Mike Ross traveled to Uphams Corner this morning to criticize Marty Walsh's plan to let a developer bulldoze City Hall - and to push his plan to build 10,000 housing units along the renovated Fairmount Line.
Boston is hungry for new ideas, not just a recycled debate about moving City Hall. The next mayor needs to be focused on developing our neighborhoods, many of which haven't shared in Boston's boom.
The Connolly campaign might want to double-check photos before posting them (h/t Kevin Gilnack):
Mayoral candidates are all alarmed after all the shootings this past weekend.
The State House News Service questions the candidates on medical marijuana.
Mike Ball tries the process of elimination to figure out whom to vote for next week. So far, he's down to nine of the twelve mayoral candidates.
If you need some information, any information, on city-council candidates, David Bernstein has compiled all his candidate chats.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Bulldozing that monstrosity
By kvn
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:01pm
Bulldozing that monstrosity is the best plan since the conversion of Faneuil Hall to a tourist thing. Restore that plaza to a streeted zone,not like a barren wasteland that it is now.
Where would you move...
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:08pm
... the very large number of activities that are now held on the "barren wasteland" in spring, summer and fall?
Boston Common, Esplanade, Fens, Franklin Park, Columbus Park
By Ron Newman
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:18pm
Lots of places to choose from.
Most of those places...
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:39pm
... aren't as easily accessible -- and Boston Common (among others) couldn't take the war and tear.
Esplanade , Boston Common ,
By kvn
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 4:22pm
Esplanade , Boston Common , Yawkey way , Lansdowne street,salt yards on the Chelsea creek,
Bulldoze and put in grass and
By Felicity
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 8:18pm
Bulldoze and put in grass and trees, continue to use it for events. It's a wasteland and problematic for people with disabilities.
all I see here
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:10pm
are 3 "family legacy" candidates with something to prove to their fathers
Mike Ross
By cybah
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:34pm
It's offical, he's a toolbag. Like above, I think moving City Hall is the best damn thing to ever happen to that plaza (outside of the new Gov't Center T)
Maybe Mike Ross should just keep on running... and run right out of boston.
Ross
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:12pm
I think Mike is wrong about city hall and I love Marty's idea. Hell, if they build a nice skyscraper there, no reason city hall can't come back and own a bunch of floors.
But to accuse Ross of corruption over his belief that slumlords are screwing over students by piling them into unsafe, overcrowded pseudo-frat houses is ridiculous. You want to say he cares too much about his voting constituents who feel overrun by students, and not enough about the students who don't bother to register or vote in municipals? Ok, that's fair. You want to tell me he cares too much about saving Latino families and long-time residents from being driven out of Mission Hill? About the lack of affordable housing for young adults post-college? Or do you want to whine more about how students aren't treated well in the city (boo hoo)?
Mike doesn't have my vote. But he earns more respect than that post.
they won't "own" a bunch of floors
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:17pm
Marty's idea is that they'll be renting from a landlord who owns the property. I'm not sure there are any other examples of a large city that leases ALL of their space from a private commercial property owner.. Commercial property is not like condos.
City should own city hall and it should be a single central building (or collection of buildings) - we really don't want to be in a situation where whole agencies are getting kicked out of space because the building owner wants to sell or has found a tenant who is willing to pay more after the end of the lease term - and especially if various agencies are scattered all over the city in locations that are difficult to get to. This is also not financially sustainable in the long term because suddenly a chunk of our city's budget is going to rent, which we'll find out in a few years is actually substantially more expensive than owning and managing their own property (that influx of cash will disappear very quickly and then we'll find ourselves in a huge hole). Also for the amount of space they'll need this makes absolutely no sense.
If anything the city should partner with a developer to do something with government center - but in the end the city should own the property the government functions are in - and maybe they transfer part of the property over in exchange for developer partially financing construction of a new (or completely revamped) city hall. Selling outright and then leasing space is idiotic.
I'm guessing he wants to bankrupt the city.
whoa
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 5:04pm
" I'm not sure there are any other examples of a large city that leases ALL of their space from a private commercial property owner.."
Wait, Boston leases city hall? WTF! Who do they lease it from?
Ummm
By cybah
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 6:55pm
Ever hear of a 99 year lease? Its pretty common in Commercial Real Estate. And of course some clause stating they can't be kicked out for nothing. It could be worked as apart of the deal with the new owners. Its not entirely unheard of.
And keep in mind that Landlords may LIKE having the city as a tenant. Its steady income forever, unlike many other office tenants that come and go quickly (and often require the landlord to pay for remodeling costs between lessees), so it can work out very well for the landlord.
Common?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 9:32pm
Examples of this - in the modern era?
Fenway Center
By cybah
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 10:30pm
http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2013/06/19/s...
