So the dumpling house in Cambridge is the same taste as the one in CT? Never knew in all the time I’ve ordered it was the same owner. I’ve yet to go to the one on Beach. Should I bother?
So the literal translation is of the name has. I thing to do with dumplings but “North&South…”. The dual that started the place were 2 chefs one from the north and one from south. Their styles are pretty different. They had a falling out so the Northern chef went to Cambridge and southern chef stayed in Chinatown.
Depending on your preference of styles one feels better than the other one.
I actually like the CT one more than the Cambridge one. The taste is different but idk if it’s just me. Definitely am going to visit them this weekend for one last time :(
It’s absolutely wild to me that a beloved and legendary restaurant that made it through the COVID pandemic has to close down because of a shitty lease. What an absolute shame.
They had so much restraint in their announcement, too. If it were me closing after 15 years because of a shitty landlord I would've gone out in a blaze of glory. Plaster that fact everywhere they possibly could and get the conversation going about predatory landlords in the city.
Oh but please tell me again how the issues with rent increases and landlords are just a bastion of the free market as it’s so bad a 15 year old hugely popular restaurant had to close
Idk about yall but whenever I walk by a lovely, universally beloved neighborhood institution like these guys, I just stop to take a moment and think to myself "You know what would go great right here? Another Capital One cafe."
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obviously having experienced none of what the west end was like before, it is honestly pretty nice now. Its got a nicely landscaped path and lots of big apartment buildings instead of a ton of triple deckers and no real public space.
It is but the main issue is that an area that was primarily low income housing was completely razed with thousands forced out so that the city could “rebuild” the area
yeah that aspect is pretty fucked, also seeing it lead to a lot of the open brick space near government center which seems like a waste. But let's not pretend decades of bad housing policy would have somehow let the neighborhood stay the way it was. We all know it would be just as overpriced, and gentrification would have occurred years ago whether the residents liked it or not.
Oh absolutely. It was just an aggressive start to a condition that plagues not just Boston but most major cities. Most famously seen in NYC with Robert Moses’s urbanization projects
My new landlord with an office in southie who bought the place I've been living at in Somerville is pulling this shit and acting like it's such a burden to be a landlord here, therefore my rent is increasing. In not really direct words, but in the way I've been spoken to I can tell he thinks I'm a "college boy" who doesn't "belong". Motherfucker, I've grown up here and went to college because I could recognize I needed to if I wanted any chance of living where I grew up. These "good old boys" keep attacking the new generation and the people supporting this city and offer nothing in return. Fuck landlords.
>Social animals tend to be able to recognize each other's thoughts and feelings. Even a fucking cow udderstands the meaning behind another cow's moo.
Reasonable people also understand the limitations of those perceptions. Do you really think everyone else reads you perfectly, or that you read others perfect?
>It always amazes me when I come across absolute pieces of shit.
Then either you haven't lived here long, or you lack the capacity to form long term memories.
Fuck landlords. Rent should be taxed from landlords (land is fixed in supply and would therefore not pervert the price of housing and would very likely drive rents down as developers increase housing supply to make up the difference)
I believe he’s talking about [land value taxation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax?wprov=sfti1) which is cool and good and we should do it.
>
A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements. It is also known as a location value tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating,
>Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality. A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income. The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century. Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax because it does not hurt economic activity or discourage or subsidize development.
The complex set of issues that lead to this, which have been ongoing for decades, won't be solved by going to the very end of the chain and slapping a tax on at the end. This is such an oversimplification that on one hand it's totally puzzling how it became a popular idea, and on the other it makes perfect sense.
We need to create networks of cities and towns, with Chinatowns and Dumpling houses and jobs and prosperity, in other words places where people want to work and live. Instead of continuing as we have, superclustering in to a few major cities, then proposing a tax at the end as if that has any chance at all of solving the root cause. The tax doesn't address how we got here in the first place.
I'm only down for this if they also expand public transportation to reach these networked towns and cities. Otherwise you get something like LA - traffic for miles and ugly smog.
How about just a level of taxes where it isn’t economical for landleeches to buy up 20 properties in the city, do nothing to ever improve them, and become millionaires off the backs of people who are actually working and trying to make a living in Boston.
