Submitted by _Hack_The_Planet_ t3_10p6m8o in boston
Comments
ClarkFable t1_j6imahc wrote
Thing is, as long as you indiscriminately raise height limits, almost all NIMBYs will benefit too, as the potential occupancy of whatever footprint they own will increase. The problem is when you make height increases a case-by-case basis, which will just lead to more corruption incentives at the zoning board and reward shady developers.
0tanod t1_j6ivq2j wrote
I finally realized the NIMBYs will also fight their home increasing in value, because then they have to pay more in taxes when their appraisal goes up. There is no winning with them.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6iwsc9 wrote
yup. they 100% do this.
Roszo21 t1_j6kk4ip wrote
Are you surprised that elderly people on fixed incomes don't want the taxes on their home to go up?
pipis9001 t1_j6l18uh wrote
old people don't deserve a free pass if their end game is to screw everyone over that's younger than them (and! the same age as them just POORER). we all lose
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6kri50 wrote
They have to pay their taxes just like I do and that isn’t an excuse to strangle the cities finances
[deleted] t1_j6jil4u wrote
[removed]
ThatFrenchieGuy t1_j6jerns wrote
Also when developers buy out space to put a mid/high rise in, they tend to pay 10-25% over market to get you to fuck off and go away. It's a great place to be if you own property in an area that should be denser.
Lemonio t1_j6kphc6 wrote
I feel like priority for most NIMBYs is not wanting more people near them, not the housing value
The housing value matters if you want to move short term but most nimby probably care more about what effect there will be on day to day life if they’re planning to stay in their home for a while
Obviously NIMBYs aren’t being helpful to fellow humans, but it also seems like an understandable instinct that people in a suburban neighborhood don’t want it to become more crowded, and don’t really gain anything of value otherwise
Maybe if developers could just legally bribe neighbors with cash to get projects approved that would work to reduce resistance
1998_2009_2016 t1_j6mwfl9 wrote
Bribing neighbors is basically what happens in Cambridge. Oh you want a big lab? Better build a park, community space, donate to the affordable housing fund … then we will approve your variance.
Lemonio t1_j6mwi9x wrote
Sounds smart
ClarkFable t1_j6lekex wrote
>The housing value matters if you want to move short term but most nimby probably care more about what effect there will be on day to day life if they’re planning to stay in their home for a while
This is a fair point, and I agree that the degree to which some will be swayed by potential property value increases varies across individual's. In a way, I probably have more sympathy for a NIMBY who isn't just being greedy for money, but instead has a genuine preference for the characteristics of their neighborhood.
>Obviously NIMBYs aren’t being helpful to fellow humans, but it also seems like an understandable instinct that people in a suburban neighborhood don’t want it to become more crowded, and don’t really gain anything of value otherwise
I find this also to be compelling. In some sense I think this is why the term NIMBY is overused (or misapplied) in these discussions. Home values constitute such a large portion of most peoples wealth/savings, that what rational person is going to want to see development that will harm or lower their home value? Along the same lines, I tend to think of NIMBY as reflecting the following thought process: I want public good X, but I don't want public good x near me--i.e., I want X but not in my back yard. So if a property owner doesn't really care about increasing the housing stock (regardless of its location), are they really a NIMBY?
Lemonio t1_j6lgwtd wrote
I mean I imagine the reason that nimbys are so common is it basically people who care more about their own interests than others which is most people
You need to either ignore them and not give them a choice, or you need to change the incentives to somehow make it worth their while, otherwise it shouldn’t be surprising that people will oppose new housing near their house
some1saveusnow t1_j6mjsj5 wrote
Not giving people who have owned for a long time in a community a choice, and doing so across the board, is a fast track to local government hell for the legislature
Lemonio t1_j6ml87k wrote
If you’re not taking people’s homes and just building big on empty lots and when houses are sold people might not be happy but at the end of the day if they get to complain idk how much they care
ribi305 t1_j6muwvz wrote
I go to a fair number of these meetings in my neighborhood and the NIMBY view I hear most often is "why do we need to turn Cambridge into another New York?" A lot of old people just seem to feel that their neighborhood shouldn't need to accommodate the new people who want to live there. The problem (in my view) is that we have been adding jobs like crazy so it's become a need to add housing to begin to catch up.
Interestingly, Cambridge, Boston and the urban areas around here actually had higher population in the past ('60s), but they packed way more people into smaller housing. A lot of the reason we need more housing now is because of smaller households wanting more space per person.
some1saveusnow t1_j6mjf6x wrote
you’re the first person I’ve seen since I’ve been on Reddit who actually gets it
Lemonio t1_j6mkyv6 wrote
Just to be clear I do think NIMBYs are bad and we should be building a lot more housing - I was just pointing out that the NIMBY response shouldn’t be surprising because people are just following their own incentives
senatorium t1_j6j4s2x wrote
Meanwhile, in Braintree: https://twitter.com/bycathcarlock/status/1620107100545507329
RoaminRonin13 t1_j6l6f6b wrote
Saddest part is this Braintree development is exactly what we need to see more of - in many ways it’s the perfect project to increase housing density.
Its impact on traffic is negligible, since it’s already within the overall mall area. It has no (I think) direct residential neighbors to piss off, in terms of “context”. It doesn’t require tearing down any existing residential.
Fighting against it is amazingly idiotic.
Quincy has plenty of housing that is this density, and it’s doing just fine. Hasn’t changed anything fundamental about the city.
rygo796 t1_j6mgtt2 wrote
That's a strange take from the Mayor. Senior housing is great for town coffers. Lots of tax revenue, little use of town resources (schools).
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6mtg6j wrote
Welcome to Medford.
The amount of money/nightlife that could be accrued in downtown Medford if we only kicked out all the retirees from those massive nursing homes err, uh, "residential towers" right on Riverside and by Wellington.
