Boston TAB Op-ed column by Shirley Kressel
December 8, 1999
Boston's vibrant residential character is the envy of most American cities. Yet the City administration constantly undermines our neighborhoods, favoring the constant expansion of educational and medical institutions.
Institutions prefer to bank their own land, to reserve it for development of core operations, and foist their support functions, particularly parking and housing, onto the surrounding neighboring fabric. In several neighborhoods, much of the housing is occupied by students. According to a l995 Boston Redevelopment Authority report, college students then constituted 26% of the population in Back Bay/ Beacon Hill, 27% in Allston-Brighton, and 63% in the Fenway; and enrollments have risen since.
In a current controversy, Boston College is facing strong community opposition to its draft Master Plan. BC has always limited its campus dormitory construction, and officially required many students to live off-campus. It counts on the City to approve its development plans --and to buffer it from the wrath of the afflicted neighborhoods with an ineffectual "public process."
BC presented its draft Master Plan to the BC Task Force, a school/ community group formed to address BC's responsibilities for on-campus housing. The Plan speaks vaguely of housing 450 additional students within 5 years --hardly a good faith effort to repatriate 2,225 undergraduate (and 4,700 graduate) students living in the neighborhood, especially as enrollment is increasing.
Despite reasonable opportunities for on-campus dorm construction recommended by the Task Force, the College refuses to build for its needs, occupying potential campus housing areas with parking lots and 30-year-old "temporary" dorm barracks. BC's strategy is to hold the community hostage for MDC reservoir land, which it calls "surplus," to develop its housing --this in a neighborhood already far below City targets for open space acreage per population.
BC is conserving its own carrying capacity, and "externalizing" the burden of its expansion to the neighborhood. However, the community cannot carry this proportion of students without suffering a fundamental destabilization. Students rooming in groups bid up rents beyond the means of most families; in Allston-Brighton, where the median family income is $44,000 (with one-third under $25,000), students routinely pay $2000-3,000 monthly. Stable, vested homeowners and long-term renters have been forced out, resulting in an owner-occupancy rate below 20%, compared to 36% city-wide. Families leave, community institutions such as churches and schools collapse, and the commercial mix narrows to a college-town assortment. In a dangerous spiral, the plummeting voter population deprives the neighborhood of political power to counter the trend.
Institutions can contribute to a city's overall vibrancy, but clearly, in Allston-Brighton, the carrying capacity of the neighborhood has been far exceeded, and the balance has tipped. At this rate, even BC's own graduates will not be able to live here as adult householders, as poignantly lamented by an alumna at a recent public meeting.
There is only one answer: Tie enrollment to the availability of on-campus housing.
Citizens expect their elected officials to do the proper bookkeeping on carrying capacity and exercise regulatory powers to maintain the balance. Institutions, like other developers, must be regulated to be responsible members of the community. This is imperative to ensure the viability of neighborhood life, and to protect the vibrant, livable environment on which institutions as well as residents depend.
Mayor Thomas Menino has proclaimed that the city-wide housing crisis is a top priority. If he is serious, this is an opportunity to show it. Institutional occupation of neighborhood housing stock -‚ and of land that should be used for housing --is a major factor in the city's housing shortage. Nor can institutional land grabs of public open space be the solution; we follow a perilous road when we turn our open space into real estate --whether to benefit non-profit or for-profit corporations.
The BRA, which executes the Mayor's policy, must require BC and other institutions to develop coordinated Master Plans meeting stringent targets and schedules for on-campus housing. No institution can provide the complete solution; each must do its part. The Master Plans must assure a community-ratified balance between enrolled students and on-campus beds --not by colonization of more neighborhood housing or land, but by balancing schools' concepts of their core campus carrying capacity with enrollment. Like any other developer, institutions must "internalize" their costs.
Controlling institutional development is not a task to be left to citizen volunteers, but is an obligation of the BRA. It will be done if the Mayor truly values the residents of Boston.