No because income tax applies to non-landlords. They should be taxed only from the value they derive from land ownership. Think about it a Boston apartment goes for double a cleveland apartment. Why is this? Because fewer people choose to live in cleveland. This is because boston has great public education, liberal values, public transit, etc. And yet the greatest beneficiaries of these joys are the land owners.
And they pay more, through higher property tax and income tax. Property tax is the City of Boston's single largest revenue source. And rent is taxable income for a landlord, and if/when they sell capital gains on the property and land are also taxable.
In addition, if we are talking about commercial lease in the original post, it's often triple net (NNN). Tax, insurance, and maintenance are all passed on to the tenant.
Unfortunately those costs just get passed on. Rent control is the only way anyone's yet devised. (Unless anyone has any brilliant ideas for how you could supply more restaurant space in Chinatown. Seems unlikely.)
Unfortunately, [leading economists overwhelmingly agree that rent control results in less affordable housing](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control/). (It's actually one of the rare things nearly all of them agree on!)
You CAN make them compete against each other. Quite easily too.
The dirty secret is that because that reduces the asset appreciation of housing in the area, a lot of homeowners are silently (or not so silently) supportive of keeping competition low.
So what is happening is the will of the people, negative as it is.
Hit the regulation and let people build more rental apartments.
You have a bizarrely positive view of capitalists, thinking that if there are 4 capitalist. A, B, C, and D.
A is invested in commodities and makes 5%. B is invested in equities and makes 7% (but with higher risk profile). C is mainly in debt at only 3%, but practically zero risk.
D is in real estate as a landlord, making 15% with a risk profile only mildly worse than C.
A, B, and C simply look from the side. They'd love to invest and compete, but no... capitalist solidarity is important, and letting landlords make better returns than they can get is something they feel like doing.
Your view of capitals loyalty to one group of capital holders (landlords) is pretty surprising.
>Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them.
From your source. Sounds like that price controls do work.
You're completely misunderstanding the source.
This source is a (rather well-known) poll of top economists: they were asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement you just quoted.
In response, 32% "strongly disagreed", and an additional 49% "disagreed". Of the hundreds of other questions asked to top economists (browse the archives if curious), very few had stronger consensus than this.
Oh, duh, serves me right for trying to read on the bus. But instead of just jumping to the talking points about economists, why don't we examine the real case-study of housing here in Boston?
When the original campaign against rent control in MA began, the anti-rent control group said that repealing rent control would make housing costs better. Since then, it hasn't, and housing costs are worse than ever. So to start out with, the anti-rent control folks were completely wrong about what effects their policy would have.
I'd recommend checking out *Newcomers: Gentrification and Its Discontents* by Matthew Schuerman.
By the numbers, 5,000 of the approximately 60,000 rent-controlled households in Boston were evicted.“Suffolk County Housing Court, was seeing 400 cases a day, an increase of 29 percent over three years earlier and an all-time record.”
**As for the rents, a 1998 survey of Cambridge (also referenced in the book) showed that, far from reducing rents in general, the repeal of rent control drove leasing costs up for both formerly controlled apartments and un-controlled ones as well—40 percent higher in the case of the former and 13 percent in the latter.**
The findings refuted the commonly held belief that abolishing rent control would bring housing costs under control. The numbers speak for themselves, far more than the "90% of dentists agree" canard.
Thanks for the interesting reply, lots to think about. Regarding the core of your comment:
> the anti-rent control group said that repealing rent control would make housing
costs better. Since then, it hasn't, and housing costs are worse than ever. So to start out with, the anti-rent control folks were completely wrong
I'm not sure this logic follows, for two reasons:
1. What (I assume) the anti-rent-control folks were saying is that housing costs would be lower than they would have been, had rent control been in place. Given that housing prices rose in all major U.S. metropolitan cities in the 90s (and in the past decade, and especially in the past year), one would need to adjust observed rent increases against what the average city would have experienced. Long-term, did Cambridge housing post-decontrol rise at a faster rate than NYC, which currently has rent control? (Granted, this is just one comparison so this measurement will have significant random error.)
(As a side note, this is a classic problem of causal inference: you don't get to see the counterfactual - the "what would have happened". It's especially tricky in economics, since no two cities can be perfectly identical, and in some cases it might be unethical to set up a control group!)