[deleted] t1_j6jofwd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6k3x89 wrote
[deleted]
hellno560 t1_j6kq62m wrote
on that note here is a link to sign up for the public meeting for bay city tomorrow at 6pm focused on housing https://www.bostonplans.org/news-calendar/calendar/2023/02/01/dorchester-bay-city-public-meeting-housing
I am not a member of the community advisory commitee but I sat through the last meeting and the advisors (whom mostly represented housing nonprofits ) just pushed for more "affordable" units. They were all in favor of the build. The developer has made a commitment to 20% affordable units out of 2,000. This would be a huge win for the city housing crisis. The problem is the developer says "putting aside concerns about the economy they could not break ground until middle of 2024.
If you are a Boston resident please consider attending the meeting, voice your approval of the project and hold the Wu administration responsible for delaying a publicly supported project for years in the middle of a housing crisis.
[deleted] t1_j6kg3sd wrote
[removed]
RoaminRonin13 t1_j6l9mxq wrote
I think this oversimplifies it and buys into the “zoning is the problem” narrative. We could just push for rezoning that allowed for and encourages 5 story residential buildings. Those low-rise developments are going to be the main thing that brings us towards solving this problem, as they can be built slightly more affordably and make an easier argument to sell against NIMBYism.
All I’m saying is we could create the space for these buildings in our zoning, which are more easily defensible, rather than simply give up the ghost and let developers build whatever they want. “The Market” isn’t going to solve this problem, it’s perfectly fine with how expensive housing is.
You’re not wrong about the shadows thing - them fighting that project over by the Fens because it’ll cast shadows on the park at 7:30am in March or whatever is a disgrace.
Codspear t1_j6md0j6 wrote
> “The Market” isn’t going to solve this problem, it’s perfectly fine with how expensive housing is.
The market is why Houston is cheap. It doesn’t have the senseless idiocy of zoning laws.
taudep t1_j6mv6u7 wrote
>Add a quarter of a mil to that to get within a commuting distance of Boston that isn't going to make you regret your life decisions.
Houston also has nearly endless "free" land surrounding it and a population density of 3800 per mile, vs 14K - 15K for Boston. So on that note, Boston's already succeeding at nearly 3.5 - 4x the density of cramming people in?
mshelikoff t1_j6iz41j wrote
In 2023, no rational person would have the idea that any developer should be permitted to build anything anywhere of any size at any price point. After local, national, and global inequality have increased for decades, no rational person would believe that local people must abandon local government control over their neighborhoods and surrender to the realization that multinational Real Estate Investment Trusts with anonymous foreign investors are the ones who should control the future of their community.
NIMBYs are selfish idiots. YIMBYs are dangerous idiots.
People with brain cells recognize that we live in a complex world where individual people will always want as much control over their lives as the systems in place will allow them to have. Some renters have opinions about shadows at 5:30 am. A fantasy-land where multi-millionaire NIMBY homeowners and multinational REITs are the only ones with power who participate in local government is a land where renters are one step away from being nothing but vermin to be controlled or exterminated.
Flashy_Positive1657 t1_j6jfve2 wrote
What point are you trying to make here? Is this satire?
mshelikoff t1_j6jw5fd wrote
I'll support or won't support a particular development based on its alignment with principles of intelligent urbanism or another rational urbanist school of thought. Just because the basic solution is to build more housing, that doesn't mean we have to increase inequality and decrease equitable access to opportunities to achieve that solution.
My view is that YIMBYs should be supported to the extent that they are housing justice advocates.
dpm25 t1_j6jrqos wrote
Yimbys aren't talking about oil rigs and steel Mills. They are talking about housing.
mshelikoff t1_j6k1jr2 wrote
I will likely agree with anyone who has obvious goals of housing justice and a rational, humane urbanism. A person with those goals might be for or against a particular housing development depending on the details and depending on the displacements of the people there now.
If you will permanently remove 5 working class long-term resident families with kids in the local public schools in order to create a tall building with 200 graduate students living in studios then I'll probably be against you. Call me a NIMBY. I won't care.
If you don't increase the rent of those 5 families much and find temporary housing for them while you build your tall building and welcome them back into your tall building when it's done and introduce them to their new neighbors then I'll probably be with you. Call me a YIMBY. I won't care.
dpm25 t1_j6k2295 wrote
Yeah I prefer grad students sharing multi bedroom apts and homes, it's oh so much better for competing rents /s
The socialist wing of the left is so bat shit crazy on housing.
mshelikoff t1_j6k2neu wrote
You can usually tell who is batshit crazy from their words alone. If person 1 compares A to B and person 2 pretends that person 1 was comparing A to C and then writes "/s", person 2 is batshit crazy.
Drix22 t1_j6ilygx wrote
>The average home price in the Commonwealth is a whopping $535,000
Add a quarter of a mil to that to get within a commuting distance of Boston that isn't going to make you regret your life decisions.
Bostonosaurus t1_j6k72h8 wrote
$535,00?! When in like 2009?
dyslexicbunny t1_j6kfz9q wrote
A coworker just bought a place in Princeton for $500k. Now it's a shitty commute but there are houses in that realm. Pretty nice place too that just needs a little work.
f0rtytw0 t1_j6ks56z wrote
Princeton is an hour from Boston with minimal traffic.
It is a suburb of Worcester.
Vivecs954 t1_j6l2v5q wrote
I live in Mansfield in a 3 bed 1 bath ranch I bought for 450k last year, my commute is now shorter than when I lived in Boston (Hyde Park).
My commute is under an hour now- 5 min bike to commuter rail, 25 min express train, 15 min walk from south station to govt center
PersisPlain t1_j6ldkvo wrote
What's the monthly cost of a commuter rail pass now?
Vivecs954 t1_j6mzrh3 wrote
I’m a federal employee and the government pays for my pass.
