord, Waltham, etc
meerkatydid t1_ixkjdze wrote
Good! Not every company needs to be in Cambridge or Boston.
[deleted] t1_ixrqpfl wrote
[deleted]
meerkatydid t1_ixsdo6u wrote
Wouldn't it be nice if the REGION was known for great tech?
Nomahs_Bettah t1_ixklvr1 wrote
I am...absolutely fine with this? This sounds like a good thing.
StarbeamII t1_ixmsb3y wrote
The transit options out there in some of the suburbs are basically non-existent, so it'll force people to drive, exacerbating traffic. Boston and Cambridge have much, much better transit access, hence the growth there.
Nomahs_Bettah t1_ixnl571 wrote
Will it force people to drive (which personally I’m not that opposed to)? If the labs are closer to their homes in these suburban towns, that will mean less traffic coming into the city, and shorter commutes. If the labs moving out to cheaper land means that they offer flexible or part-time WFH hours for positions where this is possible, even better.
StarbeamII t1_ixnme82 wrote
If your lab is in an office park in Lexington or Bedford or much of Waltham, there's no option to get there by transit, especially if you live in another suburb. Those are also not exactly affordable places either. If you want to work there you have to drive in. Whereas the MBTA network is basically designed to bring people into Boston itself, so there are loads of viable transit options that don't clog up the roads.
Most biotech lab work has to be done on-site. That's part of the reason why building commercial lab space is so popular nowadays post-pandemic - while office spaces sit vacant as their employees WFH, bio labs don't face that risk as their tenants can't do that.
Nomahs_Bettah t1_ixnub8o wrote
But that traffic isn’t going into the city, and I’ve found that most people in wealthy suburbs are averse to transit anyway. Particularly if they’re building in Lexington, for example; it’s also a shorter commute for people in that area than Lexington to Cambridge. I think that people will drive in is fine.
Lab work has to be done on-site, but I’m also thinking of all the positions that can do hybrid; like legal, HR, etc.
CorbuGlasses t1_ixkl5ek wrote
This isn’t by choice. It’s because there is so little available lab space left in Cambridge and when it is available is incredibly expensive. If you’re a smaller or startup outfit without deep pockets, the suburbs is the only place you can find available and affordable space.
dny6 t1_ixm9x1d wrote
Yea, not really, and these companies have a lot of difficulty hiring good talent. Astrazeneca built a sprawling headquarters in Waltham and then abandoned it only a few years later for Cambridge because they couldn’t compete
bryanhealey t1_ixoig3y wrote
as always around here, that's just a transit problem.
I would have no problem living in Boston and working in Waltham, except the only available option is the commuter rail, and then getting to the actual office would involve... an Uber? or shuttle? no idea.
dny6 t1_ixr55cy wrote
Personally I would prefer working in Kendall with or without transit. Networking in the beating heart of an industry is a very real thing.
But yes you are right
aytay617 t1_ixna9nw wrote
I would wager that MANY more would follow if public transportation was improved to these locations. Lower cost, easier access for employees living outside of the city, less non-essential regulations...
But, in the context of the conversation, I think that it would be a really interesting to see the results of a hypothetical poll that surveys life science employees asking if they would be interested in housing that is subsidized by their employers IF it meant living in a building that was dedicated to that purpose. I would bet that the response would be overwhelmingly positive amongst the younger, single employees, whose salaries have not yet reached a level where they can sustain themselves. Additionally, it would probably be a HUGE advantage for the sponsoring company/companies in terms of attracting and retaining talent and in productivity, as employees wouldn't be traveling from afar, may be able to leave bad living arrangements, etc.
TheSausageKing t1_ixkllyj wrote
They’re moving to places like San Diego, NJ, and North Carolina.
Distinct-Ad5751 t1_ixm660m wrote
Let them go to West Virginia!
Funktapus t1_ixkeddk wrote
I don’t think vilifying lab space is going to improve the housing situation.
Deregulating housing construction is the only thing that is going to improve the housing situation.
pillbinge t1_ixjh6v2 wrote
A lot of labs moved in because of the large amount of talent here, but that large amount of talent is still a small percentage of the population. Lab space would homogenize a lot of the limited physical space, and its influence would be bad.
