Yak_Rodeo t1_j2b3c8y wrote
at the risk of being exiled from this group i am probably a little bit more “nimby” than most on this page, in the sense that i dont think we need to scramble to turn boston into a metropolis like new york but…this is a little ridiculous
shawmut is one of the least used stations and there really is no reason an auto body shops needs to be on a parcel literally next to t property
as for neighborhood character, theres a pretty large apartment building right on the corner of melbourne st and plenty along washington st/talbot, why are those fine but not this?
its too bad we couldnt reroute the tracks and place a station right in codman instead of nestled between million dollar homes on melville and ashmont hill
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2b7uzu wrote
Don't apologize because you want to keep your area the way it is!!!!
People buy homes not only for the home, but for the area too. There is NOTHING wrong with having neighborhoods where people can feel like they can walk, ride bikes, is safe for children, with some outdoor yard space and places to park.
Those who cry NIMBY are the ignorants who don't understand the word and throw it around like confetti thinking people will back down or change their minds. Screw that.
If people wanted to live in a congested area they would live in one. Absolutely nothing to feel ashamed about, and stop apologizing for wanting to live your life as you want.
dtmfadvice t1_j2bu7i0 wrote
Housing is a human right.
There are more people than there were fifty years ago.
There are more people living in Boston than there were 50 years ago.
We've been adding jobs faster than we've been adding homes for several decades now.
If we don't increase the number of homes, people with more money will outbid people with less money for the homes.
Your choices are "keep the buildings the same and have skyrocketing prices, homelessness and displacement" vs "build more homes and have density, so there's homes for everyone."
Keeping your neighborhood the way it used to be is not an option. Nostalgia is lovely but is absolutely poisonous as a housing policy.
ShawshankExemption t1_j2c61hf wrote
When you buy your house you get no covenants, no promises that your neighbors will change, that their houses wont change. It’s rights to that one property, it’s not rights to influence what your neighbors do and make demands of them.
Safe neighbors, walkability, outdoor space, arent contra more housing, they aren’t contra apartment buildings.
Quite literally people do want to live in these ‘congested’ areas. That’s why there is demand for housing in them. Hell 20-30 years ago and before dorchester was considered a congested area compared to the suburbs. There is a damn mass transit station across the street.
NIMBY is ‘not in my back yard’ its someone who thinks their property, their yard, extends to their neighbors, and down their street. It’s someone who thinks they have a right to dictate to others what they can do with their own property simply by having been in the general area first. By preventing these condos/apts they are preventing families from safe shelter, people from moving out in their own for the first time, from downsizing in old age to housing they can manage.
Codspear t1_j2d6oq6 wrote
> There is NOTHING wrong with having neighborhoods where people can feel like they can walk, ride bikes, is safe for children, with some outdoor yard space and places to park.
Density and people don’t make neighborhoods dangerous, cars make them dangerous. Even the densest parts of NYC were perfectly safe to do all those things in 1900. Who knew that crisscrossing the human environment with fast-moving heavy machinery would be so dangerous? Especially for children.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2d240q wrote
Here, have another downvote
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2d9pas wrote
Thank you. It just outs people who have zero regard for neighborhoods, and are just sellouts to developers who don't care about it either. We can see how many people support developers who come into neighborhoods to make their millions.
People have rights to decide how their area is developed. Many more are starting to speak up against over building.
There is no need to turn Boston/MA into a large city/cities. Supporters are destroying the area in some delusional thinking that more building will bring prices down.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2ddle6 wrote
“Delusional thinking” -> all the papers published about housing costs
theliontamer37 t1_j2df894 wrote
Lol building will bring prices down. You’re from New Hampshire too. Lmfao can’t make this shit up
Prodigal_Moon t1_j2e7wss wrote
Holy shit, you debunked supply and demand? I can’t wait to read the paper.
3720-To-One t1_j2e1vsk wrote
Please enlighten us as to where everyone is supposed to live?
Somehow I doubt you get this bent out of shape every time there’s some new office or lab space built downtown.
Guess what, each new lab or office space just further increases demand for housing.
“I got mine, fuck anybody else.”
No, you are not entitled to have your neighborhood never change. Your neighborhood was not ordained by god, and at one point, it was probably farmland.
Codspear t1_j2ee8r9 wrote
> We can see how many people support developers who come into neighborhoods to make their millions.
Yes, I support people who provide a human necessity, shelter. I’m also a sellout to farmers who plant and harvest thousands of acres of land to make their millions too. I’m also a sellout to biotech companies that develop new ways to treat and cure illnesses to make their millions as well.
It’s almost as if people who do things that are necessary should get paid for it. Crazy thought.
> People have rights to decide how their area is developed. Many more are starting to speak up against over building.
Why should you have more of a right to determine how a property is developed than the owner of the property itself? If I and a few neighbors think your property should be an ice cream shop, should we be able to force you to bulldoze your house to provide us an ice cream shop?
> There is no need to turn Boston/MA into a large city/cities. Supporters are destroying the area in some delusional thinking that more building will bring prices down.
It’s already a large city and should organically get larger if the demand is there to do so. Building more is the only way to drop prices and allow more people the opportunity to live in the area. Also, Boston was destroyed when it passed 10k people, and then again when it passed 100k people, and then again when it passed 500k people. It’ll be destroyed again when it passes 1 million people and then again when it hits 1.5 million. Boston is always dead and always dying, ever since the Puritans first arrived. Hell, even the Massachusett tribe probably destroyed it after taking it from some other tribe a century earlier. Places change, just accept it.
huron9000 t1_j2f7nob wrote
Yes! Really like the way you put this all.
drowsylacuna t1_j2di9qy wrote
One of the complaints is limited parking for the new development. I don't think the neighbors are too concerned about walking and riding bikes.
