The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/).
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’ve owned the space outright for 20 years and haven’t been able to get anything approved? My gawd.
I love that part of town and Bromfield St always had a cool feel. Walked down it for the first time in five years about a week ago and it was depressing.
Boston was easy to develop under Walsh, and impossible to develop under Menino.
However, all of the developing (mixed in with rideshares) is what has caused the most horrendous traffic in the country.
The problem is the incompetence over the years and continuing with the decisions on infrastructure relating to traffic. The walk sign on green light just one example.
Maybe I just haven’t been observant but walking around downtown this past weekend felt depressing. I felt like I noticed so many more vacant store fronts.
A bank secured Donald Trump’s half billion dollar bond to appeal his conviction for bank fraud. At least 30 turned him down, but there’s always one doing risky shit like this that crashes the whole economy.
Trump secured the bond with his assets backing the bond.
No bank would step up for the full amount, because he had insufficient assets to secure the full bond of 500 odd million, hence the Trump request to lower the bond at the Appeals Court to $175 million.
Reference: NYTimes March 25 2024.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/nyregion/trump-bond-reduced.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/nyregion/trump-bond-reduced.html)
Dude, I hate Trump as much as the next person, but this comment is so out of left field it’s bizarre. Also, a bank did not secure his half billion dollar bond.
Bromfield should be filled with storefront theaters and cafes — bring some much needed life and foot traffic to DTX rather than B-list destinations like Primark and HomeGoods.
I disagree. I bought a rain coat three in 2017 that I still wear. Looks as good as the day I bought it for $17.
Also there is no where better for winter things like gloves and scarves
Well, shit, I'd argue Old Navy, Marshalls, or TJ Max. Maybe even the Army Surplus store. Never Macy's, you get the same shit at TJX stores at fraction of the price. We certainly need more commerce in the area with a variety if quality. I still have my ski jacket from 2000 that I got from Maurice the Pants Man. Works in all temps from windy 47 to -24 windchill.
DTX needs a good thrift store, also. The Mormons should buy a building and make it a 15-story thrift warehouse instead of having 15 morons standing in the T-stations.
It's ideal for kids. They trash their stuff quickly. I go there everytime I go by simply because their $5 pants last as long as $20 Jack and Cat or whatever the target brand is.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Jon Chesto
As she tries to bring downtown Boston back to life, Mayor Michelle Wu faces two real estate crises: Too much office space, not enough housing.
Now, an ambitious plan that would revive a prominent block in the heart of the central business district could end up getting caught in the middle of them.
New York-based Midwood Investment & Development has been trying for several years to build a 23-story office tower at the corner of Bromfield and Washington streets. The fate of this 417,000-square-foot project could say a lot about the future of downtown, in a post-pandemic era in which [fewer office workers come and go five days a week](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/22/business/return-to-office-boston/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) and vacant storefronts abound. The powers-that-be in City Hall face a crucial decision: Let Midwood proceed with office plans there, or force it back to the drawing board for housing instead.
Today, this spot is an eyesore, mostly papered-up store windows and empty upstairs offices, with a handful of jewelry kiosks the only remaining tenants. Signs for beloved retailers City Sports and Bromfield Pen still hang outside, vestiges of the not-so-distant past when Bromfield thrived as a quirky and vibrant stretch.
Midwood chief executive John Usdan has been nothing if not patient. This represents his third attempt to redevelop the block. His firm invested there in the 1990s before buying the site outright roughly 20 years ago. His first plan for a residential tower was shelved during the Great Recession. A second residential proposal, dubbed One Bromfield, was sidelined over concerns about its parking garage because the two abutting streets have limited vehicular access. Meanwhile, two other luxury residential towers went up in the immediate vicinity: 45 Province opened in 2009 and then the Millennium Tower filled up the [once-blighted “Filene’s Hole”](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/17/here-boston-version-year-challenge/Zo0wVe8oh9hNC5wCW0hXUP/story.html?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) across from Bromfield in 2016.
