BackBae t1_j2c7mlf wrote
I can’t believe tearing down an unused auto body shop on top of a T station and replacing it with housing will destroy character…
The neighbors want to preserve a “pedestrian friendly environment” by… vehemently opposing high density housing? Things need to look “more home like”- because single family homes are the only type of home…
That’s a damn high parking ratio for being- again- directly on top of a heavy rail station, and people are still complaining about parking??
Prodigal_Moon t1_j2eq3nm wrote
Yeah let’s live near MASS transit and complain about population density 😹
cozy_goth t1_j2esype wrote
Walking past an auto body lot isn't very pedestrian friendly in my experience.
People around here will complain about parking for everything, even in places clearly built for the convenience and comfort of train riders when they have better options not even far away.
SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2djkgr wrote
The residents pushed back against a 100-unit building and are asking for a compromise 27-unit building, since everything around it is beautiful old Victorians and the 100-unit building would be totally out of place. It's reasonable, you shouldn't misrepresent the argument for the sake of updoots.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2dkq1w wrote
This would sound reasonable if not for the fact that there’s always someone willing to stonewall progress on ANY change to the status quo, and Boston NIMBY’s have a decades-long history of doing exactly that. The process is roughly: demand something you know is infeasible, promise that you’re only asking for small, reasonable things, then move the goalposts until the project is abandoned, all the while asking why people are so unwilling to compromise
For elaboration, check out “Public Input is Bad, Actually” in The Atlantic
SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2dlews wrote
Would you be in favor of process reforms where these compromises can be reached earlier in the development process, as suggested in the article linked in this post?
I think people should have equity in the neighborhoods they live in, putting policies in place based on the premise that public input is bad, "Acutally," sounds dystopian. Just opening the door for developers to pave entire neighborhoods. Things can be done more thoughtfully and with better outcomes. Like compromise solutions that don't just put 100 unit glass towers in the middle of a quiet 2-lane road.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2ekrb6 wrote
I’m in favor of process reforms that reduce obstacles to building, those obstacles being silly regulations and tons and tons of public input.
I do not think homeowners who want to pretend they live in the country should be able to prevent densification of in demand areas. If they want to only have single family homes in their neighborhood they should move somewhere where a lot doesn’t cost $1mil. People get to control their property. They should not get to control everyone else’s.
This is the way the country functioned when the majority of our current housing stock was built, up through the 60’s. It’s the way every non-housing scarce major city in Europe still functions. It’s not dystopian, it’s just not absurd
FunctionalFox1312 t1_j2f38ti wrote
People having equity in neighborhoods is a very nice sounding principle until it causes a horrific homelessness crisis. Landowners should not be given free reign to strangle the economy & perpetuate a housing crisis in the name of a "neighborhood character" that doesn't even exist. We need to draw a line somewhere.
Trilliam_West t1_j2fijlr wrote
Do you think those Victorian houses sprung up from the earth like a rock formation?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments