dny6

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

1

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

2

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

2

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

2

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.

6

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

7

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

5

dny6 t1_ixdb0m0 wrote

Well, first — there are people who live there who do enjoy the change. There are also people who hate any change but will possibly change their minds as they get used to it.

Second — these streets belong to the city and are funded and used by all residents of the city. I’m not sure why people live in the city if they can’t accept that.

0

dny6 t1_ixcldd9 wrote

The city could probably get much more housing by allowing 4-6 family development by right instead of allowing the rich of Brattle to cut off their neighborhood with exclusionary zoning. North Cam is almost exclusively zoned for only 2 family despite being right next to alewife and Davis and porter

In general I support any free market solution to housing, but sky scraper housing adds a lot of people without many businesses

1