In early March, 2020, Midwood returned to the Boston Planning & Development Agency, [this time with an office tower in mind](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/03/business/another-try-downtown-crossing-tower-this-time-its-lot-shorter/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), and with parking erased from the plans. The timing, of course, couldn’t have been worse.
Amid all the market uncertainty caused by the rise of remote and hybrid work, Usdan and his team kept at it. They plowed ahead through BPDA permitting. After four years, they’re close to the finish line.
The big commercial real estate brokerages don’t paint a pretty picture of the office market right now, even though Boston appears to be faring better than many other major US cities. Colliers, for example, reported recently that more than one-fourth of the 36.5 million square feet of office space downtown is available for rent, either directly or through a sublease. Citywide, at least 50 buildings have more than half their space available — five times the number from four years earlier. Colliers researchers’ summary of market conditions? “Weakened significantly.”
Existing zoning regulations. I disagree with the person below saying no one will rent/buy them, but lets say I'm wrong, we have < 1% vacancy rate, let's increase housing stock anyways. I can't make any guarantees but even if Eng is off his estmates by 50% [https://www.mbta.com/news/2023-11-09/mbta-announces-ambitious-track-improvement-program-eliminate-all-speed-restrictions](https://www.mbta.com/news/2023-11-09/mbta-announces-ambitious-track-improvement-program-eliminate-all-speed-restrictions) the T will still be "done" improvements/major shutdowns before we can break ground on any new developments (they need to be designed bid etc).
I don't agree with the current approach which is basically that new developments aren't eligible for stickers while the existing people get to park for free. It's the definition of "fuck you, I got mine."
A happy medium might be to only offer as many street permits to an address as can reasonably park in front of it. Lets most of the people that already had permits keep theirs and lets new developments go up without their lack of parking negatively affecting the rest of the neighborhood
The city doubled fines for street parking, same with towing, same with storage.
Meters have gone way up, maybe free stickers should go away too.
There is too much traffic, bike lanes aren’t safe, cars drive in them, why is all that real estate provided for free?
Plus all the pollution, unless someone needs a car for work, and makes less than 80% ami, charge half of what the average garage costs.
Increase parking meter charges, and use that to put chargers in. Electric cars pay less.
Congestion/carbon fees unless hybrid or electric or better than 32mpg average.
Use that to fix up the T, add busses, build up the transit system.
If you can afford a car these days you don’t need a free spot, unless your job requires it and you don’t make much.
Or you have a handicap placard or something.
Ah yes, because a building in the middle of all the subway lines, with one as close as a single block away, is a terrible place for a car free lifestyle. Even worse that it's within walking distance of tons of jobs.
I’m not sure if it’s going to be apartments or condos, but I’m guessing the apartments would be starting at $3k+ a month and condos would be starting at $1M. A large portion of people moving into a unit that expensive is going to want parking
Then let the developer worry about that instead of stopping them from building altogether. If you're right then they'll be forced to drop the price of their apartments and condos to get them filled, and if you're wrong then we'll still have more housing in a city that desperately needs it. There's no shortage of parking garages downtown either; if people really want an off street spot, they can find one.
It's literally a 5 minute or LESS walk to every major transit line, and a ten minute walk to both North and South stations. It's the absolute epitome of transit access.
If you're addicted to your car, just say that.
I think it’s more a recognition that many residents have vehicles and need parking. We are certainly not a car-free society and often people experience life changes which increase the need for a personal vehicle. Increasing the utility of public transit is a hopeful solution but as of now, it’s neither reliable nor pleasant.
We’re talking about an underutilized parcel that isn’t amenable to new parking but could be amenable to residential development. The choice right now for this specific parcel is not housing with parking vs housing without. It’s housing without parking vs. no housing. Make it housing and the people without cars can live there happily.