ICA
By cybah
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 10:34pm
And...
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2003/09/...
oh wait, what?
By anon²
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 9:16pm
Well, he should sponsor amendments and city laws to go after slum lords instead of having the Boston Zoning Commission amended the Boston Zoning Code to restrict more than four undergraduate students from living together in a leased dwelling. (Which is most likely unconstitutional at best, and unenforceable at worst.)
What he did was pretty damn transparent, and it wasn't to go after fucking Slumlords. It was flipping off and spitting on students and the universities to appease a special interest group he wanted support of (a few neighborhood associations and some disgruntled, but vocal residents).
If I were the universities or the students, I'd be campaign hard against him. We don't need a small minded, divide and concur mayor looking for ways to fulfill his own ambitions as quickly as possible like Mr. Ross.
He had a chance to lead and solve a problem and he took the easy way out and shit on a vital economic demographic of our city.
Thanks but no thanks to Mr. "Bedtime is at 10pm in the city that always sleeps / blame everything on the universities".
Who Is Shitting On The City, Mike Ross or Students?
By BlackKat
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 10:37pm
People who are not students live in the same neighborhoods that the students live in. They're not a "special interest group" or "some disgruntled, but vocal residents". They are Mike Ross' constituents.
They vote for him, and expect in return he takes steps to improve the portions of the city he represents.
Maybe you're OK with people who are loud and throw trash and puke and piss and shit all over the street. Maybe you are OK with illegal, overcrowded apartments with dozens of structural violations. But I am not OK with that.
Since you can't count on people acting considerate and responsible, sometimes you have to legislate them into submission.
Mike Ross Is an Idiot
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 11:16pm
You know, you could move to a city where there aren't universities to trouble your person and economy.
Given your love of brick things, may I suggest Baltimore ... perhaps even Detroit?
Ross isn't interested in solving any problems - he merely wants to make MORE problems and then point at the problems and whine like the rest of you whining idiots who don't know where your freaking paychecks come from.
He's more interested in playing tough guy with the largest employers in the area - not, you know, going after the slumlords who don't live in the city, give him LOTS of money to avoid the real problems, and cause all the problems of which you speak?
Go ahead - you and Markk move. Please
^ Ahh yes, the standard "you
By Josev
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 8:14am
^ Ahh yes, the standard "you can leave if you don't like it" response
Mike Ross
By anon²
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 10:38am
Mike Ross, got any other questions?
Explanations are below. But if you like a wet sock who is good at appearing to do things, rather than someone smart enough to actually have real solutions, go right ahead and support him.
He didn't do a damn thing to go after the slum lords, and at worst he put the city (your tax dollars) on the table for an eventual lawsuit against a stupid law that literally does nothing but gives Mike Ross something to point to as an "accomplishment". How about some metrics on how well it's working? Oh, well it unenforceable, so we don't have any! But we got them off our lawn, didn't we!
Whats next, outlawing the selling of plastic cups, pong balls, and taco bell to students? That should take care of those other problems you mention!
I don't understand why you are pro-overcrowding
By Matthew
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 12:03am
He did sponsor an ordinance to go after slum lords. It's the one that you seem to hate: the "no more than four" law, and it was unanimously approved by the city council. And putting aside questions of constitutionality, I have no idea why you think this law is "anti-student."
Do you think it is "anti-student" to try and stop the problem of overcrowding? I think it is far more "anti-student" to continue to enable the overcrowding conditions that slumlords profit from. It's our archaic zoning laws, held in place by NIMBYs, that are the real source of slumlord power.
The "no more than four" law is a temporary measure. The real solution is to build more housing so that people don't feel pressured to live in dangerously overcrowded conditions. And if I navigate to Mike Ross's website and click on "Housing" then I get to learn this right away:
Whether or not you plan to vote for him, I really don't see why you would be pro-overcrowding... unless you are a slumlord personally.
> I have no idea why you
By anon
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 8:41am
> I have no idea why you think this law is "anti-student."
Because it allows five non-students to live in a building. Or four students and four non-students. It does nothing to prevent overcrowding. It transparently creates separate standards for undergraduates as opposed to people who are not students. If you already have four undergraduates in your residence, and a fifth person tries to pick up some classes part time, all of a sudden, you're in violation. No change in who lives in your place, just a change in student status of one resident. That makes it clearly "anti-student".
It's a jingoistic attempt keeping students, who are mostly from outside Boston, from living off campus. Unfortunately, Mike Ross doesn't see how it has hurt many of the kids who his school system has failed who try to live more cheaply to pick up classes part time and undo the damage of BPS.
That doesn't go after slum lords
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 8:44am
First off, it is unenforceable.
Secondly, probably illegal to discriminate based on vocation, just nobody has sued the city yet due to the first problem.
