Submitted by _Hack_The_Planet_ t3_10p6m8o in boston
0tanod t1_j6ivw4r wrote
>The state doesn’t generally build houses itself
Maybe we should try that too?
PurpleDancer t1_j6jz47i wrote
Projects are great. They were considered bad when I was a kid, but now that I know people including family members in them I realize that they are like a golden ticket for the people who manage to get in. Offering long term security that allows people to build a life on.
RhaenyrasUncle t1_j6mu3gj wrote
Maybe in some cases. But in a lot of cases, they lead to high crime, which leads to zealous policing, which leads to higher arrest/incarceration rates for individuals living within these projects, thus defeating any beneficial help the stability this type of housing provides.
Rindan t1_j6l6gwn wrote
Maybe we could just start by letting people that own property already build first, before unleashing the overwhelmingly corruption free and extremely efficient Massachusetts state upon the problem?
0tanod t1_j6l77by wrote
Why not do both? It's a crisis so lets treat it like one. We can slow down when gen-Z feels they can own a home at some point in their life.
Codspear t1_j6mes1o wrote
Gen Z can own a home in their 20’s. In the South. Where zoning laws are weaker because business interests are stronger.
Hilariously, business interests are more equitable with regard to housing than “the people”.
Rindan t1_j6mwj3r wrote
Well, mostly because I was being super sarcastic when I called the Massachusetts state government efficient in a corruption free.
0tanod t1_j6my8co wrote
We shouldn't try one solution because you feel / are aware of past attempts where it was doomed to line the pockets of individuals and not create the needed housing? That's how I feel about the free market bullshit but you don't see me saying not to try it.
Rindan t1_j6n22px wrote
I'm less worried about people lining their pockets, and more worried about it being shitty housing that is literally an order of magnitude over budget, years late, and poorly managed. When a land owner is late and goes over budget on a building project, they lose their own money, and it's a few percentage points over budget, and it's a few months late. When the state does the same thing, they could 10x the cost, it can be years late, and it's the state's (mine and yours) money that they are lighting on fire to give to their friends.
The solution is crystal clear; let people legally build higher. Whenever you walk into a high density neighborhood and see that all of the buildings are three stories tall and set back from the sidewalk, it isn't greedy developers refusing to build more housing because they hate money. It's the city making it literally illegible for them to build higher or closer to the property edge. Seriously, every single time you see this, it's 100% zoning rules preventing more housing from being built.
We have a lack of more housing in dense areas because it's literally illegal to build it. That's it. That's the entire problem. Fix that and the problem goes away. I'd rather the state focus on fixing the problems it already has before trying their hand at property development because they created a housing crisis by making development illegal for the residents of this state. The state doesn't need to fix the problem that they created. They can just stop making the problem.
0tanod t1_j6n5ua4 wrote
We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels". Your solution still requires the state to get involved so we might as well try an all of the above approach and reevaluate whats working, and whats not, over a few year period or something like that. Also you choose to ignore all the possible issues with your private land owner solution. For instance I support higher, denser, and more affordable housing. However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.
Rindan t1_j6n9nno wrote
>We have to agree to disagree. When we have a problem as big as our housing issue, no solution should be off the table because of "feels".
It's not feels. It's literally just looking at the past track record of the state executing literally any building project. Close your eyes and pick one, it's years late and wildly over budget.
>Your solution still requires the state to get involved
No, it actually doesn't. It requires cities and states that created the problem with their zoning laws to stop creating the problem. They only need to stop doing the bad thing that they are still doing RIGHT NOW, despite the housing crisis, to fix the housing crisis.
>However, if its not near public transit and its all high end luxury condos
Housing costs in Massachusetts have nothing to do with how "luxurious" our housing is. Leave Boston and travel around a little bit. Boston housing is not "luxurious" and too much luxury has nothing to do with our housing costs. We actually have literally some of the oldest, most poorly maintained, and least "luxurious" housing in this nation. The reason why literally all new housing is called "luxury" housing is because any house in the greater boston area with flat floors that won't give you splinters and a modern heating/cooling system can claim with a straight face to be "luxury". You literally can't make a new apartment that isn't "luxury", because literally anything new, no matter how spare, is "luxury" over the housing stock that it is replacing. The cost of housing in Boston has nothing to do with how nice it is. The only two things that matter to how much a new condo costs is where it is, and how big it is. Everything else is a rounding error.