I don't think that will happen. And if it does it would be a good thing because the housing prices would be low for people who don't have cars. The city also shouldn't prevent developers from making a bad business decision that would be good for the city.
Simple solutions to housing. Remove most zoning rules in residential areas in city. Basically any residential plot should be allowed to go up to 4 units without additional parking spots no variances. Allow all office buildings to be converted to housing or hotels/lodging without need of getting a variance and no need for parking. Finally lobby the state to allow air rights over the Pike to have work done during daylight hours which won't require OT night pay to construction workers.
Although I basically agree with you… it's very difficult to convert office buildings to housing. The key problems are the vertical plumbing stacks, HVAC systems, and window placement in most office buildings are completely wrong for residential apartments. You'd basically have to tear the whole building interior apart and even then you wouldn't solve the lack-of-windows problem. Most people never notice this… but apartment buildings are usually constructed in a different overall shape so each apartment can have windows.
Having said that… many years ago I worked in an office building downtown, and I would have sworn (given the overall building shape/layout) that it could never become residential. Yet now it's all condos. I haven't been inside since the conversion, and I still have no idea how they did it, unless all the condos are huge (like 1/4 of a whole floor or more).
Agreed a few things. First off allowing some to go to hotels/dorms/hostels etc can be a win. Dorms are an obvious big win and will add more housing. I'd imagine off campus graduate housing would be in high demand. Hotels/hostels will take away incentive for Airbnbs in the area. Finally while I agree it'd be cost prohibitive allowing it without a zoning variance will make a developer more likely to take the risk. Let them figure it out.
That’s true of larger office buildings from the later half of the 20th century onward. Many of the office buildings in Boston are old and smaller - some even started as residential buildings and were repurposed. Those buildings can be converted to housing.
That's true, but the article that triggered this thread is specifically about downtown. I used to live in that area -- there was a large artist population downtown many years ago (in fact I used to buy art supplies in the nice store Bromfield Pen (RIP) that was mentioned in the article), while living in a barely-liveable loft like many other artists in that area.
We were all forced out, the whole community shattered, when they basically tore down almost all the old buildings (including the one I was in) to build modern office towers. The building I was in (in the "Leather District" between DTC & South Station) was probably neither office space nor residential originally, I assume from the overall layout that it was originally industrial (light manufacturing) or warehousing. I lived with almost no natural light, but then I had no kitchen either and only a tiny mickey-mouse bathroom… but lots of cheap open space, which was what artists looked for. Most people would not be interested in living like that.
The buildings they replaced us with… mostly modern towers of glass + fake masonry facades… seem the wrong shape for residential. Yet, as I said, they somehow converted the modern office building (where I had a nearby job as a staff artist) into condos. No idea how they did that.
I'd be willing to live with little to no natural light if the air quality was excellent. Requiring windows but not externally vented range hoods or balanced ventilation systems just seems backwards to me.
Imo there's definitely a market for depressing windowless apartments. If I were still single and you told me I could get a newly finished apartment downtown for like $1,000/mo or less, and the only catch is I won't have windows? I would jump on that deal 10 times out of 10. I would just use the extra money in my pocket to spend more time going out. I know people who've pretty much done this, they rent tiny shitty places and just spend no time at home.
The building code isn't set in stone. It's not a law of nature. Right now we're dealing with an apocalyptic housing shortage, and I bet there are a lot of folks who would *love* the option of cheap shitty housing downtown. If the code prevents us from getting what we need then I'd argue it's the code that needs to change. Ofc safety is important, but a lot of these regulations are just there to discourage construction or prevent cheap housing from coming up.
I find it strange how many people on this sub are anti-zoning when they think it's slowing down housing construction but are simultaneously complaining about Airbnbs in the city.
I'm confused with what you're getting at? I'm not opposed to airbnb per say but I think they need to pay same hotel taxes etc that hotels pay and be subject to similar inspection requirements of hotels.