Also the train I take the 8:09 from Mansfield, the conductor doesn’t check for tickets so you only pay on the way home.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6mtluw wrote
I simply ✨️ drive 15 mins ✨️
Vivecs954 t1_j6n1vdf wrote
I don’t have a car so that won’t work for me
[deleted] t1_j6jbfnn wrote
[removed]
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6isowv wrote
Anything within 1/4 mile of state funded MBTA station gets exemption from local zoning. State sets up higher height limits, high FAR ratios and small yard setbacks. Extra bonus for smaller economy size apartments. Match the supply with the demand and do it actively.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6ivmx0 wrote
Any stats showing that is anywhere near enough?
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6j9k3u wrote
It would be more than we are doing now. It takes time to get them funded and built so any talk of crisis solving is way overblown. If they make the zoning options better and the permitting time short then thats a big help. If not, it will SSDD.
ThatFrenchieGuy t1_j6jf858 wrote
It's not 100% of the way there, but we go from ~100k units short to 10-30k units short. It won't be enough construction to get rent to go down, but it will be enough to get rent to go up a lot less than the current 5%/year average.
antraxsuicide t1_j6jm1x9 wrote
You probably would see rent come down in some places as it's unlikely the closing of the gap would be uniform. Some places will actually hit their targets while others will fall short. Then you get people moving from the latter to the former.
AchillesDev t1_j6l5s4x wrote
That's assuming static demand and no induced demand effect. Probably need even more to cover the shift due to induced demand.
RoaminRonin13 t1_j6l8p43 wrote
It doesn’t need to be, by itself.
This “silver bullet” concept of a solution is never going to get us there, because one doesn’t exist. It’s like climate change - we need to do a lot of different things to solve the problem, of various levels of difficulty.
The MBTA communities re-zoning is both a great step in the right direction and creates a shit load of housing - demanding that it do more, or suggesting “it isn’t enough” is simply being defeatist / negative for the sake of it.
In my town we currently have ~9500 housing units and the MBTA communities law will require we re-zone to create another 2100-2400 (I forget the exact number). Whether that’s “enough” is hard to answer, but it is an enormous increase in units within what is maybe 25-30% of the town’s developed land area. That can’t be shrugged off.
And it’s not the only thing that’s happening. There’s still regular private development, and other initiatives working towards promoting the construction of new housing.
[deleted] t1_j6kmdct wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6kg5j2 wrote
[removed]
hx87 t1_j6jyvfp wrote
Another idea: all housing that meets Passivhaus standards are exempt from local zoning and reviews.
wsdog t1_j6j1cbq wrote
So everyone flies from commuter rail stations and starts driving. Brilliant idea, bro.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6j9sja wrote
Yes, keep doing nothing and not increasing supply and we can have this same discussion for the next 30 years.
wsdog t1_j6ja2cf wrote
You can decrease demand. It's the same as with roads, building more and wider roads increases the number of automobiles.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jcths wrote
Why don't you get the ball rolling? I'm sure Texas would welcome you with open arms.
Codspear t1_j6mds63 wrote
Texas… the fastest growing state largely because of its lack of strict zoning laws.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6mo97n wrote
Texas has plenty of zoning laws, they just don’t use the word “zoning”.
wsdog t1_j6jfi1i wrote
Many colleagues of mine flocked to TX. I just like the cold weather, so I'm sticking around.
But reality is that if my way to the commuter rail station will be clogged with apartment buildings I will set off and move somewhere else. As will most of my neighbors.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jhmf8 wrote
Perfect, then we can redevelop your house into more apartment buildings. Win-win.
antraxsuicide t1_j6jl78j wrote
You know you described a net positive outcome, right?
You and your neighbors are X. The people moving into the new, denser housing are Y. Y is obviously greater than X. So X people commute further, and Y people commute shorter.
wsdog t1_j6jnpns wrote
Isn't this gentrification?
antraxsuicide t1_j6jqmoa wrote
If the people moving in are more affluent than existing residents and push them out financially, yeah. I very much doubt that since we're talking about lowering supply to decrease housing costs. The people living there already can afford to. If costs go down, then they'll still be able to afford to live there.
wsdog t1_j6ju1to wrote
A single family house is only expensive when surrounded by single family houses. If a single family is surrounded by 10 level buildings it's cheap as crap. So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services. It actually wouldn't be their choice, banks will just foreclosure underwater mortgages. Yeah, a forced move pretty much.
hx87 t1_j6jxykb wrote
A single family home surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings will have its land priced as if a 10 story apartment can be built on it, ie a whole lot more expensive. In the grand scheme of things buildings aren't worth much compared to the underlying land.
wsdog t1_j6k7qg3 wrote
Only if there is demand for a 10 story apartment building. The demand is high for Boston burbs because it gives the small town feel while providing an easy commute to Boston. With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away. There will be little sense living here. If I wanted to live in a 10+ story building (I did) I would move to NYC, and would be making more $.
hx87 t1_j6k9q06 wrote
If a SFH is surrounded by 10 story apartment buildings that aren't vacant, you can be pretty damn sure that there is plenty of demand for 10 story apartment buildings.
> With apartment buildings built near every commuter rail station till the cape this will go away.
I don't see what the problem with this is. Why is demand for small towns full of SFHs a good thing? If Boston were built to the density of NYC, we'd be cheaper than NYC, and making close to NYC money too.
wsdog t1_j6kagcz wrote
It's like saying why someone needs Legal Seafoods if there are 10 McDonald's nearby. 10x cheaper!
hx87 t1_j6kc9k8 wrote
"Sorry, you can't build a McDonald's here (even though there's plenty of demand to justify it). Legal Seafoods only (even though current owners paid McDonald's prices 50 years ago, and displaced No. 9 Park in the process)!"
wsdog t1_j6kd2co wrote
Nobody will patronize Legal Seafoods if it's next door to MD's. Makes sense.
If you follow your argument all homeowners must be pro-construction because they would want to flip their land for profit. The problem is that they have to live somewhere, and they don't want to live in apartments because if they would, they would buy in Seaport.
antraxsuicide t1_j6k0jfk wrote
>So the current residents will be driven to areas with less transportation and services.