>...being brought up as foreign investments, its basically useless.
This is a bogyman that only really exists in extremely high end housing sitting on top of sky scrappers. Housing in Boston is not expensive because of them damn foreigners buying housing and than insanely keeping it empty instead of renting it out.
There is one and only one reason why housing is expensive in the greater Boston area. That one and only reason is because it is literally illegal to build more dense housing. Every time you are in an dense and expensive area and see only three story building, they are that way because it is literally illegal to build them any taller and more dense. The states and towns that created this problem don't need to go build dense housing. They just need to let people that already own housing legally build dense housing. We don't need the state, which has proven it's absolute incompetence at large building projects, to jump in. They just need to get out of the way.
If the state has money burning holes in their pockets wants to do something productive to help the housing crisis, they should fix and expand public transit. I'm sure they will do it extremely late and over budget as they always do, but at least they would be do something that only the state can fix.
0tanod t1_j6ncmmf wrote
I see now. You have no appreciation of what a government is or does. Just so you know denser housing comes with a cost and its needs to be planned. Water, sewage, trash, schools, emergency response... etc. all need to handled in a some kind of planned manner that you do not have a understanding of and I apologize for not realizing how little you understand and wasting both mine and your time.
Rindan t1_j6nkok7 wrote
No, I do in fact appreciate what the government does. I also just appreciate what the government doesn't do well. I wish that sort of nuance was something that was acceptable these days, but unfortunately we seem to live in a polarized era where things are only good or bad, black or white, and all nuances are lost. Government now is only a thing that is either pure incompetent evil, or faultless and the answer to every solution for most politically active people. Both views are obviously wrong, but we can't seem to admit that anymore because that sounds too much like giving the other side a win. This is why you can't admit that maybe some fixes to enable the private sector might be a part of the solution, and why a conservative is unable to admit that maybe the government also has an important role in enabling solutions.
I do in fact want the government to build on and expand on public services. If an area is growing or wants to grow but can't because of zoning, I want them to expand the public infrastructure to support it. Extremely restrictive zoning that basically forbids densifying an area is not a rational response to a housing crisis, nor is getting the state involved in building more housing when that is something that is easily and vastly more cheaply and efficiently fixed by less restrictive zoning. The government should focus on doing the things that only the government can do effectively, like infrastructure maintenance and improvement to accommodate growth. The much more efficient private sector should be enabled to do the things that only it can do efficiently and effective, like adding to the housing stock. Unfortunately, this is a position of too much nuance in our emotionally charged and polarized political system.
wsdog t1_j6j60yo wrote
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jcokg wrote
pillbinge t1_j6jftf2 wrote
I'm really afraid to ask which of these examples you think the US is closer to, given the state of our current housing.
If you could force the builders to make beautiful works like that, go for it. I can't even convince the average person here that if they built nice, brick buildings like you see in the more expensive parts of Boston, they'd get more public approval.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jhg03 wrote
I didn't say the US was close to either, just chose a contrasting example of public housing since we're making low effort posts.
Why do you need to force developers to do anything? Public housing doesn't mean you make the developers work for free. If we decided that public housing should be beautiful and long lasting (and were willing to pay for it, which we aren't), I'm sure there would be a long line of developers bidding on the projects.
pillbinge t1_j6jmgz0 wrote
But that's like someone saying "the government should have healthcare", and someone pointing to the Tuskegee Study. We have examples of public housing in the US. We know what it looks like. A lot of public housing in Europe isn't what you linked to, either.
>Why do you need to force developers to do anything?