3720-To-One t1_j2e1d9m wrote
“I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
Yeah, except that your NIMBYism screws over everyone else, when there’s a massive housing shortage because everyone thinks that they are entitled to never have their neighborhood change, ever, and that everyone else looking for a place to live needs to go somewhere else.
Well guess what, somewhere else is also filled with NIMBYs with your exact same attitude.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2bazf8 wrote
its an understandable argument
most people on here didnt grow up here and dont have the same reference for their neighborhood as maybe you and i did, they just want their rent to go down, which is fair
i just dislike the notion around here sometimes that we need to become this super high density city for…some reason
liberal_hack t1_j2cosgr wrote
Because there is huge demand to live in this city? We could continue to grow our economy and provide high quality of life to lots of people.
Dickheads that already got theirs and want the state to arbitrarily restrict housing to pump up their property values are a blight on this and every city.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2cp3zz wrote
my point being we dont need to be a massive metropolis city
we are and can be a good mid sized city, we dont need to be continually outpacing our housing stock by bringing in high paying tech jobs and squeezing out the middle class
liberal_hack t1_j2cph62 wrote
Building housing helps the middle class. Restricted housing just leads to highest bidders getting limited stock, pricing out people down the income scale disproportionately.
We shouldn’t arbitrarily decide what size city we want, we should just build enough housing to meet the demand. Otherwise people end up priced out and suffering low quality of life with long commutes.
We could build 150,000 units and still be nowhere near a “metropolis”. If every one of those got filled we’d still only be the 18th most populous city in the country.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2cpv89 wrote
because city land is far smaller than most other cities in the country, we are like the 8th biggest metro
i never said that i am against building housing, just that a blanket “build” policy is not conducive to building neighborhoods and communities. the seaport is a perfect example of building soulless neighborhoods
take care of boston residents before enticing more and more biotech and life science startups here
Codspear t1_j2d7es4 wrote
> i never said that i am against building housing, just that a blanket “build” policy is not conducive to building neighborhoods and communities. the seaport is a perfect example of building soulless neighborhoods.
Nearly all of Boston was built out under a blanket build policy. Ever notice how cities in the Northeast suddenly had housing shortages and stopped growing right after they instituted zoning laws? What if zoning laws were implemented in 1890 instead and Boston was stuck at half its current size but at twice the price? What if everything south of Melnea Cass was single-family housing only instead of the neighborhood you know now? Would that have been better? And if it wouldn’t be, how do you know that where your neighborhood is now is the best it could be? Why wasn’t it better when it was only farms?
Also, the Seaport was centrally planned by the city under community-directed zoning. Boston prioritized jobs back then because it was still largely working class in the 90’s. Seaport is intentionally a second downtown. That’s what was voted for.
dtmfadvice t1_j2dy9zl wrote
You don't get to pick where other people live. You don't get to limit the population. You can't prohibit people from doing work and getting paid for it in the name of keeping your hometown from changing.
China's hukou system, which requires permits for rural people to move to cities, is a dystopian nightmare and it doesn't even stop people from moving to cities illegally.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2dz3xe wrote
deciding on the direction the city goes is literally what voting is for lol
ill keep voting the way i want, thanks though
just_planning_ahead t1_j2du0e1 wrote
I grew up here though this shouldn't matter. You don't need a lifetime of living here to recognize "character of the neighborhood".
If your statement is "I don't want Boston to become Manhattan", I think most wouldn't disagree with that. The downvotes reflects not a desire to turn Boston into Manhattan, but to try to stop Boston from becoming San Francisco***.
I'm seeing more and more people in my life moving out to stupidly far locations out of Boston. I bet you would just say they are just "reaching that phase of life", but that ignores my friend's words that a lot would pick something closer - if they can afford it. The only people in my life who been avoiding that so far are people-living-with-their-parents or techies - and even some of the techies moving out
What good is "preserving the neighborhood" if the people you know and care about can't afford to stay in the neighborhood?
And that's the thing with your argument. Regardless of what your claims, the results mean you're advocating to become SF. A city where the 6-figure income techies only really afford apartments reminiscent to your college years and a constantly-under-siege class of essential workers essentially winning the lottery through one of the affordable housing programs.
***It is notable that latest news that Boston has surpassed SF in rent prices. But what the news haven't cover as much is SF's rent prices has been decreasing lately rather than we finally catch up.
3720-To-One t1_j2e3ej9 wrote
“What good is "preserving the neighborhood" if the people you know and care about can't afford to stay in the neighborhood?”
As far as NIMBYs care, “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2bdmty wrote
This is the new Manifest Destiny attitude, and I bet most of the people are the ones who think they are so socially aware about everything.
Then of course there is the aspect that the proposed design of areas by Climate Changers, think we all need to live in high rise apartments on top of each other so they can get live their dream of everyone abandoning their cars and use public transportation.
Time to recycle this trash and tell them there are plenty of places in the country they can go to live out their utopian society
ShawshankExemption t1_j2c6gol wrote
Half of your posts are about traffic in NH. Go move to your perfect utopia there if you think someone should move and if you hate the idea of more people moving into your neighborhood, practice what you preach and leave.
3720-To-One t1_j2e3mo7 wrote
I swear to god, conservatives LOVE to complain about a problem, while also scoffing at the very things that would alleviate said problem.
And of course, it’s always everyone else that’s the problem that needs to leave or change, not them.
[deleted] t1_j2bsx9s wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments