Boston is certainly in a better position than a lot of the country. However, even in Boston, being able to be car-free is not always feasible for lower-income folks, especially as development relentlessly moves forward.

As an example: the neighborhood I've lived in for a decade used to be a relatively low-income neighborhood. Rents were low in the old buildings, most folks walked to their jobs in the medical area, and there was a cheap Shaws grocery store for food, as well as several fast food places and family-run storefronts. Public transit (light rail, buses, and commuter rail) was accessible close by.

Then a development company bought nearly all of the parcels along the main road and built a wall of mid-to-high-rises. Accordingly, all rent in the area went way up, forcing most of the lower-income folks out of even the older, shittier tenement buildings. A Target went in, and the Shaws rebranded as the more expensive Star Market (and will soon close so they can build a new Whole-Foods-type expensive megastore). All of the small storefronts closed, and now the area is nearly entirely high-end shopping outlets and expensive gastro-restaurants. They shut down the bus lines running through the neighborhood because all the rich people who moved in have cars (Porsches and Lambos now rev through the neighborhood at all hours) and bus ridership was down.

Where did all of the folks -- and their families -- previously able to afford the area go? To areas of Boston where the rent is still cheap. Many of these places are nowhere near good public transit (e.g. if someone moved from this area of Boston to Dorchester, then took transit to their same job, it would require 3-4 transfers on packed buses and trains). So now these people are forced to get a car as well.

The worst part of all of this is: who wins here? Not the people forced to leave their neighborhood, not the people who suddenly need to buy a car, not the people who can no longer afford to run a restaurant in the area... not even the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas). The developers win. They pumped as much money as they could out of the neighborhood, and then moved on to their next target, leaving a less livable city in their wake.

This is a reversal of cause and effect. I'm guessing since you are on Hacker News, it's quite likely that you are a high-paid engineer. You, and many others like you, are the cause of your neighborhood getting more expensive. As suburbs have become less desirable in our culture, many people would like to live in walkable parts of the city, so prices get bid up. The new mid rises kept prices lower than they would have been otherwise. If they hadn't been built, then all the rich people would have moved into lightly renovated tenements, exposed brick and such. Perhaps your apartment is something along those lines. Trust me, I'm from San Francisco, a city that "beat the developers" in the 70's, and made laws against building anything new in most of the city. Now poorly maintained 100 year old houses in any neighborhood go for $2-3mm.

I'd just add that Boston also just doesn't have a car-free culture like Manhattan in particular has.

So even if you're a middle-class/upper-middle-class tech worker who wants to live in the city:

1.) Many of the tech jobs are in the suburbs and you mostly need a car to get to them. (There are today more jobs in the city again but many aren't.)

2.) Many of your friends probably live in transit unfriendly suburbs so you'll probably find it hard to get together with them unless they come in to meet you.

Of course, people adapt to what is easier for them and just behave accordingly.

> not even the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas).

Why don't these people win?

The mid rises were built because the rich people were moving to transit oriented areas, not the other way around.

Yep, Boston frequently tops lists of cities with the best public transportation in the country. Really wish more cities had that infrastructure.

The underlying requirement for a city to have good public transportation is to have more dense populations, which is almost always only found in older parts of cities. All the newer parts of any city in the previous decades were zoned to be less dense, so you're not going to see comprehensive public transportation any of the cities that have experienced recent growth. It's simply untenable under a certain amount of density, not to mention that most people prefer cars if they have the option to use them.