If we do this everywhere it will make for a much better future. High density, walkable cities are so much nicer to live in than suburban sprawl car dependent cities
I like this idea. Couple that with shifting to more working from home positions. Free up office space that can be converted into housing instead of wasting money/resources clearing land and constructing a new building. Meanwhile, it saves the company money that would be used to rent office space and pay for utilities. The worker spends less money/time commuting, it reduces fuel emissions, and yields greater productivity for the employer.
Can we make this happen?..
Edit: Just noticed the community after wondering in from browsing all. I’m no where near Boston haha. Still would love to see this catch on.
I really wouldn’t mind seeing this with commercial/residential mixes. Stores on first floor, apartments above sounds cool. Maybe even have childcare thrown in there somewhere as well. Like mega blocks from Judge Dredd, but… nicer.
I doubt this will work. Office buildings are structurally and architecturally very different from residential buildings. In a recent case in my home city of Ottawa, it cost the developer the same amount to retool an office building for residential as it would have for them to tear it down and rebuild a new residental tower in its place.
I don’t want to sound like an ass but… surely they’ve spoken to some developers about this and think there’s scope for it to work.
Maybe things are different in Boston. The general rule is the older the office the better it will work, and I’m betting that Boston has some pretty old office buildings.
What I can say is that this is a pretty popular political football at the moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if this it was initiated by the mayor and not the planning department.
One would think. You might be surprised.
There some that are looking into similar conversions in other cities:
^ San Francisco
^ New York
Yes, this sounds like a good idea.
Also, bring in residents you bring back commercial too, win/win.
Minimum 20% affordable is pretty rough for such a big tax break but better than nothing I suppose.
Adding in higher priced housing also decreases the pressure on affordable housing.
If there’s 500 affordable units and 500 luxury units with 1000 people higher income housing seekers you’re going to see those 1000 people rent/buy all of the luxury units and all of the affordable units. In that scenario, adding 500 luxury units will remove the higher-income pressure on the existing affordable units.
Boston needs so much housing that this will not be a panacea anyway, but I think we’d be surprised at the relative (though not absolute, due to aforementioned) efficacy of that 20% requirement.