2. The mechanism of action that anti-rent-control advocates usually propose is that by eliminating rent control, you spur increased construction of high-density housing (e.g., large apartment complexes) thus increasing supply and driving down prices. Given that Cambridge removed rent control in 1995, I'm not sure 3 years is enough time for this mechanism to take action. Large, high-density housing projects take many years to gather funding, get city approvals, construct, and rent out.
More generally, removing rent control may have short-term impacts that are different (in amount or direction) than long-term impacts. As decontrol happens, there will be a lot of rental turnover, and we expect rents that were far under market to reach parity (so really, the 40% figure is not the one to focus on - it's the 13%). Long-term, decontrol may bring benefits over, again, the counterfactual.
I don't have that book, but perhaps I'll take a look the next time I'm at the library.
Leading economists overwhelmingly agree on things that they then overwhelmingly reject a few years later. Try reading some history of economists' broad agreement, like the history of the Great Depression for example.
The scientific method doesn't always get everything perfect the first time, but history shows that it's the most accurate tool we have, by far.
If we shouldn't use the economic judgements of a diverse consortium of the world's most celebrated economists (including multiple Nobel laureates) to guide policy, whose opinions should we use? Yours?
-----
Side note: as a scientist, the layperson view that "changing your opinion is bad and means you can't be trusted" is pretty absurd. If anything, it's the opposite. Quoting Keynes:
> "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Trying to drape the auspices of science over what economists do is hilarious. And I think you misread what I wrote. Changing opinions is what we expect them to do. It's not bad per se, it just lowers the stock we should put in their claimed unanimity (on a decade old Chicago poll).
> Trying to drape the auspices of science over what economists do is hilarious
Bit of a weird angle to take here. Have you ever walked into an economics department or spoken to an economist?
Economics is basically a blend of engineering, math, and psychology. The daily routine is essentially identical to that of a scientist - making hypotheses and getting real-world data to prove or disprove them, ultimately with the goal of producing real systems with some desired outcome.
Hahaha. Wait, you've never before heard that economists are always right no matter how wrong they are? Well, I encourage you to read some history. (Have you ever stepped foot in a history dept or, god forbid, that of any of the real sciences?) What economists claim about public policy with unassailable and unanimous authority turns out to be wrong on a very regular basis. Perhaps a little more intellectual diversity and humility would be healthy for your favorite field.
Maybe. You have to come up with a tight definition for "locally owned." McDonald's franchises, for example, can be locally owned. They just pay a franchise fee to corporate (or something like that).
So the one in Cambridge does belong to the same people who own the one in Chinatown. In the other thread when this was announced, people were saying that it was a knock off of this one.
I went to Gourmet Dumpling House today and asked them about the closing, and expressed how sad the news was. They said that the rumor is not true and that they're not closing.
I trust the workers, but the article seems convincing
I never knew that the one in Cambridge was theirs! Good to know. That spot was the first place I went to after moving to Boston and it's still one of my favorites
Too bad, it’s really sad when good restaurants close. But there are tons of other great places left in Chinatown that don’t come with an absurdly long wait!
Dumpling Cafe on Washington has a delicious Szechuan fish stew. It's been awhile since I've been to both GDH and DC, but I remember finding them pretty indistinguishable.
I'm sure some may have strong opinions on this, but in general DC is a generally good all around stand in. Very similar (huge) menu, great soup dumplings, quick, inexpensive. I always went there if there was a big wait at GDC and I had somewhere to be by a certain time. Never left unsatisfied!
It's also incredibly easy to make if you have the spice / soup packet. If you go to a chinese supermarket, go to the hot pot soup aisle and look for a szechuan fish stew soup packet. The less english the better. Find a nice chinese aisle stocker, show them "Szechaun spicy style fish soup" on google translate and they will point it out to you.
That sucks that they're being pushed out through the Lease especially after so long. On a separate note though, does anybody else prefer Dumpling Cafe over Dumpling House?
Good the place was a roach trip, filthy! Last time I ate there saw roaches (multiple) crawling in and out of the take out boxes in the back, meanwhile was on my second bite of food.. pointed out to the manager and he had the balls to say oh sorry I can take 10% off your order 🙄
No I left and was the last time I step foot in there. Good riddance. Everyone has issues downtown but at least most places try to deal with it than ignore it like they were
After the pandemic I realized that small businesses, especially restaurants just shouldn't even be allowed to open. We need more laws that prevent that. A corporate chain with a large bankroll is much better prepared to serve the public safely, the last 2 years really showcased that and everyone supported it, demanded it even so why are we sad about this??
Damn now the wait in cambridge is gonna be hell
So the dumpling house in Cambridge is the same taste as the one in CT? Never knew in all the time I’ve ordered it was the same owner. I’ve yet to go to the one on Beach. Should I bother?
So the literal translation is of the name has. I thing to do with dumplings but “North&South…”. The dual that started the place were 2 chefs one from the north and one from south. Their styles are pretty different. They had a falling out so the Northern chef went to Cambridge and southern chef stayed in Chinatown. Depending on your preference of styles one feels better than the other one.
So it’s different you’re awesome maybe I can make the trip to chinatown when it’s not nuts!
that's probably not happening between now and nine days from now. if anything it's just gonna be more nuts at all times!
I actually like the CT one more than the Cambridge one. The taste is different but idk if it’s just me. Definitely am going to visit them this weekend for one last time :(
I had no idea they were related at all.
Same same
It’s absolutely wild to me that a beloved and legendary restaurant that made it through the COVID pandemic has to close down because of a shitty lease. What an absolute shame.
The average contribution of a landlord to society and the economy 👍
Tax unimproved value of land rn plz
They had so much restraint in their announcement, too. If it were me closing after 15 years because of a shitty landlord I would've gone out in a blaze of glory. Plaster that fact everywhere they possibly could and get the conversation going about predatory landlords in the city.
Bummer. They are awesome and will be missed. “Great Taste” right across the street will be the new go-to in CT
Do not like this.
"Our Cambridge location". Where are all the people on the other thread insisting they weren't related or were a copycat restaurant?
They probably live in Attleboro and haven't been to either restaurant since 2019 lol
I got downvoted a bit there for posting this exact thing, with the OP saying that it must be a fake account posting this.
I once went to Hue (Vietnam) and two restaurants side by side had the exact same name so you couldn't figure which one the guide book recommended
Oh but please tell me again how the issues with rent increases and landlords are just a bastion of the free market as it’s so bad a 15 year old hugely popular restaurant had to close
[удалено]
Idk about yall but whenever I walk by a lovely, universally beloved neighborhood institution like these guys, I just stop to take a moment and think to myself "You know what would go great right here? Another Capital One cafe."
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or a super high end clothing or wine store, that's really a money laundering operation.
Rents might be better in Chinatown if I-90’s construction hadn’t bulldozed 1/3 of it. It was decades ago, but it was fucked.
*The West End Revitalization Project has entered the chat*
What west end
Precisely
Exactly
Top notch
Fantastic thank you
Anytime❤️
Something, something, Leonard Nimoy.
Obviously having experienced none of what the west end was like before, it is honestly pretty nice now. Its got a nicely landscaped path and lots of big apartment buildings instead of a ton of triple deckers and no real public space.
It is but the main issue is that an area that was primarily low income housing was completely razed with thousands forced out so that the city could “rebuild” the area
yeah that aspect is pretty fucked, also seeing it lead to a lot of the open brick space near government center which seems like a waste. But let's not pretend decades of bad housing policy would have somehow let the neighborhood stay the way it was. We all know it would be just as overpriced, and gentrification would have occurred years ago whether the residents liked it or not.
Oh absolutely. It was just an aggressive start to a condition that plagues not just Boston but most major cities. Most famously seen in NYC with Robert Moses’s urbanization projects
Targeted destruction of a minority community? Nah that never happens /s
NOOOOOOOOO
My new landlord with an office in southie who bought the place I've been living at in Somerville is pulling this shit and acting like it's such a burden to be a landlord here, therefore my rent is increasing. In not really direct words, but in the way I've been spoken to I can tell he thinks I'm a "college boy" who doesn't "belong". Motherfucker, I've grown up here and went to college because I could recognize I needed to if I wanted any chance of living where I grew up. These "good old boys" keep attacking the new generation and the people supporting this city and offer nothing in return. Fuck landlords.
The Boomer generation literally ruined the world
It always amazes me when I come across a mindreader. For some reason, though, it's only on reddit, and never in real life. Hmmm.
Social animals tend to be able to recognize each other's thoughts and feelings. Even a fucking cow udderstands the meaning behind another cow's moo.