Thinking that Boston should be #1 in everything means a lot of exclusion to other places, but we have plenty of places in MA that could get lab space. The only problem is people switch gears and start talking about how no one would live there - as if a) that's a problem to be solved with government planning or b) it wouldn't get it started where it would make those places a little bit livelier.
Vassukhanni t1_ixk8ui5 wrote
Biotech "moved" here because there were a large amount of research hospitals and universities, including the most funded university with the most resources on earth. It's a little late to pivot, unless we want to go back in time and try convincing some puritans to spend John's money on some rum or something.
Reasonable_Move9518 t1_ixkmqww wrote
Scientist here. Biotech didn't really "move" here... Boston was one of the first places where the type of businesses we now call biotech were invented in the late 70's and early 80's. It's just grown substantially since then, especially in the last 5-10 years.
too-cute-by-half t1_ixkqdtn wrote
The recent growth was also stoked by Gov. Patrick's Life Sciences Initiative, a $1B state investment from 2008-2018 through tax incentives and low interest loans.
Reasonable_Move9518 t1_ixkrscv wrote
Definitely helped but not the full story. The entire biotech sector has been surging for 5-10 years, a combo of a build up of capital in the low-interest rate era and multiple quite highly promising new therapeutic approaches in several disease areas. A little less clear now that interest rates are actually a thing and investors care about things like turning a profit, but the fundamentals are likely pretty strong going forward.
It's not just Boston (and thus not the result of any state investment/initiative); all the traditional biotech hubs have had huge growth, though since some of this has been masked because some biotech hubs (Bay Area, Seattle) overlap with Tech hubs which have grown even more.
Vassukhanni t1_ixknbrx wrote
Yeah hence the quotation marks. The Whitehead institute was founded in the early 1980s.
f0rtytw0 t1_ixkysbg wrote
> John's money on some rum or something
I smell a movie pitch here
A couple of Harvard students invent a time machine, go back in time to meet John Harvard. They go a on wild rum filled bender that leaves John too hungover to bother founding the school. See what craziness follows when they return to the present day....
Vassukhanni t1_ixl2xyg wrote
Yeah. The VVitch meets The Hangover. Atun-Shei Films as John Harvard and we're golden.
pillbinge t1_ixkwdxm wrote
Boston's had this scene for a long while, compared to other places, and compared to times when it might have been mainly government driving research at various places. This is still an issue that highlights exactly how people really think, where Boston, or the government, or whoever, shouldn't lift a finger to affect the market of biotech. We can and we should, since it would benefit everyone. The main reason biotech has been surging is due to private money backing it. Take that away, as we should by curtailing that kind of investing, and it would go away.
husky5050 t1_ixjxt1w wrote
Thousands of apartments are going up in Suffolk Downs. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
pillbinge t1_ixkwklh wrote
From the pictures I remember seeing, it's another example of Americans building housing that looks like a dormitory of their dreams from college. The kind that we still render oddly poorly during the pitch phase, and looks completely soulless. But I'm sure it's slightly more "efficient" by presuming that no business in the area will be affected by it and everything will remain LOL.
[deleted] t1_ixm99td wrote
[deleted]
Reasonable_Move9518 t1_ixkq122 wrote
Scientist here. A bit ironic, given that Cambridge literally tried its hardest to ban biotechnology at the local level in the 1970's, in part because the old-school Mayor of Cambridge liked using "those people in white coats" as a political punching bag and just straight-up NIMBYism at vicious 1AM city council meetings:
wyatt_berlinic t1_ixjwri3 wrote
If you don't like it, get involved.
https://abundanthousingma.org/ https://www.abettercambridge.org/
CoolKid2326 t1_ixjrb3l wrote
How can I get involved to fix this kind of issue?
partyorca t1_ixjxpao wrote
Go to your local zoning board meetings and advocate for “yes, in my back yard” for densification.
ribi305 t1_ixkr27d wrote
Have you voted in recent city council elections? If so, then have you helped pro-housing candidates campaign? These are very tangible things you can do. Sadly I know many people will post online all day and don't even vote in local elections
[deleted] t1_ixk3wcl wrote
[deleted]
dny6 t1_ixma3sr wrote
Go to your city council and demand the build housing
missitnoonan78 t1_ixlyiqd wrote
You all know this isn’t just a Boston problem right? There’s a huge chunk of the biopharma work force that has families and has no desire to live the urban lifestyle. The more junior folks tend to be younger / more urban, but most of the people I worked with lived in the suburbs by choice not necessity (spent over a decade working in biopharma in Cambridge)
Fix the commute from the suburbs, fund the commuter rail, fund expansion of the subway.
dny6 t1_ixmaib0 wrote
Harsh reality that these companies don’t care if Susan from HR wants to live in Wellesley and hates her commute. Those urban Junior scientists are the life blood of these companies, and they in aggregate do not want to live in the suburbs or commute there.