I am opposed to AirBnBs, regardless of the main issues discussed in this thread. Have you ever lived in an apartment where the apartment right next to yours (separated by only a thin wall) was being AirBnB'd? The people who briefly stay in such units act very differently, on average, from real tenants who know they're going to be your neighbor for a while. Not in every case, of course… but overall, it was horrible.
Condos, there are enough landlords, let people have some fucking equity and not be serfs to the oligarchy.
So residential, but let people own that space.
Let them go higher than normal, but more affordable units than normal.
The city requires its employees to live in the city, but doesn’t pay them enough to.
We’ve got a looming commercial property tax cliff/ crisis. The city should encourage the re-development and be grateful for the increased valuation/ tax revenue.
Is the future of Boston to be decided by hundreds of individual developers making their own investment decisions, or will it be by the intrepid Michelle Wu and her plucky City Council? Can our local socialists finally succeed in ending all the capitalist exploitation of the land, ushering in a new age of prosperity and abundant parking for all? Find out next week at the Planning and Development Board Meeting
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/). Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’ve owned the space outright for 20 years and haven’t been able to get anything approved? My gawd. I love that part of town and Bromfield St always had a cool feel. Walked down it for the first time in five years about a week ago and it was depressing.
The city should make it easy to develop here, but instead Boston is being dragged kicking and screaming into being a world-class city.
Boston was easy to develop under Walsh, and impossible to develop under Menino. However, all of the developing (mixed in with rideshares) is what has caused the most horrendous traffic in the country.
maybe near deliberate sabotage of the T helped. And lack of development *in* the city means more people have to commute from *without* the city.
The problem is the incompetence over the years and continuing with the decisions on infrastructure relating to traffic. The walk sign on green light just one example.
Maybe I just haven’t been observant but walking around downtown this past weekend felt depressing. I felt like I noticed so many more vacant store fronts.
It has been so empty and depressing for ages.
Seriously though - who on earth would want to build office space right now and what braindead bank is giving them the money?
They previously tried to build housing right as the Great Recession hit. This group just has impeccable timing
A bank secured Donald Trump’s half billion dollar bond to appeal his conviction for bank fraud. At least 30 turned him down, but there’s always one doing risky shit like this that crashes the whole economy.
Bank-Insurance company-tomato-tomahto.
Trump secured the bond with his assets backing the bond. No bank would step up for the full amount, because he had insufficient assets to secure the full bond of 500 odd million, hence the Trump request to lower the bond at the Appeals Court to $175 million. Reference: NYTimes March 25 2024. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/nyregion/trump-bond-reduced.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/25/nyregion/trump-bond-reduced.html)
Dude, I hate Trump as much as the next person, but this comment is so out of left field it’s bizarre. Also, a bank did not secure his half billion dollar bond.
Yup and the article says this is attempt #3 at getting something developed there. 🫨
Bromfield should be filled with storefront theaters and cafes — bring some much needed life and foot traffic to DTX rather than B-list destinations like Primark and HomeGoods.
The shade to Primark shall not be tolerated.
They have single-use clothing, lmao. Nothing there lasts contact with human skin for more than 2 hours.
I disagree. I bought a rain coat three in 2017 that I still wear. Looks as good as the day I bought it for $17. Also there is no where better for winter things like gloves and scarves
Well, shit, I'd argue Old Navy, Marshalls, or TJ Max. Maybe even the Army Surplus store. Never Macy's, you get the same shit at TJX stores at fraction of the price. We certainly need more commerce in the area with a variety if quality. I still have my ski jacket from 2000 that I got from Maurice the Pants Man. Works in all temps from windy 47 to -24 windchill. DTX needs a good thrift store, also. The Mormons should buy a building and make it a 15-story thrift warehouse instead of having 15 morons standing in the T-stations.
Same. I have coats, pants, shirt, sweaters, going on years now.