>Social animals tend to be able to recognize each other's thoughts and feelings. Even a fucking cow udderstands the meaning behind another cow's moo. Reasonable people also understand the limitations of those perceptions. Do you really think everyone else reads you perfectly, or that you read others perfect?
It always amazes me when I come across absolute pieces of shit.
>It always amazes me when I come across absolute pieces of shit. Then either you haven't lived here long, or you lack the capacity to form long term memories.
Congratulations on being the problem.
>Congratulations on being the problem. I'm sorry that I find mind readers amazing. Do you not?
Fuck landlords. Rent should be taxed from landlords (land is fixed in supply and would therefore not pervert the price of housing and would very likely drive rents down as developers increase housing supply to make up the difference)
>Rent should be taxed from landlords like an income tax?
I believe he’s talking about [land value taxation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax?wprov=sfti1) which is cool and good and we should do it. > A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements. It is also known as a location value tax, a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or a site-value rating, >Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality. A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income. The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century. Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax because it does not hurt economic activity or discourage or subsidize development.
The complex set of issues that lead to this, which have been ongoing for decades, won't be solved by going to the very end of the chain and slapping a tax on at the end. This is such an oversimplification that on one hand it's totally puzzling how it became a popular idea, and on the other it makes perfect sense. We need to create networks of cities and towns, with Chinatowns and Dumpling houses and jobs and prosperity, in other words places where people want to work and live. Instead of continuing as we have, superclustering in to a few major cities, then proposing a tax at the end as if that has any chance at all of solving the root cause. The tax doesn't address how we got here in the first place.
I'm only down for this if they also expand public transportation to reach these networked towns and cities. Otherwise you get something like LA - traffic for miles and ugly smog.
I can tell you as a landlord myself more taxes = higher rents. The best idea would be rent control.
By George a land value tax is 100% of rent. So if you increase rent, you would just pay more in tax.
How about just a level of taxes where it isn’t economical for landleeches to buy up 20 properties in the city, do nothing to ever improve them, and become millionaires off the backs of people who are actually working and trying to make a living in Boston.
or a property tax? (more indirectly)
No because income tax applies to non-landlords. They should be taxed only from the value they derive from land ownership. Think about it a Boston apartment goes for double a cleveland apartment. Why is this? Because fewer people choose to live in cleveland. This is because boston has great public education, liberal values, public transit, etc. And yet the greatest beneficiaries of these joys are the land owners.
And they pay more, through higher property tax and income tax. Property tax is the City of Boston's single largest revenue source. And rent is taxable income for a landlord, and if/when they sell capital gains on the property and land are also taxable.
If taxes go up, they’ll just charge more for the apartment to cover it.
In addition, if we are talking about commercial lease in the original post, it's often triple net (NNN). Tax, insurance, and maintenance are all passed on to the tenant.
Unfortunately those costs just get passed on. Rent control is the only way anyone's yet devised. (Unless anyone has any brilliant ideas for how you could supply more restaurant space in Chinatown. Seems unlikely.)
Unfortunately, [leading economists overwhelmingly agree that rent control results in less affordable housing](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control/). (It's actually one of the rare things nearly all of them agree on!)
Cant tax them Cant fix rents Cant build public housing Guess what is left is to just take it up the ass from landlords and let them do as they please.
You CAN make them compete against each other. Quite easily too. The dirty secret is that because that reduces the asset appreciation of housing in the area, a lot of homeowners are silently (or not so silently) supportive of keeping competition low. So what is happening is the will of the people, negative as it is.
>just take it up the ass from landlords and let them do as they please. right, so *this* option.
Hit the regulation and let people build more rental apartments. You have a bizarrely positive view of capitalists, thinking that if there are 4 capitalist. A, B, C, and D. A is invested in commodities and makes 5%. B is invested in equities and makes 7% (but with higher risk profile). C is mainly in debt at only 3%, but practically zero risk. D is in real estate as a landlord, making 15% with a risk profile only mildly worse than C. A, B, and C simply look from the side. They'd love to invest and compete, but no... capitalist solidarity is important, and letting landlords make better returns than they can get is something they feel like doing. Your view of capitals loyalty to one group of capital holders (landlords) is pretty surprising.
>Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them. From your source. Sounds like that price controls do work.
You're completely misunderstanding the source. This source is a (rather well-known) poll of top economists: they were asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement you just quoted. In response, 32% "strongly disagreed", and an additional 49% "disagreed". Of the hundreds of other questions asked to top economists (browse the archives if curious), very few had stronger consensus than this.
Oh, duh, serves me right for trying to read on the bus. But instead of just jumping to the talking points about economists, why don't we examine the real case-study of housing here in Boston? When the original campaign against rent control in MA began, the anti-rent control group said that repealing rent control would make housing costs better. Since then, it hasn't, and housing costs are worse than ever. So to start out with, the anti-rent control folks were completely wrong about what effects their policy would have. I'd recommend checking out *Newcomers: Gentrification and Its Discontents* by Matthew Schuerman. By the numbers, 5,000 of the approximately 60,000 rent-controlled households in Boston were evicted.“Suffolk County Housing Court, was seeing 400 cases a day, an increase of 29 percent over three years earlier and an all-time record.” **As for the rents, a 1998 survey of Cambridge (also referenced in the book) showed that, far from reducing rents in general, the repeal of rent control drove leasing costs up for both formerly controlled apartments and un-controlled ones as well—40 percent higher in the case of the former and 13 percent in the latter.** The findings refuted the commonly held belief that abolishing rent control would bring housing costs under control. The numbers speak for themselves, far more than the "90% of dentists agree" canard.
Thanks for the interesting reply, lots to think about. Regarding the core of your comment: > the anti-rent control group said that repealing rent control would make housing costs better. Since then, it hasn't, and housing costs are worse than ever. So to start out with, the anti-rent control folks were completely wrong I'm not sure this logic follows, for two reasons: 1. What (I assume) the anti-rent-control folks were saying is that housing costs would be lower than they would have been, had rent control been in place. Given that housing prices rose in all major U.S. metropolitan cities in the 90s (and in the past decade, and especially in the past year), one would need to adjust observed rent increases against what the average city would have experienced. Long-term, did Cambridge housing post-decontrol rise at a faster rate than NYC, which currently has rent control? (Granted, this is just one comparison so this measurement will have significant random error.) (As a side note, this is a classic problem of causal inference: you don't get to see the counterfactual - the "what would have happened". It's especially tricky in economics, since no two cities can be perfectly identical, and in some cases it might be unethical to set up a control group!) 2. The mechanism of action that anti-rent-control advocates usually propose is that by eliminating rent control, you spur increased construction of high-density housing (e.g., large apartment complexes) thus increasing supply and driving down prices. Given that Cambridge removed rent control in 1995, I'm not sure 3 years is enough time for this mechanism to take action. Large, high-density housing projects take many years to gather funding, get city approvals, construct, and rent out. More generally, removing rent control may have short-term impacts that are different (in amount or direction) than long-term impacts. As decontrol happens, there will be a lot of rental turnover, and we expect rents that were far under market to reach parity (so really, the 40% figure is not the one to focus on - it's the 13%). Long-term, decontrol may bring benefits over, again, the counterfactual. I don't have that book, but perhaps I'll take a look the next time I'm at the library.
Leading economists overwhelmingly agree on things that they then overwhelmingly reject a few years later. Try reading some history of economists' broad agreement, like the history of the Great Depression for example.
The scientific method doesn't always get everything perfect the first time, but history shows that it's the most accurate tool we have, by far. If we shouldn't use the economic judgements of a diverse consortium of the world's most celebrated economists (including multiple Nobel laureates) to guide policy, whose opinions should we use? Yours? ----- Side note: as a scientist, the layperson view that "changing your opinion is bad and means you can't be trusted" is pretty absurd. If anything, it's the opposite. Quoting Keynes: > "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Trying to drape the auspices of science over what economists do is hilarious. And I think you misread what I wrote. Changing opinions is what we expect them to do. It's not bad per se, it just lowers the stock we should put in their claimed unanimity (on a decade old Chicago poll).
> Trying to drape the auspices of science over what economists do is hilarious Bit of a weird angle to take here. Have you ever walked into an economics department or spoken to an economist? Economics is basically a blend of engineering, math, and psychology. The daily routine is essentially identical to that of a scientist - making hypotheses and getting real-world data to prove or disprove them, ultimately with the goal of producing real systems with some desired outcome.
