Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pillbinge t1_ixjia27 wrote

Reply to comment by 3720-To-One in Here’s Gov. Baker’s plan for dealing with the influx of migrants to Mass. by bostondotcom

This boils down to "you know what would really help, is giving one political side everything they want without restriction". It's very clearly helping by one political view and no other, while claiming anything else is the enemy. There are plenty of problems with housing and zoning restrictions but most people don't realize why a lot of them are in place - for better or worse. The housing stock that's built now is built by builders who have no real sense of architecture or planning. They'd rather build a McMansion if it got them paid more.

All of this is ignoring the silly claim that it's conservatives whining when MA is solidly blue, but most towns don't handle things like some sort of caricature people expect.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjikjz wrote

And why do you think they build those McMansions?!

Because all the damn NIMBY restrictions won’t let them build anything other than SFH!

And yes, a lot of the zoning restrictions are done out of 100% greed and selfishness of existing property owners, to artificially inflate the values of their properties by restricting supply, and keeping less affluent people out. That is literally why SFH-only zoning was created.

2

pillbinge t1_ixjlw4l wrote

If builders could come up with plans to make really good, aesthetic housing, that's build solidly and densely - like you'd find in Back Bay, Charlestown, or Beacon Hill - people would change their tune. They aren't. McMansions they're building are the result of a lot of things but they could always design them better. There's no legal requirement for them. Large housing isn't just a McMansion, and this part of the country can show that in older, wealthier areas.

0

3720-To-One t1_ixjmrgu wrote

What are you not understanding?

Many locations don’t allow anything other than SFH to be built, and in other locations, restrictive zoning makes it prohibitively expensive.

You’re putting the cart before the horse.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjona7 wrote

I don't get why you keep jumping tracks. They don't, so the effort should be put into places that do allow for it. They aren't putting that effort in either. I bike by more places in Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston that are newer but weaker, worse looking, and probably future tear-downs in my own life. The buildings that aren't are ones built a long time ago and with better materials.

Why aren't places that build for multi-family complexes building ugly, dogshit, and flimsy places when they don't have the restrictions you're talking about? There's a reason the three places I mentioned are all within the same city. Expand those and get a real movement going. Not the "movement" you're laying out here.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjrp1y wrote

Because those buildings STILL have to jump through tons of hoops to get built, because of all the restrictions, AND THAT MAKES EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE!

Why are you not understanding this?

When you have to go through a gazillion different zoning board meetings, and hire lawyers, and go through a long and convoluted approvals process, it makes everything more expensive.

2

pillbinge t1_ixkx1y5 wrote

You keep bringing up topics in some rapid-fire manner and asking why I don't get something, when you might be having a hard time explaining what you mean. I do understand this. I just don't have the bland approach that you do that clearly isn't working at all.

I never said we should keep bureaucracy around. I can't stand it. At this point, you're arguing something I haven't said like I'm someone else, but showing that the real thing you value is dirt-cheap housing, when valuations in housing have primarily been hurt by financialization. Housing might have to get a bit more expensive at first. That's true of anything new that you start building. We need to build it back up again though.

1