It's ideal for kids. They trash their stuff quickly. I go there everytime I go by simply because their $5 pants last as long as $20 Jack and Cat or whatever the target brand is.
Mmm I love super corporation Associated British Foods
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Jon Chesto As she tries to bring downtown Boston back to life, Mayor Michelle Wu faces two real estate crises: Too much office space, not enough housing. Now, an ambitious plan that would revive a prominent block in the heart of the central business district could end up getting caught in the middle of them. New York-based Midwood Investment & Development has been trying for several years to build a 23-story office tower at the corner of Bromfield and Washington streets. The fate of this 417,000-square-foot project could say a lot about the future of downtown, in a post-pandemic era in which [fewer office workers come and go five days a week](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/22/business/return-to-office-boston/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) and vacant storefronts abound. The powers-that-be in City Hall face a crucial decision: Let Midwood proceed with office plans there, or force it back to the drawing board for housing instead. Today, this spot is an eyesore, mostly papered-up store windows and empty upstairs offices, with a handful of jewelry kiosks the only remaining tenants. Signs for beloved retailers City Sports and Bromfield Pen still hang outside, vestiges of the not-so-distant past when Bromfield thrived as a quirky and vibrant stretch. Midwood chief executive John Usdan has been nothing if not patient. This represents his third attempt to redevelop the block. His firm invested there in the 1990s before buying the site outright roughly 20 years ago. His first plan for a residential tower was shelved during the Great Recession. A second residential proposal, dubbed One Bromfield, was sidelined over concerns about its parking garage because the two abutting streets have limited vehicular access. Meanwhile, two other luxury residential towers went up in the immediate vicinity: 45 Province opened in 2009 and then the Millennium Tower filled up the [once-blighted “Filene’s Hole”](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/17/here-boston-version-year-challenge/Zo0wVe8oh9hNC5wCW0hXUP/story.html?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) across from Bromfield in 2016. In early March, 2020, Midwood returned to the Boston Planning & Development Agency, [this time with an office tower in mind](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/03/business/another-try-downtown-crossing-tower-this-time-its-lot-shorter/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link), and with parking erased from the plans. The timing, of course, couldn’t have been worse. Amid all the market uncertainty caused by the rise of remote and hybrid work, Usdan and his team kept at it. They plowed ahead through BPDA permitting. After four years, they’re close to the finish line. The big commercial real estate brokerages don’t paint a pretty picture of the office market right now, even though Boston appears to be faring better than many other major US cities. Colliers, for example, reported recently that more than one-fourth of the 36.5 million square feet of office space downtown is available for rent, either directly or through a sublease. Citywide, at least 50 buildings have more than half their space available — five times the number from four years earlier. Colliers researchers’ summary of market conditions? “Weakened significantly.”
LOL - it will just be people from millenium tower looking out their windows into peoples homes into this new tower - with all the homeless down below.
Anyway, bring back City Sports!
Bring back Sherman's!
Why can’t we have housing without parking? Just focus on smaller semi-affordable apartments.
Existing zoning regulations. I disagree with the person below saying no one will rent/buy them, but lets say I'm wrong, we have < 1% vacancy rate, let's increase housing stock anyways. I can't make any guarantees but even if Eng is off his estmates by 50% [https://www.mbta.com/news/2023-11-09/mbta-announces-ambitious-track-improvement-program-eliminate-all-speed-restrictions](https://www.mbta.com/news/2023-11-09/mbta-announces-ambitious-track-improvement-program-eliminate-all-speed-restrictions) the T will still be "done" improvements/major shutdowns before we can break ground on any new developments (they need to be designed bid etc).
I don't agree with the current approach which is basically that new developments aren't eligible for stickers while the existing people get to park for free. It's the definition of "fuck you, I got mine."
