There’s also the cost to build this, which won’t be cheap for the developer.

Everyone is always pissed at the greedy evil 1980s movie villain developer, but the reality is that they’re not necessarily making a killing (at least right away) on a new build $2500/month 1BR.

Don’t get me wrong, plenty of developers are greedy bastards. But that this sub thinks the market will magically produce “affordable” housing on its own is a joke - everyone building this new housing needs to get paid, or it’s not going to get built. That’s going to set some kind of floor on how low the rents / sale prices can realistically be on these new buildings, unless the government steps in to help reduce costs.

Assuming that 1BR is ~900sf, and a sf cost of ~$300, it’s about $270k to build. At $2500/month that’s ~ 9 years for the developer property manager to get their money back on the unit. Over a decade, then, from when they made their initial investment in the property pre-construction. They can reduce that $300/sf cost, of course, to pull those numbers down - my point is simply that this isn’t the magical money printing machine for the developers and property managers that everyone seems to think it is.

If it was there would be more multi-family housing being built, zoning and NIMBY problems or not. You find ways through those things if the money is right (look at all the lab space we’ve built).

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.

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.

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.

Ah, so maybe it makes a certain amount of sense then, given the state of things.

Maybe it has something to do with switching at JFK?

(I may just be outing myself as knowing nothing about how the trains work, IDK)

Flip side of this: as an Ashmont rider there was nothing more frustrating that hitting back to back Braintree trains and then the next Ashmont train is full. Which (pre-Covid) happened all the time at peak hours.

Even if you managed to get on it was miserable, packed until the end of the line.

But why run both back to back? I always assumed there was some ridership data to back up running 2 Braintree 1 Ashmont - but if they have they same number of trains in service why wouldn’t you just alternate?

Yeah, this is the safe / probable bet.

Sure, but some others are still looking for space.

The developers don’t want to spend money in 2023 unless there’s a tenant, and plenty of companies are tightening their belts or seeing investment streams dry up. But others, like some institutional tenants, are planning for 2024 and beyond in terms of their space needs.

I don’t disagree with you that the book may be over, but you’re right that it isn’t crashing either. Life-science has dramatically cooled in just the last 4-6 months. We’ll probably not have a good sense of how things look until 6+ months from now.

As much as private equity will finance.

We’ve had companies leasing and fitting out lab space they don’t have the staff to fill for years. They lease space in a new building based on the investment money they’ve received and their hopeful projection of “maybe someday” growth. Then some amount of their space is either empty or gets sublet to a smaller start-up.

At this point labs aren’t really coming out of the ground without an anchor tenant - things are going on hold or dying outright, as the developers tighten up and wait to see what 2023 brings. There are still tenants looking for space, tho - life science is a thriving industry in Boston, and you can’t do lab work at home.

And so maybe this project should be built - I didn’t say it shouldn’t be.

Do you know the area? And have you seen the project proposal? I haven’t seen the proposed building, so I’m reserving judgment - since the average person on this sub couldn’t even find this neighborhood other than on a Red Line map, I’m not sure we’re dealing with informed opinions. Everyone’s just screaming “NIMBYs bad” for fake internet points.

That’s in Mattapan.

Edit: One of these projects in Mattapan by the Fairmount line is under construction, off Morton Street. Looks like a lot of units going in, I’m curious to see how it turns out.

I’d also suggest, with no disrespect meant, that not knowing where these projects even are should give people pause in having such energetic opinions.

I mean, what evidence do we have that their stance is “I got mine, fuck you”?

This sub is full of people who are a) lying to themselves about how they would react in similar situations (big condo building next door, homeless shelter next door, whatever), and b) vilifying anyone who says “wait a minute, this building might suck in this location”.

Honestly, did you find plans for this project? Assuming no, how do you know these neighbors are being assholes? How do you know fewer units than the developer started with us worse? Just because of our housing shortage? So we should just jam high density shit everywhere, when there’s actually plenty of developable land for housing that isn’t in established neighborhoods?

NIMBYs are a fundamental problem with housing development throughout the greater Boston area - in my own neighborhood (suburb) I am someone defending increased density from NIMBY attacks. That doesn’t mean the developers should get to do whatever they want, or that the maxed-out site is always the right answer. You can be a YIMBY and still fight for appropriateness in these project.

Coming this hard at anyone who speaks up and trashing them as a NIMBY is also just the other side of the same “housing extremist” coin. NIMBYs are, yes, assholes who only care about themselves and their weird fantastical sense of their communities - but as I said, not everyone questioning development is actually a NIMBY. Screaming about it isn’t going to help solve the problem, it’s only going to further alienate these people as individuals who are not from their communities stomp their feet about forcing through multi family residential.

I don’t think that at this point very many people deny that “liberal hypocrisy” is contributing to inequality.