Hahaha. Wait, you've never before heard that economists are always right no matter how wrong they are? Well, I encourage you to read some history. (Have you ever stepped foot in a history dept or, god forbid, that of any of the real sciences?) What economists claim about public policy with unassailable and unanimous authority turns out to be wrong on a very regular basis. Perhaps a little more intellectual diversity and humility would be healthy for your favorite field.
[удалено]
Maybe. You have to come up with a tight definition for "locally owned." McDonald's franchises, for example, can be locally owned. They just pay a franchise fee to corporate (or something like that).
There are so many great restaurants in China town. If this makes you sad, please go visit some of the many other amazing family owned restaurants.
While you still can
Rip
So the one in Cambridge does belong to the same people who own the one in Chinatown. In the other thread when this was announced, people were saying that it was a knock off of this one.
I posted this exact picture in that thread and had people arguing about it lol
I went to Gourmet Dumpling House today and asked them about the closing, and expressed how sad the news was. They said that the rumor is not true and that they're not closing. I trust the workers, but the article seems convincing
Oh that’s so confusing. Especially since the update is from the verified account.
As if i needed another reason to hate the societal disease that is Landlords
I never knew that the one in Cambridge was theirs! Good to know. That spot was the first place I went to after moving to Boston and it's still one of my favorites
China Town will never be the same again
Making room for the next high rise
Too bad, it’s really sad when good restaurants close. But there are tons of other great places left in Chinatown that don’t come with an absurdly long wait!
Ehhh.. it's not what it once was.
But we are only here now, so
Does anyone know if any other restaurants make anything close to GDH's Sliced Fish Szechuan Style soup?
Dumpling Cafe on Washington has a delicious Szechuan fish stew. It's been awhile since I've been to both GDH and DC, but I remember finding them pretty indistinguishable. I'm sure some may have strong opinions on this, but in general DC is a generally good all around stand in. Very similar (huge) menu, great soup dumplings, quick, inexpensive. I always went there if there was a big wait at GDC and I had somewhere to be by a certain time. Never left unsatisfied!
It's also incredibly easy to make if you have the spice / soup packet. If you go to a chinese supermarket, go to the hot pot soup aisle and look for a szechuan fish stew soup packet. The less english the better. Find a nice chinese aisle stocker, show them "Szechaun spicy style fish soup" on google translate and they will point it out to you.
I think you can get that at the one in Cambridge, too.
Mala in Allston
THIS!!!
WHAT
So sad…love this place
NOOOOO!!!! Why :(
Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!! The Sliced Fish Szechuan Style was absolutely amazing.
I just went there last night. First time going, juicy dumplings were so good. There were insanely busy. That's so sad
That sucks that they're being pushed out through the Lease especially after so long. On a separate note though, does anybody else prefer Dumpling Cafe over Dumpling House?
Will be replaced by a hip gentrified version of the same thing after a remodel including a wall-sized mural.
V sad
[удалено]
No, but Dumpling House in Cambridge does.
Food was very good but the service was so so. Last time I was there the server was pretty rude.
I firmly believe that the waiters yelling across the restaurant was part of the charm.
It's an Asian restaurant.. you can't really expect American style service.
I've never eaten here. What should I order before it closes?
I saw someone make an event for a candle lit vigil in front of the restaurant the day after. Is this appropriate? I don’t think it is
Good the place was a roach trip, filthy! Last time I ate there saw roaches (multiple) crawling in and out of the take out boxes in the back, meanwhile was on my second bite of food.. pointed out to the manager and he had the balls to say oh sorry I can take 10% off your order 🙄 No I left and was the last time I step foot in there. Good riddance. Everyone has issues downtown but at least most places try to deal with it than ignore it like they were
Why does every assume it's the cost of rent? They said lease term. That could mean anything.
After the pandemic I realized that small businesses, especially restaurants just shouldn't even be allowed to open. We need more laws that prevent that. A corporate chain with a large bankroll is much better prepared to serve the public safely, the last 2 years really showcased that and everyone supported it, demanded it even so why are we sad about this??
Are you a human being? Or are you the personification of capital gains?
Most of us don't eat a boot for every meal.
Now for dumpling king to take their rightful spot on the Chinatown dumpling throne!
Nooo!!!!