Third, it solves NO problems and doesn't even begin to have anything to do with overcrowding since, as you might or might not know, houses come in very different sizes.
Fourth, it does nothing to the absentee slumlords like an effective inspection system with heavy fines would.
Fifth, if it did work, it would drive up rental costs, which Ross' slumlord buddies would really like.
Is there somewhere we can see how much Ross makes in campaign contributions from absentee landlords? Might be interesting. Oh, yeah, he will probably say that we don't get to look at those because he's Prince Mike of the I Declare Free Parking for City Councillors - or Just Special Me!
In sum, Ross creates more problems than he solves - what comes out of his mouth is either unbelievable bullshit pandering by uselessly antagonizing the biggest economic force in the city for no good end, or it is pie-in-the-sky "hey look at ME, I'M and IDEA GUY with NEW IDEAS ... flying cars anyone????
and your voting for?
By anon
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 11:00am
oh, thats right
Slumlord economics and "no more than four"
By Matthew
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 11:47am
I'll start by saying that I agree that it should not have been targeted specifically at undergraduate students. We need to relieve overcrowding and it isn't just students who are subject to those conditions. The house that burned down on Mansfield Street was populated by poor working folks. I've lived in other cities with laws against "more than X unrelated peoples" living together, so it's not unheard of.
I also agree that it isn't an ideal ordinance, I would rather it not have to exist, and it may have not been effective. It's only part of the story. The other part is the construction of many new housing units to bring the unit density up and the overcrowding down. That part needs a much heavier lift, coming from the Mayor's office. Menino only began to sort of, kind of, get it in the last couple of years. Too little, too late.
Also, beefing up ISD, which appears to have finally begun. Witness the gnashing and wailing over the $25/fee per unit.
Slumlords are not a beneficiary of the "no more than four" law. The reason is that slumlords can charge exorbitant rents because students (or others) will pool together and live in overcrowded conditions in order to pay the high rent. If somehow the "no more than four" ordinance was effective, then slumlords would not be able to use this tactic any longer. Then they would have to attract tenants in another way.
Of course, again, this is only a piece of the solution: it also involves good inspections and a strong development program of new housing units. The real danger to neighborhoods, and the real basis for slumlordism, is the outdated zoning code which limits the development of new housing.
Unfortunately, there's a few, well-placed individuals who seem to believe that if we continue to zone for large single-family homes, that they will somehow magically attract large families to populate them. Instead, what really happens, is that those properties attract a dozen students who are willing to fill up all the rooms, and they can collectively pay far more in rent than a family.
I live on a street with many of these kind of houses, so I have a front-row seat for the craziness.
What we really need is for those large buildings to be subdivided properly into safe, inspected units. Or, replaced wholesale with properly designed apartment buildings, when within easy walking distance to transit. And no minimum parking requirements, because those raise the cost significantly!
In other words, the solution to overcrowding is to become more like a city and less like a semi-suburb.
Most of the candidates, including Mike Ross, seem to understand this. That's why increased housing and improved inspections shows up in pretty much everyone's platform.
Is Ross even relevant?
By slowman4130
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:36pm
Ross's crusade against college students over the years (one could assume it may have something to do with him getting kickbacks from developers/property managements) seems to have left a sour taste in a lot of our newest residents who chose to stay here after college.
Coupled with use of his city council "do you know who I am" position to try and get out of parking tickets, influence court cases, etc, I imagine he would be at least twice as worse as Menino when it comes to how city hall operates.
Really?
By BostonDog
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 1:01pm
He's been more of an advocate for quality-of-life issues for the 25-40 crowd more than the others as far as I can tell. Public schools are important but they aren't the only thing that matters to being mayor.
I agree with him about City Hall. How many times has someone tried to ditch that place? 5-6 times? Every other year he had some convoluted plan for doing something to that space and it never happened.
The building is big and ugly but the city has other priorities. If it would be easy to replace it would have been done by now.
maybe it's Nick's magic touch...
By jedH
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:50pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1015155423...
I just think it'll be great
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 12:58pm
I just think it'll be great if people start utilizing the Fairmount Line.....instead of just vandalizing it weekly
that photo
By SatansFist
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 1:14pm
um, is that kid breastfeeding in that photo?
Am I really that subtle?
By Photobombing Wa...
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:42pm
Am I really that subtle?
You Can't Fight City Hall
By BlackKat
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:10pm
Glad to see my candidate of choice has his head on straight.
City Hall is a beautiful building, considered a world class landmark. And the plaza is very much in use by a large number of civic and private parties for large scale events that it is perfect for.
If anything most of Boston's more suburban-looking areas should be razed to put up more concrete buildings in the same style.