But you are 100% right that the suburb commute needs to be fixed, via trains and subways
missitnoonan78 t1_ixmd3wg wrote
Wasn’t talking about non-science roles. I was a scientist, almost all of the senior / PhD level folks lived in the suburbs. You telling me that they care more about Research Associates than Senior Scientists?
I got out of the field and moved into software so I could work remote / outside of the city.
No matter what, Life Science in general is much more tired to on-site work than other well paying industries in the area, so housing, transportation, etc in the whole Greater Boston area are key to keeping it healthy.
dny6 t1_ixmu391 wrote
Well they clearly care about something in Cambridge, these companies don’t pay multi million dollar rents for the fun of it.
Part of the solution to the problem you describe is upzoning the suburbs to provide enough density for subway expansion to make sense.
The state has already started this by mandating upzoning near train stations.
I would fully expect in the next ten to fifteen years for SFH only zoning to be non existent inside 128
Roszo21 t1_ixm201e wrote
Yeah I don't know why folks are ignoring this. The housing complainers that CEOs worry about are 30-50 year olds with families who want to live in a suburban neighborhood with a yard and decent schools. A major problem is that there's no commuter rail that's truly convenient to Kendall. Housing prices on the line that runs through Porter are outrageously expensive basically until you get to Acton and beyond, and at that point the CR itself is expensive. You can maybe walk 20 - 30 min from North Station but that's tough and cold as fuck.
There's no obvious solution. These companies don't want to be downtown or in a random suburb. They want to be in Cambridge with everybody else. A feasible option might be for these companies to band together and essentially create their own public transit system. Run a bus several times a day from several park and ride type locations in suburban areas. But it's still a miserable commute when they could just move to Austin or another Southern city where workers can get a larger, more updated house and a 30 min commute for the same money.
And this is why we need to think about housing as a regional issue, not a city issue.
missitnoonan78 t1_ixm3fwz wrote
True on the commuter rail, most of the northern lines are essentially a nonstarter for Cambridge, and having to connect to the Red Line from the south adds a lot of time (been there, done that). The north south connector project would be nice.
The lack of parking around commuter rail stops and MBTA stations (looking at you Oak Grove) doesn’t help get pistols off the roads either.
dny6 t1_ixmb4yz wrote
It’s a big problem. Cambridge can do a lot by allowing 5-6 stories by right anywhere in the city. Brattle represents a huge chunk of the city that is not only SFH only but also 6,000 sqft minimum.
Large chunks of the city are 2-3 only which is absurd.
Cambridge does not have to become Manhattan in order to meet housing needs.
Same goes for all the suburbs inside 128.
drtywater t1_ixm14f4 wrote
Just approve more dam housing and invest in the T
bostonvikinguc t1_ixm2cag wrote
It’s time for bio pharma to expand more out of Cambridge. It’s become to costs
dny6 t1_ixmc1ad wrote
These companies pretty much pay for everything nice we have, and are the reason our property taxes can be so low. I don’t think many people think the whole economy should be biotech, but to chase them away by refusing to build housing is just pathetic
jazzdrums1979 t1_ixksjwh wrote
You know what’s strangling the market right now in life science, it’s not only the lack of homes, it’s the economy and lack of investment in startups. It’s going to be a rough 12-18 months while we slip into a recession.
p_britt35 t1_ixlcay1 wrote
The arrogance.....
The housing crisis will drive the tech anywhere more affordable. Honestly.....you are asking six brilliant minds to share an apartment blocks away from MIT.
Your real estate, and superiority, will crash!
iamspartacus5339 t1_ixlw9nu wrote
Plenty of places to live, you just have to commute
phonymonitor94 t1_ixlicpv wrote
The average annual salary of the nearly 107,000 life science workers in the state comes to $201,549 — well above the state’s median household income of $84,385
Science jobs pay 200k? Something seems off
writethefuture3 OP t1_ixitlvk wrote
Should remove all height limits, lot setbacks, and "historic" designations. Let land owners build what they want.