What? The area is getting cheaper, not more expensive. That drives people to an area, not out of it.
wsdog t1_j6k74jx wrote
People are not keen on living in human anthills, that's why they chose a single family.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_j6jrld6 wrote
This is the saddest line of thinking in transportation and the economy. Induced demand is a farce in a lot of ways. The primary way is that the capacity that no longer fits on the narrow road find a way through 3 paths. One is mass transit (this is good). Another is jamming the path (this is bad) and the final is to seek alternate routes (also bad). Right now "induced demand" completely jams up many local roads slowing down local travel and mass transit (buses/trolleys) that operate on those routes.
Developers and builders will always flock to build the easiest and most profitable projects (this is not evil or bad..this is human nature). You keep increasing the non residential buildings with relatively little increase in the residential then you get what you have today. Imbalance. Not sure how you eliminate demand or whether that's even a good idea.
Acocke t1_j6jj94s wrote
- Tax foreign and corporate owned housing. (They are willing to pay more)
- Unoccupied and uninhabited units with vacancy past 10 years should be taken by the city by eminent domain.
- Make brokers fees illegal and cap real estate transfer costs at set cost as opposed to percentage based.
- Incentivize building additional units for sale but not for rent. Owner occupied units are generally better for everyone.
- Allow the nimbys to exist but ratchet up property taxes for unit above a certain square footage each Nay vote further subsidizing additional housing units, mass transit, and school. If money goes to anything else, provide teeth to remove elected officials and banish them from the state. (Let’s get puritanical)
Roszo21 t1_j6klid3 wrote
The unoccupied real estate thing is a really odd problem. You'd think with how valuable real estate is property wouldn't sit vacant, but when you start looking around for them, they're everywhere. There are three SFHs that have been empty long-term within a block of me. Two of them belong to elderly people in nursing homes without family and are just waiting for them to die. They've been vacant for years. The third had owners pass away and the kids are fighting over the list price for months.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6mtuyb wrote
Letting apartments sit vacant drives up demand for the other apartments nearby.
A landlord who owns multiple properties directly benefits from keeping demamd high.
[deleted] t1_j6kg7ad wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6io122 wrote
[deleted]
mshelikoff t1_j6is4mq wrote
This opinion piece gets almost everything right by providing realistic appraisals of a complex system, unlike a huge number of braindead morons with overly simple agendas who post here. This opinion:
-
is anti-NIMBY. The basic solution is simple: build more housing, in line with the economic theory that increased supply will bring down the cost of buying or renting...[by] reducing the power of local officials to thwart development. If you're anti-NIMBY, be happy about that.
-
is anti-YIMBY. “We don’t start from the premise that adding housing is a negative,” said Driscoll. “That doesn’t mean build anywhere, any how, any size.” If you're anti-YIMBY, be happy about that.
-
identifies who is genuinely at-risk. In an ideal world...low-income tenants in triple-deckers benefit from new housing construction too; build enough new housing and the economic incentive for landlords to evict tenants and turn their homes into condos disappears. But it will take years or decades for the market to stabilize. In the meantime, the state will need to take steps to protect those low-income renters and provide more rental assistance and subsidized rental housing. If you're against the people who believe government should never do anything to protect voters against unstable markets, be happy about that.
ik1nky t1_j6j1yfv wrote
You seem to have a grudge against YIMBYs that you're making part of all of your comments. But you're continually misstating YIMBY beliefs. YIMBY is not "build anything, anywhere". Some YIMBYs believe that, while others do not. Look at how prevalent the idea of Japanese zoning is in the YIMBY world or missing middle zoning. None of the YIMBY organizations in MA(Abundant Housing MA, ABC, Somerville YIMBY, etc.) that I know of are pushing for build anything, anywhere.
> 2) is anti-YIMBY. “We don’t start from the premise that adding housing is a negative,” said Driscoll. “That doesn’t mean build anywhere, any how, any size.” If you're anti-YIMBY, be happy about that.
Kim Driscoll is famously a YIMBY.
WinsingtonIII t1_j6j7m7g wrote
Yeah, Driscoll was very big on development in Salem (a good thing IMO).
brufleth t1_j6jvzqd wrote
That's typically the attitude on Reddit, but that doesn't really represent much relevant to those involved here.
The state could certainly start by expanding their existing rules on numbers of certain priced units. Make it price, density, proximity to public transit, etc. Unfortunately towns still fight it tooth and nail, but there's some foundation to work from there. Of course, that public transit needs to be come a little more useful too.
mshelikoff t1_j6juxj5 wrote
I have a grudge against simpletons.
I've been living in the Boston area for over 30 years and seen how some places have changed, other places haven't changed, and who has and hasn't profited. My view is that "Build that here" and "Don't build that here" are both stupidly simplistic tropes.
I'll support or won't support a particular development based on its alignment with principles of intelligent urbanism or another rational urbanist school of thought. Just because the basic solution is to build more housing, that doesn't mean we have to increase inequality and decrease equitable access to opportunities to achieve that solution.
0tanod t1_j6ivw4r wrote
>The state doesn’t generally build houses itself
Maybe we should try that too?
PurpleDancer t1_j6jz47i wrote
Projects are great. They were considered bad when I was a kid, but now that I know people including family members in them I realize that they are like a golden ticket for the people who manage to get in. Offering long term security that allows people to build a life on.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6mu3gj wrote
Maybe in some cases. But in a lot of cases, they lead to high crime, which leads to zealous policing, which leads to higher arrest/incarceration rates for individuals living within these projects, thus defeating any beneficial help the stability this type of housing provides.
Rindan t1_j6l6gwn wrote
Maybe we could just start by letting people that own property already build first, before unleashing the overwhelmingly corruption free and extremely efficient Massachusetts state upon the problem?
0tanod t1_j6l77by wrote
Why not do both? It's a crisis so lets treat it like one. We can slow down when gen-Z feels they can own a home at some point in their life.
Codspear t1_j6mes1o wrote
Gen Z can own a home in their 20’s. In the South. Where zoning laws are weaker because business interests are stronger.
