Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8owelm wrote

Reply to comment by Bizurke87 in Gentrification by [deleted]

Do you, or anyone really, have data on how long biotech, finance, etc. workers stay once they move here? I was under the assumption that they were more transient like if they wanted to have kids, they would move farther out into the ‘burbs or they move into a state with a LCOL.

What can we do to minimize the impact of gentrification?

−3

IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8p6k5u wrote

I work in biotech and we are putting down roots and planning on starting a family in the city. Don't paint us all with a brush.

10

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8p7d8p wrote

Do I really have to say “not all…” Keep it moving.

−4

Torpul t1_j8pw00z wrote

I've enjoyed reading through this thread, but your attitude is just insufferable.

2

Bizurke87 t1_j8oy2fz wrote

No clue on the data, but it’s a noticeable trend. The best way to delay gentrification is to build both luxury and market rate housing in the most desireable areas.

You need enough on the market in the most sought after areas to meet and exceed demand - otherwise they will look elsewhere. It can’t be all luxury or more people will be priced out - but luxury is needed to provide that higher price point and prevent further increases to existing housing. Places like seaport are needed - although high end rentals are really not as helpful imo.

As others have mentioned, transit oriented areas will ALWAYS be the first to gentrify. This can’t and shouldn’t be avoided. If someone on DOT is priced out of an area close to the T I know it sucks - but that same gentrification creates jobs, eases traffic and is generally a net positive. Affordable housing is generally less accessible housing - that’s a worldwide truth.

6

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8p00ce wrote

On your last paragraph: Can you please elaborate on gentrification creating jobs and easing traffic?

I think that there would not be a change in traffic, or there may potentially be a slight uptick in tradfic. My thinking is that if the new residents use the T, that is the same as the now-displaced residents using the T so net zero change. I am also thinking that wealthy individuals moving in will want to bring their car(s), which can lead to an uptick in traffic if they use it any more frequently than “rarely.”

For jobs, my thinking is that there would be a net zero difference in jobs even as new shops open up.

Again, this is based on my thinking. I would love to hear your thoughts.

1

TorvaldUtney t1_j8pddlt wrote

Gentrification = money. Both inherent and disposable in that area. Case study: Southie. When I was younger southie was mostly known for murder and being on fire. Now, not so much at all.

3

SuckMyAssmar t1_j8pna33 wrote

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

0

TorvaldUtney t1_j8prmw4 wrote

Elaboration on creating jobs, thought that was an easy connection that more money lends itself to more jobs in the area, as fires and murder do not.

3

LocoForChocoPuffs t1_j8paw7q wrote

Lots of pharma and biotech workers end up settling down in greater Boston, because many of those jobs simply don't exist in LCOL areas. College and grad students are often transient, but most of the people I know who got their first real grown-up job in the area are still here. They do almost always move to the suburbs once they have kids though.

6