SteamingHotChocolate t1_ixiz4oo wrote
>Let land owners build what they want.
This will not work out the way you think it will
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_ixixiip wrote
The solution to one extreme is seldom the other extreme, it’s moderation.
charons-voyage t1_ixj02zm wrote
This is Reddit, if you aren’t proposing to eat the rich and build a bike lane out of their remains then it’s gonna get downvoted.
[deleted] t1_ixji6b7 wrote
[deleted]
3720-To-One t1_ixjeslh wrote
Right, and part of that moderation is making zoning far more loose and less restrictive within residential zones.
Give developers far more freedom to meet the soaring demand.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_ixjkczo wrote
Less restrictive, absolutely!
Not total abolishment; some libertarian pipe dream of “build anything you want anywhere and it’ll just sort itself out.”
partyorca t1_ixjxvby wrote
Having been to Houston recently, holy shit the laissez-faire approach to building just whatever wherever does not end well. Gross place.
IC_Design t1_ixj4wsq wrote
You sound like a NIMBY
SergeantThunderCock t1_ixjbtlm wrote
Moderation was defined in the Republic as the act of balancing between competing needs. Right now, the need for cheaper housing is overwhelming. Thoughtful moderates are not supporting NIMBY policies.
IC_Design t1_ixjgcqp wrote
NIMBYs disguise under the name of moderacy to prevent anything from getting built
RoaminRonin13 t1_ixj8bhx wrote
None of the three things you listed are why people aren’t building more residential.
writethefuture3 OP t1_ixjsdrv wrote
They all are.
Efficient-Future786 t1_ixjj4hi wrote
That ain't it, if anything we should be enforcing those rules more than we currently do. We absolutely have enough land to fix the housing crisis with just mid-density buildings and the premium for a more livable city is worth it. Boston should look to Paris for inspiration, not New York City.
The real answer is to upzone large swaths of land near public transit to allow for 5-6 story housing with first floor retail, aka what literally everyone wants. Try walking along Beacon Street from the public garden to Coolidge Corner for example, it's one of the densest housing corridors in the state but it feels extremely livable, on account of setbacks, rules for architectural styles, and limits to around 6 stories. Upzoning neighborhoods like Mission Hill, Allston, Cambridgeport, Central Square, and Kendall Square to this style would put a massive dent into housing demand and create ideal urban life.
Sure, build a few high rises in central districts, but too many of those just aren't desirable. Downtown Boston is about to renovate a bunch of former office towers to housing anyways and that should fill most of the demand for that particular kind of housing.
[deleted] t1_ixjpo5b wrote
[deleted]
-Im-A-Little-Teapot_ t1_ixj6oiz wrote
Fine by me, there's already way too many biolabs in this region as it is. The more that stay or move the fuck away from here and take their workforce with them the better.
There are 49 other states they can set up shop.
poissonprocess t1_ixj8pda wrote
Why would that be better?
pillbinge t1_ixjgy8i wrote
Why would it be worse? We're one country.
Vassukhanni t1_ixjv3j0 wrote
"Dad why don't we have any food?"
"Our neighbors have food" smiles serenely "we're one country"
pillbinge t1_ixjw9hx wrote
Unless English is your second language, and one you picked up late in life, your reading comprehension from the top comment shouldn't be that bad.
Vassukhanni t1_ixjwpj2 wrote
You're asking why it would be worse to have your own community not improve its general welfare? Not experience economic growth?
Look I understand degrowth ideology but I don't think this is the most productive target.
pillbinge t1_ixkwrqv wrote
In no way am I close to asking that, and as big an interested fan of degrowth as I can be at this phase, it's barely talking about that.
-Im-A-Little-Teapot_ t1_ixkbxzn wrote
What's it going to take to get through to some of you people that those of us that have been born and raised here, have roots and family here, and we were just fine and dandy until all this new development, gentrification and all the other associated crap took place and we're sick and tired of the shit?
Enough is enough.
Find some other place to move to with your biolabs, density, bike and bus lanes, luxury high rises,outdoor dining, etc.
As if totally fucking up Boston, Somerville, Medford, etc wasn't bad enough, now you want to spread the disease to the outlaying areas after we moved to escape from those places to get away from the bullshit.