Hilariously, business interests are more equitable with regard to housing than “the people”.
Rindan t1_j6mwj3r wrote
Well, mostly because I was being super sarcastic when I called the Massachusetts state government efficient in a corruption free.
0tanod t1_j6my8co wrote
We shouldn't try one solution because you feel / are aware of past attempts where it was doomed to line the pockets of individuals and not create the needed housing? That's how I feel about the free market bullshit but you don't see me saying not to try it.
Rindan t1_j6n22px wrote
I'm less worried about people lining their pockets, and more worried about it being shitty housing that is literally an order of magnitude over budget, years late, and poorly managed. When a land owner is late and goes over budget on a building project, they lose their own money, and it's a few percentage points over budget, and it's a few months late. When the state does the same thing, they could 10x the cost, it can be years late, and it's the state's (mine and yours) money that they are lighting on fire to give to their friends.
The solution is crystal clear; let people legally build higher. Whenever you walk into a high density neighborhood and see that all of the buildings are three stories tall and set back from the sidewalk, it isn't greedy developers refusing to build more housing because they hate money. It's the city making it literally illegible for them to build higher or closer to the property edge. Seriously, every single time you see this, it's 100% zoning rules preventing more housing from being built.
We have a lack of more housing in dense areas because it's literally illegal to build it. That's it. That's the entire problem. Fix that and the problem goes away. I'd rather the state focus on fixing the problems it already has before trying their hand at property development because they created a housing crisis by making development illegal for the residents of this state. The state doesn't need to fix the problem that they created. They can just stop making the problem.
0tanod t1_j6n5ua4 wrote
We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels". Your solution still requires the state to get involved so we might as well try an all of the above approach and reevaluate whats working, and whats not, over a few year period or something like that. Also you choose to ignore all the possible issues with your private land owner solution. For instance I support higher, denser, and more affordable housing. However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.
Rindan t1_j6n9nno wrote
>We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels".
It's not feels. It's literally just looking at the past track record of the state executing literally any building project. Close your eyes and pick one, it's years late and wildly over budget.
>Your solution still requires the state to get involved
No, it actually doesn't. It requires cities and states that created the problem with their zoning laws to stop creating the problem. They only need to stop doing the bad thing that they are still doing RIGHT NOW, despite the housing crisis, to fix the housing crisis.
>However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos
Housing costs in Massachusetts have nothing to do with how "luxurious" our housing is. Leave Boston and travel around a little bit. Boston housing is not "luxurious" and too much luxury has nothing to do with our housing costs. We actually have literally some of the oldest, most poorly maintained, and least "luxurious" housing in this nation. The reason why literally all new housing is called "luxury" housing is because any house in the greater boston area with flat floors that won't give you splinters and a modern heating/cooling system can claim with a straight face to be "luxury". You literally can't make a new apartment that isn't "luxury", because literally anything new, no matter how spare, is "luxury" over the housing stock that it is replacing. The cost of housing in Boston has nothing to do with how nice it is. The only two things that matter to how much a new condo costs is where it is, and how big it is. Everything else is a rounding error.
>...being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.
This is a bogyman that only really exists in extremely high end housing sitting on top of sky scrappers. Housing in Boston is not expensive because of them damn foreigners buying housing and than insanely keeping it empty instead of renting it out.
There is one and only one reason why housing is expensive in the greater Boston area. That one and only reason is because it is literally illegal to build more dense housing. Every time you are in an dense and expensive area and see only three story building, they are that way because it is literally illegal to build them any taller and more dense. The states and towns that created this problem don't need to go build dense housing. They just need to let people that already own housing legally build dense housing. We don't need the state, which has proven it's absolute incompetence at large building projects, to jump in. They just need to get out of the way.
If the state has money burning holes in their pockets wants to do something productive to help the housing crisis, they should fix and expand public transit. I'm sure they will do it extremely late and over budget as they always do, but at least they would be do something that only the state can fix.
0tanod t1_j6ncmmf wrote
I see now. You have no appreciation of what a government is or does. Just so you know denser housing comes with a cost and its needs to be planned. Water, sewage, trash, schools, emergency response... etc. all need to handled in a some kind of planned manner that you do not have a understanding of and I apologize for not realizing how little you understand and wasting both mine and your time.
Rindan t1_j6nkok7 wrote
No, I do in fact appreciate what the government does. I also just appreciate what the government doesn't do well. I wish that sort of nuance was something that was acceptable these days, but unfortunately we seem to live in a polarized era where things are only good or bad, black or white, and all nuances are lost. Government now is only a thing that is either pure incompetent evil, or faultless and the answer to every solution for most politically active people. Both views are obviously wrong, but we can't seem to admit that anymore because that sounds too much like giving the other side a win. This is why you can't admit that maybe some fixes to enable the private sector might be a part of the solution, and why a conservative is unable to admit that maybe the government also has an important role in enabling solutions.
I do in fact want the government to build on and expand on public services. If an area is growing or wants to grow but can't because of zoning, I want them to expand the public infrastructure to support it. Extremely restrictive zoning that basically forbids densifying an area is not a rational response to a housing crisis, nor is getting the state involved in building more housing when that is something that is easily and vastly more cheaply and efficiently fixed by less restrictive zoning. The government should focus on doing the things that only the government can do effectively, like infrastructure maintenance and improvement to accommodate growth. The much more efficient private sector should be enabled to do the things that only it can do efficiently and effective, like adding to the housing stock. Unfortunately, this is a position of too much nuance in our emotionally charged and polarized political system.
wsdog t1_j6j60yo wrote
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jcokg wrote
pillbinge t1_j6jftf2 wrote
I'm really afraid to ask which of these examples you think the US is closer to, given the state of our current housing.
If you could force the builders to make beautiful works like that, go for it. I can't even convince the average person here that if they built nice, brick buildings like you see in the more expensive parts of Boston, they'd get more public approval.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jhg03 wrote
I didn't say the US was close to either, just chose a contrasting example of public housing since we're making low effort posts.