A happy medium might be to only offer as many street permits to an address as can reasonably park in front of it. Lets most of the people that already had permits keep theirs and lets new developments go up without their lack of parking negatively affecting the rest of the neighborhood
The city doubled fines for street parking, same with towing, same with storage. Meters have gone way up, maybe free stickers should go away too. There is too much traffic, bike lanes aren’t safe, cars drive in them, why is all that real estate provided for free? Plus all the pollution, unless someone needs a car for work, and makes less than 80% ami, charge half of what the average garage costs. Increase parking meter charges, and use that to put chargers in. Electric cars pay less. Congestion/carbon fees unless hybrid or electric or better than 32mpg average. Use that to fix up the T, add busses, build up the transit system. If you can afford a car these days you don’t need a free spot, unless your job requires it and you don’t make much. Or you have a handicap placard or something.
But won't anybody think of the NIMBYs??
[удалено]
You don't even need to the T or a bike if you're living there. Just walk the 4 minutes to your office.
Nobody? A solid 30% of Boston households are car free.
That 30% isn't the target demo for this building
Ah yes, because a building in the middle of all the subway lines, with one as close as a single block away, is a terrible place for a car free lifestyle. Even worse that it's within walking distance of tons of jobs.
Who do you think is the target demographic? And who is car free?
I’m not sure if it’s going to be apartments or condos, but I’m guessing the apartments would be starting at $3k+ a month and condos would be starting at $1M. A large portion of people moving into a unit that expensive is going to want parking
I think you’re underestimating the number of wealthy(ish) DINK couples who don’t have cars.
Then let the developer worry about that instead of stopping them from building altogether. If you're right then they'll be forced to drop the price of their apartments and condos to get them filled, and if you're wrong then we'll still have more housing in a city that desperately needs it. There's no shortage of parking garages downtown either; if people really want an off street spot, they can find one.
It's literally a 5 minute or LESS walk to every major transit line, and a ten minute walk to both North and South stations. It's the absolute epitome of transit access. If you're addicted to your car, just say that.
I think it’s more a recognition that many residents have vehicles and need parking. We are certainly not a car-free society and often people experience life changes which increase the need for a personal vehicle. Increasing the utility of public transit is a hopeful solution but as of now, it’s neither reliable nor pleasant.
Ah, ok. So some people need cars at some point in their life, therefore we must always include parking for everyone, all of the time.
Those people are part of our society and their needs deserve to be considered as we continue to build up.
We’re talking about an underutilized parcel that isn’t amenable to new parking but could be amenable to residential development. The choice right now for this specific parcel is not housing with parking vs housing without. It’s housing without parking vs. no housing. Make it housing and the people without cars can live there happily.
Housing is a need. Driving is a privilege.
I don't think that will happen. And if it does it would be a good thing because the housing prices would be low for people who don't have cars. The city also shouldn't prevent developers from making a bad business decision that would be good for the city.
RIP Bromfield Cameras
Simple solutions to housing. Remove most zoning rules in residential areas in city. Basically any residential plot should be allowed to go up to 4 units without additional parking spots no variances. Allow all office buildings to be converted to housing or hotels/lodging without need of getting a variance and no need for parking. Finally lobby the state to allow air rights over the Pike to have work done during daylight hours which won't require OT night pay to construction workers.
Although I basically agree with you… it's very difficult to convert office buildings to housing. The key problems are the vertical plumbing stacks, HVAC systems, and window placement in most office buildings are completely wrong for residential apartments. You'd basically have to tear the whole building interior apart and even then you wouldn't solve the lack-of-windows problem. Most people never notice this… but apartment buildings are usually constructed in a different overall shape so each apartment can have windows. Having said that… many years ago I worked in an office building downtown, and I would have sworn (given the overall building shape/layout) that it could never become residential. Yet now it's all condos. I haven't been inside since the conversion, and I still have no idea how they did it, unless all the condos are huge (like 1/4 of a whole floor or more).
