Hey, there! Log in / Register
Eight-story residential building in South Boston will have units for people who aren't well off
By adamg on Thu, 10/27/2016 - 4:40pm
Architect's rendering.
Developer Mark Edwards has filed plans with the BPDA for a 150-unit building - with 70 marketed as "workforce" housing for middle-income residents - at Dorchester Avenue and B Street in South Boston.
The proposed Chandlery building - named as an homage to the marine-supply business it would replace - will have 120 parking spaces. The Ultimate martial-arts gym will stay on the site; new retail space will occupy the first floor.
Some 97 of the units will have one bedroom, with the rest split between studios and two-bedroom units. No three-bedroom units are planned.
The Chandlery will become the highly visible entry point into the South Boston neighborhood. It will provide a contemporary character to the currently-revitalizing Dorchester Avenue corridor. ...
The rooftop deck is designed take advantage of unobstructed views of Downtown Boston, Boston Harbor, and points south and east. The contemporary structure will respect the architectural detailing of the adjacent buildings, and will incorporate brick, glass and metal panel elements into the façade. ...
The Project's name, The Chandlery, acknowledges the site's current use as a premiere marine and industrial supplier (historically known as a ship chandlery), and reflects the owner's 80-year family history in the local chandlery business. The building's notable five-foot curved cornice is reminiscent of marine bulwarks as a gesture to the Project's nautical heritage.
270 Dorchester Ave. project notification form (11.9M PDF).
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Well sure
It's got "workforce" housing for middle-income residents who don't have teens or pre-teens with varying genders.
So The Country Music Billboard Goes Away?
Yes!
Great use of an unusually shaped block. Being wedged between the projects, Cabot, and the Haul Road is a mildly tough sell for nearly all market rate. Smart move by the developer going the workforce route.
Corrupt Politicians
Corrupt politicians being paid by developers to approve projects that don't fit in with neighborhood's all over the city. I remember when they told South Boston that their neighborhood would not be "Manhattenized". Friends of the Mayor, BRA, and other politicians are acting as bag men for these developers to line everybody's pockets. Families don't stand a chance in the city.
Not exactly a "neighborhood."
Not exactly a "neighborhood." There's a housing project there on one side, so yeah doesn't really "fit in" with that... but everything else around there is industrial... MBTA yard, gyms, auto repair, etc.
Classism?
Housing projects aren't part of neighborhood's? I lived in one. It was a great neighborhood. Lifelong friends who became pretty successful. Maybe not the kind of people you wanted in your neighborhood.
Still not sure how this
Still not sure how this particular building is a negative impact on that neighborhood which is industrial on 3 sides. If anything I'd think it would make it a better, more neighborhood-y place to live.
The South End, which is now
The South End, which is now around 1200-1400 per square foot, is 40% affordable housing. Just about every 2-4 million dollar condo is "next to a housing project".
Poor is not contageous, it would seem.
Um,
So a vacant Chuck and Ann's sub shop, a billboard, and a mini West Marine are a better solution to the housing prices in this city?
How is this a solution to
How is this a solution to housing prices?
Supply + demand
Supply is low and demand is high. Prices go up.
Build more supply. Prices may go down or not rise as much.
It's not a comprehensive solution, but not building will not improve prices. It will only make them worse.
There's not practical to use
There's not practical to use supply and demand as an effective way to make housing less expensive. There's so many unrestricted buyers from all over the place that just want investments.
Typically
With housing you want to lower the rise in housing prices under inflation to allow wages to catch up, and increase economic development to cause wages to rose faster than inflation.
Lowing housing prices is political suicide, not to mention you risk terribly destructive negative feedback loops (see Detroit).
Increasing supply is part of that, thus increasing density. But rezoning and cutting back on NIMBYism for both residential and commercial areas can help too.
Boston is leaving mikkions of economic development off the table because of the inability to provide housing for people, and protecting property values for those already here. Its a tough balance to strike for sure, but we need to look more toward meeting the demand for housing, office space, and hotel space in the city (and he'll, around Massachusetts).
You don't seem to realize how
You don't seem to realize how much potential there is for investor buyers that are distorting the market. You can't add enough supply for them given all the other issues with too much construction. Also, there's the expansion in the number of people they just makes talk of more housing in the long run somewhat challenging anyway.
The question is what affect does the new construction have on the people already living there. It needs to be about more than just making an area bigger, but also better for the people there now.
People who already have neighborhoods that like the way they are and are invested don't need to have them transformed with new construction just because others think there isn't enough housing there.
Yeah, I do
I may be ignorant, but I'm not quite as ignorant as you might think.
I'm not sure how replacing some dilapidated old warehouse type buildings on an industrial/commercial stretch of Dorchester Avenue is harmful to the neighborhood in general, but your answer seems to be that nothing should get built in Boston ever again, because some Hong Kong guy might be up units or something, which is equally absurd.