Why do you need to force developers to do anything? Public housing doesn't mean you make the developers work for free. If we decided that public housing should be beautiful and long lasting (and were willing to pay for it, which we aren't), I'm sure there would be a long line of developers bidding on the projects.
pillbinge t1_j6jmgz0 wrote
But that's like someone saying "the government should have healthcare", and someone pointing to the Tuskegee Study. We have examples of public housing in the US. We know what it looks like. A lot of public housing in Europe isn't what you linked to, either.
>Why do you need to force developers to do anything?
Because they develop in short-sighted ways, and that fucks everyone. They're building on land, which means it's limited and subject to public opinion, to say the least. I wouldn't force anyone to design a cup, painting, or so on, but if we're talking about a necessity that's inelastic, then we should come together to figure something out. No reason localities can't actually put thought into their building codes instead of just adopting whatever people decided elsewhere, which is really what happens.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jq8qz wrote
Why wouldn't we strive to match one of the best examples of public housing? Why bother doing anything if we can't at least try to make it a bit better than last time?
I don't really think that taking bids on a pre-determined design is "forcing" the developer to do anything. They don't have to bid on the project. The design and build don't have to be one contact fulfilled by one entity. Public housing isn't a charitable act driven by a developer, it is a government contract that is bid on and fulfilled by a developer, architect, etc.
pillbinge t1_j6k38vz wrote
I'm totally with you. I'm just of the opinion that this would be 20-30 years down the road at best.
I don't think forcing bids on predetermined designs if forcing anything. I'm big on that and hadn't considered that process. Shame on me! But we're talking about force. I think we're on the same page.
I'm for government force in this case. I'm just for force in ways I want, and I think there are too many NIMBYs who are all heart, no head. Never mind that these modern 5/1 monstrosities tend to make things bland and useless, and real businesses can't really move in.
hx87 t1_j6jzr3c wrote
99.9% of the new 5/1 apartment buildings that get built would look beautiful if developers 1) stopped trying to push windows as far to the outside as possible (because residents have a window sill space fetish, apparently) and inset windows 4 inches from the wall and 2) used strong, saturated colors instead of the bland shitty beige/gray palette.
pillbinge t1_j6k2xww wrote
My take is this. How many streets in Charlestown look beautiful? The brick and tight streets with shade. Beacon Hill is famous. One of the most famous streets in the country is Elfreth St. People want this.
People have sterile white, gray tones because that's easier to sell. It's ironically easier to sell because it's easy to paint over.
We just need to force developers to develop what we want. They aren't going to build to the vernacular anymore. They keep building stuff that makes no sense to me.
hellno560 t1_j6kmhp6 wrote
No it's just that alucabond (the material those are made of) comes in that color. Alucabond is cheap, easy and fast to install.
Vivecs954 t1_j6l38j7 wrote
Or if they stopped using hardi cement siding, and used an actually good looking exterior like brick.
Also if the buildings weren’t so huge, like they could build two slightly smaller adjacent buildings instead of one monster
hx87 t1_j6l715c wrote
Good brick looks much better than the best fiber cement, but bad brick can be much, much worse than the hackiest fiber cement installation. Think of the column bases of City Hall, or the average 1960s public housing project--acres of nothing but running bond red brick. No depth, no detail, just monolithic liminal space hell, like somebody was intentionally trying to build the backrooms IRL. Brick and architectural minimalism just don't mix.
To make brick look good you have to have contrasting brick bond patterns, actual lintels or arches above doors and windows (not some fake looking row of vertical bricks), actual sills that protrude beyond windows and aren't made of brick, and some depth to the brickwork. At least corbel the cornice, for goodness's sake.
Vivecs954 t1_j6n2s3l wrote
I’m not an architect or have any construction experience so when I said “brick” I meant good looking brick or other material. I see all sorts of new traditional style buildings built in Europe and they look beautiful and look like a part of the neighborhoods they are built in.
All the 5/1’s in Mansfield are a story taller than any other building, and are way more massive too. They stick out like a sore thumb.
wsdog t1_j6jfoyk wrote
Looks similarly shitty lol
pillbinge t1_j6jfzlm wrote
You're the only other person I've seen mention that term, only I use it for all the approved, "luxury" housing going up that's flimsy as shit, locked in time right now, and poorly designed from so many angles. We're just going to get more of that, but with the same care the state gives to its schools that are falling into disrepair - or however many state-run buildings for things like educators or police, in some cases.
Flashy_Positive1657 t1_j6jgcty wrote
RUSSIA BAD RUSSIA BAD RED SCARE 3.0
wsdog t1_j6jgwfn wrote
You forgot your meds today?
[deleted] t1_j6jb04d wrote
[deleted]
WinsingtonIII t1_j6k9rkq wrote
There are plenty of places in the Boston metro where we could build more densely and address the issue. I'd support rail access between Boston and western MA myself, but it's hard to see western MA being the real solution to the Boston area's housing crisis. It's not really close enough and there are places much closer that could add denser housing anyways.
Also, you're ignoring that a lot of people do want to live reasonably close to Boston and the ocean. I like the Berkshires but I don't really want to live there personally.
Rindan t1_j6l6zwq wrote
I'm pretty sure the solution isn't low density housing in places that people don't want to live. It's great if you want to live in more rural areas, but they are rural for a reason, lower desire to be there. I actually like being able to walk outside my door, and walk to a coffee shop. I like that I can walk to all of my friends. I like that I can come home from work in my car, and then never touch it again.
The solution is to let people build higher density housing in places that people want to live.
[deleted] t1_j6kevf0 wrote
[deleted]
WinsingtonIII t1_j6khhmn wrote
I’m in my 30s and I don’t want to live in western MA. It’s nice, but I like density and walkability, and I like the ocean. I don’t think I’m the only person over 30 who feels the same way.
By all means, transit to western MA would be great. But not everyone wants to be a 2 hour train ride from the coast.