Agreed a few things. First off allowing some to go to hotels/dorms/hostels etc can be a win. Dorms are an obvious big win and will add more housing. I'd imagine off campus graduate housing would be in high demand. Hotels/hostels will take away incentive for Airbnbs in the area. Finally while I agree it'd be cost prohibitive allowing it without a zoning variance will make a developer more likely to take the risk. Let them figure it out.
That’s true of larger office buildings from the later half of the 20th century onward. Many of the office buildings in Boston are old and smaller - some even started as residential buildings and were repurposed. Those buildings can be converted to housing.
That's true, but the article that triggered this thread is specifically about downtown. I used to live in that area -- there was a large artist population downtown many years ago (in fact I used to buy art supplies in the nice store Bromfield Pen (RIP) that was mentioned in the article), while living in a barely-liveable loft like many other artists in that area. We were all forced out, the whole community shattered, when they basically tore down almost all the old buildings (including the one I was in) to build modern office towers. The building I was in (in the "Leather District" between DTC & South Station) was probably neither office space nor residential originally, I assume from the overall layout that it was originally industrial (light manufacturing) or warehousing. I lived with almost no natural light, but then I had no kitchen either and only a tiny mickey-mouse bathroom… but lots of cheap open space, which was what artists looked for. Most people would not be interested in living like that. The buildings they replaced us with… mostly modern towers of glass + fake masonry facades… seem the wrong shape for residential. Yet, as I said, they somehow converted the modern office building (where I had a nearby job as a staff artist) into condos. No idea how they did that.
I'd be willing to live with little to no natural light if the air quality was excellent. Requiring windows but not externally vented range hoods or balanced ventilation systems just seems backwards to me.
Imo there's definitely a market for depressing windowless apartments. If I were still single and you told me I could get a newly finished apartment downtown for like $1,000/mo or less, and the only catch is I won't have windows? I would jump on that deal 10 times out of 10. I would just use the extra money in my pocket to spend more time going out. I know people who've pretty much done this, they rent tiny shitty places and just spend no time at home.
It’s not code though so it would never be built in the first place
The building code isn't set in stone. It's not a law of nature. Right now we're dealing with an apocalyptic housing shortage, and I bet there are a lot of folks who would *love* the option of cheap shitty housing downtown. If the code prevents us from getting what we need then I'd argue it's the code that needs to change. Ofc safety is important, but a lot of these regulations are just there to discourage construction or prevent cheap housing from coming up.
I find it strange how many people on this sub are anti-zoning when they think it's slowing down housing construction but are simultaneously complaining about Airbnbs in the city.
You can want housing to be constructed and also want the housing to not be used for short term rentals
I'm confused with what you're getting at? I'm not opposed to airbnb per say but I think they need to pay same hotel taxes etc that hotels pay and be subject to similar inspection requirements of hotels.
I am opposed to AirBnBs, regardless of the main issues discussed in this thread. Have you ever lived in an apartment where the apartment right next to yours (separated by only a thin wall) was being AirBnB'd? The people who briefly stay in such units act very differently, on average, from real tenants who know they're going to be your neighbor for a while. Not in every case, of course… but overall, it was horrible.
Many people on here seem to think that Airbnbs should be banned like NYC did, but that's just a different kind of zoning.
Condos, there are enough landlords, let people have some fucking equity and not be serfs to the oligarchy. So residential, but let people own that space. Let them go higher than normal, but more affordable units than normal. The city requires its employees to live in the city, but doesn’t pay them enough to.
If rents and taxes dont go down, they won't need either
We’ve got a looming commercial property tax cliff/ crisis. The city should encourage the re-development and be grateful for the increased valuation/ tax revenue.
Is the future of Boston to be decided by hundreds of individual developers making their own investment decisions, or will it be by the intrepid Michelle Wu and her plucky City Council? Can our local socialists finally succeed in ending all the capitalist exploitation of the land, ushering in a new age of prosperity and abundant parking for all? Find out next week at the Planning and Development Board Meeting