If we can't stop it through grass roots action, community involvement and stricter zoning laws, at least we can make it as much as a PITA, expensive and time consuming as possible.
Maybe at some point developers will get the message that their presence isn't needed or wanted anymore.
Not saying that it's counter productive to job creation, just take them somewhere else. Anywhere but here
poissonprocess t1_ixkeod7 wrote
Lol outdoor dining is on the list? Bike and bus lanes? It's a city, my friend.
Edit: I have sympathy for what you're describing but you lost me at outdoor dining, bike and bus lanes.
-Im-A-Little-Teapot_ t1_ixkg8tz wrote
Up until a few years ago, it would have been fine if it didn't involve the removal of parking spaces and/or travel lanes that had been in existence for generations until the plague showed up and demanded it.
ETA: Ok, maybe I got carried away a bit with the outdoor dining, but the bike and bus lanes gripe still stands.
Vassukhanni t1_ixki28p wrote
>Travel lanes that had been in existence for generations
My ancestral travel lanes, built in 1950 in order to evict the "undesirables," shall not be slightly narrowed.
poissonprocess t1_ixkh7ov wrote
Working toward being less car centric is not unique to Boston, and is the greener way. A lot of cities are evolving this way, it's not necessarily tied to biotech.
-Im-A-Little-Teapot_ t1_ixkrgyx wrote
I'm not blaming biotech exclusively for the current situation, but as the #1 growth industry in the region, they certainly have had an impact around here and not always in a positive way.
Think the cost of living and housing here is ridiculous? It's not because of Amazon or Google or Microsoft. Sure, they might have provided high paying jobs but it came with a cost to the rest of the communities they affected.
You know things are getting bad when we're outdoing San Fransisco and new arrivals from CA are flabbergasted by the availability and cost of housing here.
Personally speaking, I'm financially fine and living comfortably, but I'm not wealthy by any means. Others that I know aren't doing as well and even with affordable housing, it s not going to change their situation very much for the foreseeable future.
The last thing they're concerned about (and I don't blame them), is what other cities have done or "greener ways".
Example: The Western Ave Corridor study and rezoning plan in Allston I don't live there, but I do live close by, and this shit benefits no one but Harvard U and developers at the expense of lower wage earners and businesses in the area.
Eliminating 180-200 parking spaces for local residents and business, and creating an "innovation corridor" where cars are discouraged by diverting traffic and creating two one way streets and make way for bike and bus lanes for the sake of profit under the pretense of "greener ways" is pretty fucked up if you ask me.
In reality, its not really my problem, but it does piss me off
dny6 t1_ixuhsps wrote
It’s a city dude. The whole thing with cities is that they change.
wallet535 t1_ixlbe2d wrote
First off your username/handle is awesome, haha. More importantly, though, I think it's important that folks engage with your perspective. You're calling attention to practical issues like parking. Sometimes pro-growth folks don't give these concerns enough credence, but even when solutions to them are presented, they can exacerbate what is the bigger issue, which is the emotional connection to a place and how it's always been in their memories. Dismissing these perspectives as NIMBYism is unproductive; it just hardens old battle lines.
If we want to avoid Rust Belt-ish decline, we need to make room for new economic growth, recognizing the reality that knowledge-based industries are going to where the workers are, which is in metro Boston, and they need housing, and this means change. Wishing that they'd go elsewhere isn't going to change that; instead, this thought pattern is truly harming folks who are just trying to make it in today's economy.
It is also true that life is more than just economic growth. A sense of place is both important to everyone's lived experience and is part of what makes locations attractive in the first place. In many cases the folks who made places great aren't participating in the industries of the newcomers. Practical concerns of longtime residents shouldn't be glossed over, and even when they are solvable, the solutions often call for jarring changes that would be disruptive for anyone.
My point is obvious: These aren't black and white issues. Solutions are likely to be compromises that leave no one fully happy, with change occurring at a definite but measured pace. We should bicker this out like the Massholes we are with this perspective in mind. Pollyanna mode over.
dpm25 t1_ixjohf4 wrote
Yeah, jobs are awful.
Vassukhanni t1_ixjuk0c wrote
It's kinda hilarious how Boston is like perfectly positioned to be an incredibly fast growing city, but is just saying "no, let's get that deindustrialization thing going again"