Also, since when do people over 30 not care about bars and restaurants? We might not care at all about being out until 2am, but we still like to get dinner or hang out with friends.
Swimming_Giraffe420 t1_j6kac4x wrote
It won’t be beautiful anymore if you cut down the forests and clog the area with more people.
[deleted] t1_j6kep7j wrote
[deleted]
wildthing202 t1_j6mlgwj wrote
Obviously you dig underground and put people there. That way the forest stays on top and the people have somewhere to live. If you can make giant mines you can make housing underground...
Maxpowr9 t1_j6koof2 wrote
I feel like a broken record at times but we really need to start building up Worcester and Springfield and not rely on Boston to be the economic engine of the state.
Vivecs954 t1_j6l3glh wrote
If that was possible we would’ve have done that a century ago. There will never be another Boston anywhere.
[deleted] t1_j6kg7t4 wrote
[removed]
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6muawi wrote
> Most people over 30 don’t care about bars, restaurants which Boston has in abundance -
I'd argue the suburbs nearly always have better bars and restaurants than anything Boston offers.
tjrileywisc t1_j6jvu1u wrote
That sounds massively expensive.
Also it's not where the demand is now, which is in the eastern side of the state. Why push against supply and demand in this way?
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j6jfp9x wrote
Classify single family zoning as illegal redlining and abolish it statewide via executive order. Start tearing down all these dilapidated mid-century shacks that are full of asbestos, mold, and lead, that Boomers didn’t do an honest day of work on since 1985. Replace them with 5-over-1 buildings. Have by-right construction of up to six stories with first floor commercial, for any pre-1979 house that hasn’t been officially deleaded yet. In general, start condemning buildings which fail to meet codes from 50 years ago, and grant developers the right to build 6 stories higher without a permit. Grandfathering codes has gone way too far.
The housing stock in this region is fucking disgraceful. It’s not even that it’s too expensive. It’s that so many of these buildings are barely fit for human habitation. It really is New England, eh? Both Englands are leading their continent in substandard, dangerous housing stock.
[deleted] t1_j6kgckr wrote
[removed]
sadgringopapi t1_j6jjvy4 wrote
>Classify single family zoning as illegal redlining
wow what a stupid fucking comment
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6js5oq wrote
Not stupid at all. Single family zoning was explicitly created as a way around a supreme court decision (Buchanan v. Warley) that barred explicit racial covenants.
And in practice, Oregon has already banned it in most of the state, Washington is set to follow, and California has functionally done so in much of the state. Minneapolis has banned it city wide. Cambridge MA is generally expected to do so in the next year or two.
[deleted] t1_j6kgfw3 wrote
[removed]
BasilExposition75 t1_j6j3vp6 wrote
" the so-called MBTA Communities law — requires communities served by the MBTA and commuter rail to zone for denser housing near transit systems."
I get the point of this law, but this is a little ridiculous how it is implemented. I can see building dense housing within walking distance of train stops, but they are doing this by town and even the ones next to them. Example, there is a train stop in Natick, but Dover and Sherborn count. I used to live in that area and it is a 20 minute drive to the train station. Sherborne doesn't have a lot of amenities..
Same with Billerica. Carlisle is impacted but had like one country store and very sidewalks. In some towns, the train is on the border and you can be a long ways from the station.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities
jbray90 t1_j6j75k5 wrote
All that’s changing is the zoning though. Developers will still have to determine if the market wants high density in a given location. The law only prevents towns from denying the ability to build densely if that’s the will of the market.
BasilExposition75 t1_j6j7sxh wrote
If you build a 2000 unit apartment complex in Sherbone, all you are doing is ensuring traffic. Zoning is designed to maximize the use of public utilities. Shit, I don't even thing Sherbone has a public water system. I know Carlisle doesn't.
alohadave t1_j6jizb2 wrote
> Zoning is designed to maximize the use of public utilities.
And to limit development, and to limit density, and keep out undesirable people.
In Quincy, with the current zoning, I could not build my house on my lot. I cannot add a floor to my house. I cannot add an accessory dwelling unit.
BasilExposition75 t1_j6jqxb1 wrote
I am not arguing that zoning is never used irresponsibly. It surely is.
Does your lot have town water and sewage? Gas? If there is town sewage. I don't know about the infrastructure, but I imagine an accessory might not impact the infrastructure in you area. If everyone on your street did, it might require a major overhaul. That is a decision that needs to be made at the local level.
My section of town has wells. A newer subdivision installed 10 wells some years back and everyone else's wells went dry. Now, our zoning requires subdivisions to have on shared well with an impact study done prior. The state rules would allow developers to skip that.
I hear what you are saying, but zoning laws are often there for a reason and it isn't usually to keep people out.
jbray90 t1_j6j9dak wrote
All things any developer would have to consider when deciding how to utilize a property. This is exactly why the law was created. The mindset has assumed that only single family detached homes are reasonable and so we’ve zoned for that exclusively. Developers could literary just build single family attached homes under the new zoning that would have been impossible before. The assumption that developers are going to spend a fortune building a property with 2000 units in a location where that demand doesn’t exist is silly. Now places can be upbuilt over time without NIMBYs shooting down anything that isn’t single family detached homes
BasilExposition75 t1_j6jflnu wrote
It really isn't lack of demand that is the issue. I am sure 2000 people would love to get into the Dover/Sherborn school system. You drop a big development into these smaller towns, the school system might not have enough seats.
There are other issues at play here. Transportation and infrastructure need to be considered. Not every street in every town has city water/sewage/gas. Not every town has public transportation and sidewalks. Each town is unique and has their own sets of challenges, thus why we have local zoning.
snorkeling_moose t1_j6k7cv1 wrote
I mean nobody would build a 2000 unit building in a town that doesn't have water/sewage/gas to support it. You think they're just gonna slap up a building without functioning toilets, heat, or water? And if they somehow miraculously pull that off, that the building will be occupied?
