Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

zeratul98 t1_jdanl5t wrote

I think it's a mistake to think that parking utilization is a strong indicator of parking need. (I'm also rather doubtful that parking gets anywhere close to 100% utilized, but that's a different topic)

The question really is, if we removed 25% of parking spaces in Assembly, what would happen? Would 25% of current drivers disappear entirely, or would some of that crowd just switch to buses, trains, or walking? Do they drive because they have to or because they want to? Would the decrease in cars encourage more foot and bike traffic in the area?

Maybe the bottleneck isn't the capacity of the parking lots, but the capacity of the businesses. After all, restaurants can only seat so many people, bowling alleys only have so many lanes, etc. In that case, fewer drivers just means a more attractive area for people to take the train to. Remember that lots of the parking in the area is for residents. They don't need cars to go to Assembly, they live there.

It's important to remember that cars aren't people. Just because we make an area less appealing to cars doesn't mean we've made the area less appealing.

And then there's the whole concept of what we would replace that parking with. If we're talking about the parking structures, that could be more ground floor retail creating demand and more upper floor housing giving the area plenty more people to frequent the shops and restaurants. Cars are big, like, really big. A typical parking space is around 130-150 sq ft., (plus garages have to have the lanes to drive in and out). So three or four parking spaces is the same size of a studio apartment

1

three-ple t1_jdalkp4 wrote

Sure. But just to be clear then, you disagree with what the AG is doing because of the adjacent communities part of the law, but agree with all other parts of the law?

Holden isn't included because of some mistake. They qualify under what was put in the law itself.

AG is being heavy handed because there is a large risk a bunch of communities try to defect and ignore the law.

1

friz_CHAMP t1_jdaj1i4 wrote

Well who would buy a listing if it read life this:

"Located in fabulous Braintree, this 1952 Cape was set on fire by a faulty dryer in the basement that burnt through the roof. Knob and tube wiring is throughout the house along with the original fusebox that all need upgrading. Possibly asbestos throughout the basement that need remediation as well. Previous homeowners use this as a rental after their parents died in the 1990s and nothing had been updated (hence the avocado colored dryer catching fire). Bring your wallet and/or contractor skills cause you've got a project that will occupy all your free time."

18

PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdaigzp wrote

That is not what is in the news. The town of Holden is being threatened by the AG and it is miles from an MBTA station. I definitely agree (and have posted a few times in this thread) that we should build very densely near existing MBTA stations. The original TOD law did a good job at this and should be continued. I don't allowing a Prudential Tower at each station should be the result but something large enough and dense to both help plus allow direct access to the MBTA system.

1

Dizzy_De_De t1_jdai2u9 wrote

Found the State Legislator in the group

/s

Seriously though - there are 2 types of people in the world

Type 1 finds a problem and offers solutions

Type 2 hears solutions and looks for problems (mostly so they can maintain their privileged position)

The former creates progress through innovation

The latter makes the community a little worse every day as small issues first become annoyances and then become huge expensive impediments to growth.

Continued Boston centric growth in Massachusetts is an impediment to future growth in Massachusetts.

Every Massachusetts taxpayer bore the cost of the depression of the central artery, the Ted Williams tunnel and the Seaport district's infrastructure. Projects that all benefited the Boston area - so much so that the average weekly wage in Suffolk & Middlesex counties is now over $2200 per week.

The average weekly wage in Bristol County (New Bedford area) and Hampden County (Springfield County) is about one-half Suffolk/Middlesex County's.

It's well past time the State start investing in other regions and spread Massachusetts' miracle growth and wealth to the citizens in those other regions.

It's not just fair, it's the smart thing to do.

2