Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pillbinge t1_ixjh6v2 wrote

A lot of labs moved in because of the large amount of talent here, but that large amount of talent is still a small percentage of the population. Lab space would homogenize a lot of the limited physical space, and its influence would be bad.

Thinking that Boston should be #1 in everything means a lot of exclusion to other places, but we have plenty of places in MA that could get lab space. The only problem is people switch gears and start talking about how no one would live there - as if a) that's a problem to be solved with government planning or b) it wouldn't get it started where it would make those places a little bit livelier.

19

Vassukhanni t1_ixk8ui5 wrote

Biotech "moved" here because there were a large amount of research hospitals and universities, including the most funded university with the most resources on earth. It's a little late to pivot, unless we want to go back in time and try convincing some puritans to spend John's money on some rum or something.

16

Reasonable_Move9518 t1_ixkmqww wrote

Scientist here. Biotech didn't really "move" here... Boston was one of the first places where the type of businesses we now call biotech were invented in the late 70's and early 80's. It's just grown substantially since then, especially in the last 5-10 years.

21

too-cute-by-half t1_ixkqdtn wrote

The recent growth was also stoked by Gov. Patrick's Life Sciences Initiative, a $1B state investment from 2008-2018 through tax incentives and low interest loans.

8

Reasonable_Move9518 t1_ixkrscv wrote

Definitely helped but not the full story. The entire biotech sector has been surging for 5-10 years, a combo of a build up of capital in the low-interest rate era and multiple quite highly promising new therapeutic approaches in several disease areas. A little less clear now that interest rates are actually a thing and investors care about things like turning a profit, but the fundamentals are likely pretty strong going forward.

It's not just Boston (and thus not the result of any state investment/initiative); all the traditional biotech hubs have had huge growth, though since some of this has been masked because some biotech hubs (Bay Area, Seattle) overlap with Tech hubs which have grown even more.

6

Vassukhanni t1_ixknbrx wrote

Yeah hence the quotation marks. The Whitehead institute was founded in the early 1980s.

4

f0rtytw0 t1_ixkysbg wrote

> John's money on some rum or something

I smell a movie pitch here

A couple of Harvard students invent a time machine, go back in time to meet John Harvard. They go a on wild rum filled bender that leaves John too hungover to bother founding the school. See what craziness follows when they return to the present day....

5

pillbinge t1_ixkwdxm wrote

Boston's had this scene for a long while, compared to other places, and compared to times when it might have been mainly government driving research at various places. This is still an issue that highlights exactly how people really think, where Boston, or the government, or whoever, shouldn't lift a finger to affect the market of biotech. We can and we should, since it would benefit everyone. The main reason biotech has been surging is due to private money backing it. Take that away, as we should by curtailing that kind of investing, and it would go away.

2

husky5050 t1_ixjxt1w wrote

Thousands of apartments are going up in Suffolk Downs. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

9

pillbinge t1_ixkwklh wrote

From the pictures I remember seeing, it's another example of Americans building housing that looks like a dormitory of their dreams from college. The kind that we still render oddly poorly during the pitch phase, and looks completely soulless. But I'm sure it's slightly more "efficient" by presuming that no business in the area will be affected by it and everything will remain LOL.

3