And yeah, you're right, the issue ISN'T lack of demand. It's lack of supply. Hence the zoning proposition.
Yakb0 t1_j6kb7fi wrote
>You think they're just gonna slap up a building without functioning toilets, heat, or water? And if they somehow miraculously pull that off, that the building will be occupied?
I'm sure Alpha management would be interested.
snorkeling_moose t1_j6ke7e3 wrote
True, but to be fair I think they're like one mismanaged building away from drawing arsonists to their properties
ABucs260 t1_j6ka0ga wrote
North Billerica station already has multi-family units within the radius of the station, and is also pretty well used by those in the surrounding towns as well, considering Tewksbury, Lowell, Chelmsford etc
BasilExposition75 t1_j6kkwft wrote
Yeah, that makes sense to me and is what we should be encouraging. The other option is to build more tracks, but with more bike paths being built on the old ones I don't think that will be happening...
Roszo21 t1_j6kmhb0 wrote
I really love this law, but I do LOL at Healey taking public credit for the Baker administration's work.
I do think there's further to go, in that this law is best coupled with additional investment in the bus and commuter rail system. Many towns have access to the MBTA, but it's not really usable access.
BasilExposition75 t1_j6kotwn wrote
Right, like let's built dense near rail... Maybe next near the highway... but encouraging people to sprawl with cars based upon being "close" to rail seems like they are using the MBTA community law as an excuse.
asmithey t1_j6le5ax wrote
It'll be up to her administration and all subsequent administrations to enforce it. Writing the law was the easy part, getting towns to agree to it and do the re-zoning will be the hard part.
[deleted] t1_j6kgmdi wrote
[removed]
Financial_Dream_9292 t1_j6jw20c wrote
I would like to remind people of the fact of the housing crisis. This would be the idea of being in constant crisis of working for at least 10 years and not owning a home. How about a creditors factual update on all details of credit score requirements and fundamentals. PUBLICIZED to all individuals in the world by any form of publication.
ari_iaccarino t1_j6jhq1b wrote
All second residential properties owned by individuals or companies in MA should be taxed heavily to the point of them being unprofitable. Obviously more housing needs to be built, but at this point landlords of all sizes are exhibiting parasitic behavior that undercuts community development and real small businesses.
[deleted] t1_j6kgld5 wrote
[removed]
ReasonExcellent600 t1_j6kfuky wrote
Tax the sprawlers
Fireb1rd t1_j6kk1i3 wrote
Will you please stop spamming the thread with this? You made your point, anything beyond that is basically masturbatory graffiti.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6muoy5 wrote
Yeah, damn those people and their...
<checks notes>
...building housing outside of major cities, thus decreasing the excessive demand for downtown housing that has created the very problems this thread is discussing.
[deleted] t1_j6klraq wrote
[deleted]
Lemonio t1_j6kqpmz wrote
This seems light on details of what will actually be done
singlespeeder69 t1_j6n3gjr wrote
Step one, everyone works Step two, do away with government assistance Step three, the price of rent and real estate will adjust to levels the working people can afford...
getmeoutoftax t1_j6nageg wrote
Good. A solution that might actually work. Rent control is something that nearly every economist agrees is a bad policy.
[deleted] t1_j6jhcqk wrote
[deleted]
Elfich47 t1_j6kqb58 wrote
I want to see changes to the property tax laws: If you don't have a permanent resident in the apartment, your property taxes get increased.
This would be put in place to combat AirBnB. You want to run a hotel, you pay extortionate property taxes.
greyrabbit12 t1_j6iuzjz wrote
She should give back the money she gave herself on her day one 28% raise, crook already.
johndburger t1_j6j2l9s wrote
False, she didn’t give herself a raise. That happened because of a law that the Legislature passed in 2017. Baker got a raise in 2019 under the same law.
fuzzy_viscount t1_j6j3jmg wrote
Actual facts don’t matter to these people.
BlaineTog t1_j6j0ai0 wrote
Don't be mad she got a 28% raise. Be mad that everyone making under $100k didn't.
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j6iu616 wrote
Anyone who thinks more building will lower housing costs are the mirror image to those who believe Trickle Dow Economics will benefit the middle class/poor.
giritrobbins t1_j6iv71u wrote
It's been studied and shown to be the case.
The issue is the built up demand is so significant it will take ages to stabilize.
orangehorton t1_j6iwj01 wrote
This is literally economics 101. Increase in supply leads to lower prices
BlaineTog t1_j6j0tip wrote
Demand currently outstrips supply. As long as that continues to be the case, the housing crisis cannot be solved.
That said, you're correct that this isn't the only change that needs to be made. If you increase supply without raising taxes on homes past your primary resistance, you just encourage rental companies and investment portfolios to gobble up the new units so they can control prices and keep people renting. Building more houses and apartment buildings is a necessary step, but it's one part of a system of related changes that we need.
johndburger t1_j6j3k4y wrote
Mirror image meaning they’re correct? It’s just common sense that building more supply reduces prices, and it’s been shown to be empirically true in dozens of studies.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_j6ixj6h wrote
As opposed to what? telling those people to move or live 2 hours from their work?
WinsingtonIII t1_j6j7uq8 wrote
This isn't the same principle as trickle down at all.
It's literally just "if there's more housing, it's easier to get". Which is basic common sense. Luxury buildings can't charge as much if there are too many of them, which means that the smaller landlords have to drop prices too since there is more competition for renters.
mshelikoff t1_j6kebk2 wrote
You're right because "increase by less" is not the same as "lower." In most situations, building more housing will cause housing costs to increase by less than they would without building more housing. It would take so much new housing to sufficiently flood the market and lower housing costs that no politician would discuss such a dramatic change.
Redditors who don't pay close attention to words think you're wrong because ideology matters more than plain text in the US in the 2020s. It's a shame that so many people feel words first and think about their actual meaning later, if at all.
willzyx01 t1_j6ik79v wrote
Allow developers to build up, stop asking NIMBYs for their opinions on shadows at 5:30am.