For those critical of his work to help reign in the student population, you obviously either don't live in one of the affected areas. As a non-student in a student heavy area like Allston-Brighton, the city has benefited much from his efforts to strengthen the power and clout of city inspection services. And to try to head off situations where loud partying, or illegal and overcrowded apartments are allowed to occur with impunity.
He also is a labor friendly candidate, and did a lot of work to help move along the cities collective bargaining with the firefighter union during that lengthy deadlock.
I don't know if he has enough votes to push ahead of some of the other candidates, but he definitely has the best plan for City Hall.
LOL
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:43pm
"City Hall is a beautiful building, considered a world class landmark"
Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.
No LOL
By BlackKat
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:56pm
Your dismissive lack of good taste in architecture is a crime. You're probably one of those rubes who goes to the MFA, looks at a Piet Mondrian, and says "Derp derp, I could paint a bunch of squares and sell it for a million dollars, hur hur hur."
Where BlackKat needs to go live
By I'm a number, n...
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:13pm
From the outside ... I am thinking WHAT WERE THEY THINKING????
[img=400x300]http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/newYork/Empire...
TMBG for the Win!
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:38pm
When we heard "Albany" (aka "The Egg") we knew that we had to stop in Albany on our way back from Chicago. We were not disappointed! There was much hysterical giggling at how over the top this place is! Thank you They Might Be Giants! City Hall has nothing on this horror of concrete abuse!
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2008/04/16/they-m...
Who's Piet Mondrian?
By Stevil
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:15pm
Is that the guy in Trump's Art of the Deal who says to him "Wanna see me make a million dollars before lunch (it was about 11:45 am)?" Trump says sure, and he splashes paint all over a canvas, turns to Trump and says - "That'll sell for at least $1 million. Lunch is on me."
100 years from now those squares will be on sale in a flea market for $1. Just because some snobby person with more money than taste calls it art doesn't make it so.
Same goes for City Hall - the thing is a visual atrocity from the exterior. I can't imagine working there for even a year and not needing serious mental counseling. It is about the most depressing office environment I can imagine. Completely soulless - I can barely stand standing in line in that building.
wow
By Scratchie
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:30pm
You're wicked smaht.
I actually like the exterior
By adamg
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:33pm
Something I wouldn't have said 20 years ago, but hey, tastes change.
But yeah, inside, the place is a soul-crushing eastern-European-style boot stamping on the face of humanity, forever. Dark and dismal, it screams your insignificance at you with every step you take.
As I recall, the architect...
By Michael Kerpan
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:49pm
... was long bothered by the fact that his plans to make the interior a reasonable working environment were scrapped -- in order to save money. And I also recall that, in his old age, he offered to work -- for free -- with the city to solve as many of the interior problems as possible. I believe he was blown off -- once again.
Build, but maintain. The
By anon_nona
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 4:36pm
Build, but maintain.
The above comment is why I believe the City should never build a single thing unless they can reasonably expect to maintain it.
Yes LOL
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 3:36pm
What's the MFA?
Mass Football Association
By kvn
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 4:15pm
Mass Football Association
Mass Football Association
By kvn
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 4:15pm
Mass Football Association
He has done next to nothing
By anon
Mon, 09/16/2013 - 4:37pm
He has done next to nothing to show he is labor friendly. He went back on his word after the arbitration was completed. Felix Arroyo is the one who worked with 718 after the contract was settled. Ross only held hearings after the arbitration with the firefighters to pander to the keyboard warriors in the Ivory Tower-upon-Morrissey.
Walsh just incurred the wrath
By the building in...
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 12:06am
of the entire global architecture community. You don't propose destroying an important piece of architectural history and not expect people to get upset. This is going to get really ugly. You think no one outside the region was paying any attention to this race? Just you wait.
I know a certain generation of Bostonians thinks this is an ugly building, but it also represents the misguided destruction of the West End, which I think gets mixed up in people's minds. Younger Bostonians don't seem to have that same level of irrational hatred of the building - which leads me to believe that it's entirely about the West End and nothing to do with the building itself. Maybe if we wait another generation we can have a much more rational discussion about how to upgrade the building and redesign the plaza... but this kind of nonsense just makes me think this city still has a really long way to go to shake off it's parochial mentality.
Walsh seems to have a knack for aligning himself with local curmudgeons.
Sorry, I never knew the West
By anon
Wed, 09/18/2013 - 10:49am
Sorry, I never knew the West End, and I think it's a hideous, ugly monstrosity.
Why is the "architecture community" so enamored with it? It's a hideous, soulless mass of dirty concrete, set in a barren wasteland of brick.
Read the remarks of Councilor Ross from the last Public Meeting.
By theszak
Tue, 09/17/2013 - 12:34am
Read the remarks of Councilor Ross from the last Public Meeting of Boston City Council in the full plain English text stenographic record for hard of hearing folks.
Add comment