Because they develop in short-sighted ways, and that fucks everyone. They're building on land, which means it's limited and subject to public opinion, to say the least. I wouldn't force anyone to design a cup, painting, or so on, but if we're talking about a necessity that's inelastic, then we should come together to figure something out. No reason localities can't actually put thought into their building codes instead of just adopting whatever people decided elsewhere, which is really what happens.
Skizzy_Mars t1_j6jq8qz wrote
Why wouldn't we strive to match one of the best examples of public housing? Why bother doing anything if we can't at least try to make it a bit better than last time?
I don't really think that taking bids on a pre-determined design is "forcing" the developer to do anything. They don't have to bid on the project. The design and build don't have to be one contact fulfilled by one entity. Public housing isn't a charitable act driven by a developer, it is a government contract that is bid on and fulfilled by a developer, architect, etc.
pillbinge t1_j6k38vz wrote
I'm totally with you. I'm just of the opinion that this would be 20-30 years down the road at best.
I don't think forcing bids on predetermined designs if forcing anything. I'm big on that and hadn't considered that process. Shame on me! But we're talking about force. I think we're on the same page.
I'm for government force in this case. I'm just for force in ways I want, and I think there are too many NIMBYs who are all heart, no head. Never mind that these modern 5/1 monstrosities tend to make things bland and useless, and real businesses can't really move in.
hx87 t1_j6jzr3c wrote
99.9% of the new 5/1 apartment buildings that get built would look beautiful if developers 1) stopped trying to push windows as far to the outside as possible (because residents have a window sill space fetish, apparently) and inset windows 4 inches from the wall and 2) used strong, saturated colors instead of the bland shitty beige/gray palette.
pillbinge t1_j6k2xww wrote
My take is this. How many streets in Charlestown look beautiful? The brick and tight streets with shade. Beacon Hill is famous. One of the most famous streets in the country is Elfreth St. People want this.
People have sterile white, gray tones because that's easier to sell. It's ironically easier to sell because it's easy to paint over.
We just need to force developers to develop what we want. They aren't going to build to the vernacular anymore. They keep building stuff that makes no sense to me.
hellno560 t1_j6kmhp6 wrote
No it's just that alucabond (the material those are made of) comes in that color. Alucabond is cheap, easy and fast to install.
Vivecs954 t1_j6l38j7 wrote
Or if they stopped using hardi cement siding, and used an actually good looking exterior like brick.
Also if the buildings weren’t so huge, like they could build two slightly smaller adjacent buildings instead of one monster
hx87 t1_j6l715c wrote
Good brick looks much better than the best fiber cement, but bad brick can be much, much worse than the hackiest fiber cement installation. Think of the column bases of City Hall, or the average 1960s public housing project--acres of nothing but running bond red brick. No depth, no detail, just monolithic liminal space hell, like somebody was intentionally trying to build the backrooms IRL. Brick and architectural minimalism just don't mix.
To make brick look good you have to have contrasting brick bond patterns, actual lintels or arches above doors and windows (not some fake looking row of vertical bricks), actual sills that protrude beyond windows and aren't made of brick, and some depth to the brickwork. At least corbel the cornice, for goodness's sake.
Vivecs954 t1_j6n2s3l wrote
I’m not an architect or have any construction experience so when I said “brick” I meant good looking brick or other material. I see all sorts of new traditional style buildings built in Europe and they look beautiful and look like a part of the neighborhoods they are built in.
All the 5/1’s in Mansfield are a story taller than any other building, and are way more massive too. They stick out like a sore thumb.
wsdog t1_j6jfoyk wrote
Looks similarly shitty lol
pillbinge t1_j6jfzlm wrote
You're the only other person I've seen mention that term, only I use it for all the approved, "luxury" housing going up that's flimsy as shit, locked in time right now, and poorly designed from so many angles. We're just going to get more of that, but with the same care the state gives to its schools that are falling into disrepair - or however many state-run buildings for things like educators or police, in some cases.
Flashy_Positive1657 t1_j6jgcty wrote
RUSSIA BAD RUSSIA BAD RED SCARE 3.0
wsdog t1_j6jgwfn wrote
You forgot your meds today?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments