4 ms·

People who opposed demolishing the neighborhoods would be called NIMBYs today and would be blamed for the housing crisis. I'm not saying this to be snarky, jus

People who opposed demolishing the neighborhoods would be called NIMBYs today and would be blamed for the housing crisis. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just that there is a real push and pull there that I don't think is appreciated. There are some beautiful old neighborhoods near me which are at risk of being torn down and replaced with multi-unit dwellings. The residents say 'save our neighborhoods' and the activists cry 'greedy homeowners' and in the meantime the developers are rubbing their hands in anticipation of mountains of cash.

ghaff 2y ago
That particular urban renewal didn't create a lot of new housing. On the other hand, that whole general area of Boston was pretty crappy back in the day. (Not just what's now Government Center but all along Washington Street.) It mostly didn't result in more housing; I'm guessing less. But burying the central artery was almost certainly a lot more positive overall.
- fatnoah 2y ago
  According to the West End Museum site, the project created more housing units, but also led to a population decrease, most likely due to the decrease in the number of people living in each unit. This document is a fascinating read: https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/... Comparing what they proposed vs what resulted is very interesting.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Thanks. I can believe that easily. I assume a lot of what, if not exactly tenement housing at least adjacent, was torn down while generally high-end often waterfront condos were built.
  - kitten_mittens_ 2y ago
    Some of parcels in the doc on page 58 (K) in particular are interesting. The city ended up widening the road there pretty significantly. When they built https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yVzp4vm72Js3w618 https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yVzp4vm72Js3w618 back in '22, there was just one tower. The original plan had two towers instead of one (https://bpda.app.box.com/s/lsw68tzgu4g788h9dr4zvorlc6ohy0oy https://bpda.app.box.com/s/lsw68tzgu4g788h9dr4zvorlc6ohy0oy). The resulting sub area is only two buildings now, where there were tenements before.
Texasian 2y ago
Oh please. Take a look at the pictures of “redevelopment” back then and tell me it mirrors modern practices. We’re talking wholesale bulldozing of entire neighborhoods. Not a block or two, the entire damned thing.
hax0ron3 2y ago
Why would people be called NIMBYs today for being against replacing a heavily residential neighborhood with a bunch of government buildings? It would be different if the discussion was about keeping the neighborhood residential and just making it more dense in terms of housing.

ghaff 2y ago

That particular urban renewal didn't create a lot of new housing. On the other hand, that whole general area of Boston was pretty crappy back in the day. (Not just what's now Government Center but all along Washington Street.) It mostly didn't result in more housing; I'm guessing less. But burying the central artery was almost certainly a lot more positive overall.

fatnoah 2y ago
According to the West End Museum site, the project created more housing units, but also led to a population decrease, most likely due to the decrease in the number of people living in each unit. This document is a fascinating read: https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/westendprojectre00bost/page/n79/... Comparing what they proposed vs what resulted is very interesting.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Thanks. I can believe that easily. I assume a lot of what, if not exactly tenement housing at least adjacent, was torn down while generally high-end often waterfront condos were built.
- kitten_mittens_ 2y ago
  Some of parcels in the doc on page 58 (K) in particular are interesting. The city ended up widening the road there pretty significantly. When they built https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yVzp4vm72Js3w618 https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yVzp4vm72Js3w618 back in '22, there was just one tower. The original plan had two towers instead of one (https://bpda.app.box.com/s/lsw68tzgu4g788h9dr4zvorlc6ohy0oy https://bpda.app.box.com/s/lsw68tzgu4g788h9dr4zvorlc6ohy0oy). The resulting sub area is only two buildings now, where there were tenements before.

Texasian 2y ago

Oh please. Take a look at the pictures of “redevelopment” back then and tell me it mirrors modern practices. We’re talking wholesale bulldozing of entire neighborhoods. Not a block or two, the entire damned thing.

hax0ron3 2y ago

Why would people be called NIMBYs today for being against replacing a heavily residential neighborhood with a bunch of government buildings? It would be different if the discussion was about keeping the neighborhood residential and just making it more dense in terms of housing.