Are there images anywhere? I looked around a bit and couldn’t quickly find anything.

I know this sub is overrun by “NIMBYs bad, blindly build housing everywhere” types, but I really don’t know how people are so full-throated in their support of this project at its original 100 units without seeing the renderings and plans. It might be fine, and it might also be a travesty.

The answer to Boston’s housing woes isn’t to just let developers build whatever they want on every lot they can find. Projects should be contextual, and increased density (meaning things like 100 unit condo buildings, not simply any kind of multi family) should probably be reserved for certain parts of each neighborhood. Parking (less so “traffic”) should also not be dismissed, as in a neighborhood like Dot I think it’s safe to assume a decent chunk of these people will have cars - not 100%, but not zero either. We can argue about whether or not people should need them, but can’t ignore the reality that plenty of people have a vehicle.

Regardless, I don’t see how we can be out here making an informed decision based on this less then substantial write up by the Globe. Renderings and drawings or we don’t know what we’re talking about.

Most people who have had children know what RSV is.

But yeah, for most people over the age of 1 or 2 RSV is a shitty cold. RSV was a big deal this year because it ripped through daycares and preschools - I realize it’s anecdotal, but everyone I know with kids under 5 had RSV in their home, and I know two people with babies that were hospitalized. It appears to have been a bad year for it.

No, I wrote it in a weird / unclear way.

I meant my position, to say people should stay home - not everyone can do that.

Sorry, I should say: this is an entitled position to take. Not everyone can work from home, or has the sick time.

I don’t know about ok_backbay, but generally this kind of common sense seems to elude an amazing number of people.

Most of the people I work with have been smart / thoughtful enough to work from home when sick - but I still know people going to work, walking around coughing and being gross, with some “I took a Covid test and I’m negative” nonsense.

Yeah, but you’re still sick dummy - get away from me.

Edit: I should say, I know this is coming from a privileged position where my coworkers and I can work from home. Not everybody has that opportunity - in which case people should probably mask-up when they’re sick, Covid or not.

I mean, you probably do need to make plans if you’re not interested in being around for World Cup fever - people are still going to stay in Boston and the metro area, if only because of hotel capacity. But realistic they’ll do it because nobody really wants to be a tourist in Foxborough.

It could be great - generate a lot of tourist dollars for the city without us building (with public subsidies / funds) a new stadium, and with the worst of the traffic a) not being downtown and b) being someplace that regularly has terrible traffic due to sporting events.

None of the three things you listed are why people aren’t building more residential.

Feel free to provide examples of the BPDA post-Menino being “corrupt shitbags” and how it negatively impacted the public.

Edit: Also, absolutely fucking not. Wu’s doing it because she ran on a bunch of populist nonsense she can’t actually do anything about - like she ran for class president and promised no homework and extra recess. She has no functional plan for a post-BPDA City of Boston.

Edit2: Also, the BPDA - and the BRA before it - is fully controlled by the mayor. So the notion that Mumbles was cool and an “urban mechanic” (🤮) but that the BRA was “bad” is a joke. And the idea that the BPDA is corrupt and mayor Wu is going to fix it is also largely a joke - being as she could have done whatever she wanted to with the BPDA on day 1.

And in doing so left the BRA (now BPDA) saddled with this legacy of a notion of corruption. The BPDA in its current form is a net positive for the city (and has been since Walsh came in), but people can’t get over how shittily things worked under Menino’s cronyism and NIMBYism.

Now we’ve got Wu promising to kill a thing that is full of staff working hard to improve the city and hold developers accountable. The city has an organization that has transformed from an “Urban Renewal” monstrosity to something beyond a simple planning board, which has vision for growth and improvement, has broad powers to demand more (including cash payments) from large developments, and gives the city government teeth in dealing with development in the city. But everyone hates it because of some stories they have from the 90s and because of the Seaport. Thanks Mumbles.

Also, true to his being a NIMBY he didn’t even help out Hyde Park, which continues to be mostly a forgotten part of the city. Hyde Park square should be a thriving location, but I think it may be even worse off than it was 20+ years ago.

This is the worst kind of pandering IMO. The Commonwealth could obviously use this money for all sorts of different projects, and these politicians acting like “we have no choice, it’s the law” are full of it. The legislature knew this was happening and could have moved to do something about it - but instead they want to be able to tell their constituents they gave them a few bucks back.

The state infrastructure is a mess, the T is literally on fire… but let’s send everyone a couple hundred bucks or so and pretend like that’s actually useful in these inflationary and unpredictable times.

Also, I happily voted yes on 1 but have to say that if we want to ring more money out of millionaires (which we should - 4% on everything over a million isn’t hurting you) we shouldn’t be giving back tax money we’ve already collected.

And don’t come at me about how they didn’t have a choice. They write the laws, they had a choice.