You're all over the map
1) This is not "Mannhattanization." When the first 30+ story high-rises are proposed in Southie, then we can start making Manhattan comparisons. Eight stories is mid-rise development, AKA exactly what every reasonable person has envisioned for Boston's future.
2) As has been mentioned downthread, the existing neighborhood comprises a large housing project, several underused industrial lots, and a billboard. If this design doesn't fit that "character," then what exactly would you accept that does fit it?
3) Every time a development is proposed that doesn't meet someone's (highly individual, arbitrary, often contradictory) standards, we see the "corrupt politicians" thing thrown around. There is zero evidence of any favoritism being shown here, or with any of the other deals with entities whose names aren't GE. Kindly explain who is benefiting from this, and who is getting paid by whom, or stuff it. It's a developer, who wants to make money by building houses where people want to live.
4) Where are "families" supposed to live? Wherever they want. This particular building isn't intended as primarily 3-bedroom units, though it does have some 2's. The project is close enough to UMASS that more 3's would probably draw the neighborhood NIMBYs who don't want students living in multi-room apartments. Again, if you want to complain about the makeup of new construction, please explain what you would prefer, why you think the existing neighborhood will sign off on it, and whether it should be subsidized or market-rate housing.
You're trying your damndest to concern-troll, but you need to try a little harder. Next time, it would help if your points didn't contradict one another.
1. That's subjective, and it
1. That's subjective, and it's a lot taller than many of things around there. You are not "every reasonable person" and plenty of people think that's too large.
2. It's still housing, you are basically saying that how much housing costs determines if it's a neighborhood.
3. Everytime a development is proposed, people call others NIMBYs for any questions about it. Usually they are not established already and want to see more construction.
4. It's pretty obvious that the post wasn't opposed to new construction, but was opposed to the size of it.
You can't seem to form an argument without resorting to ad hominen name calling an NIMBYs. Next, time it would help your points if you didn't resort to ad-hominems. You are probably somewhat upset that other people are already established in certain neighborhoods and you think this is going to lower rents or something.
A request
You don't have to register for an account if you think I'm tied in with the Illuminati or something, but could you at least use a consistent pseudonym? It would save me the 3 seconds it takes to recognize your writing style and realize you're the same person leaving the same concern trolls on every development thread.
Man, I'm getting bitter in my old age. Good thing I don't have a very big lawn to yell at you kids to get off of.
There's been multiple
There's been multiple different anons who said the same things, some have posted more than once, but hardly in all of the nearly daily development threads. It's not exactly trolling if people are just sincerely posting their opinions, the difference is that you don't have to approve registered posts ahead of time if someone wants to carry on a discussion. That probably gets to be a lot of work on your end. There's are some actual trolling comments here. Usually you do a pretty good job on that.
You find some interesting articles, Adam, and people want to comment, so thanks for the work you do.
And I respect the reasons for posting as anon
But there is one particular person who has a kind of distinctive writing style who tends to try to take over a thread with the same basic message hammered over and over again.
Racist comments in 3 2 1.....
Racist comments in 3 2 1........ Oh wait it's in Southie, silly me never mind
Seaport district of Southie
Seaport district of Southie is where most people would like to live, I don't know about inner Southie .
And yet ...
There must be some reason developers are slobbering all over Dot. Ave. from Broadway down to Andrew, no?
Sure are!
BRA recently re-zoned it for these types of developments. It's going to be the next great mixed use avenue, and will eventually connect right to south station once they get the new post office settled away. Plus, developers are just chomping at the thoughts of capping the south station rail yard and building a new air rights city between the south end and Dot Ave. Widett circle and the Olympics was their push to do it now and do it free by eminent domain, but now they'll have to actually purchase the land and rights.
It's also only a matter of time before everything north of 1st street is re-zoned as the seaport expands.
Residential Southie is a changing, and its not from people moving to the seaport. It's from people working in the seaport and downtown, and liking a walkable and bike-able residential neighborhood a stone throws away from everything great Boston has to offer. For years the stigma of Southie crime history kept people out, but location and gentrification have made that ancient history to most.
It's really going to be interesting to see South Boston in 25 years. It's already one of the denses neighborhoods in the city, but a lot of the new growth along Broadway, Dot Ave, and Dot street is going to be large mixed use live, work, play; which is only going to make the area more attractive.
Statestreet relocated 1100 workers there a few years back from other aging office space. GE is bringing 800 white collar jobs to A street in the next 2 years.
It will be fun while it lasts
About 50 more years, maybe 75.
Water Shoes
I do get some amusement a lot of this construction is being done in 100 year and 1000 year flood zones.
But, they'll eventually be the justification for turning the barrier islands into barrier levies.
won't work
too many flanking points. giant moat needed
Most of the people you
Most of the people you describe only live there for a few years before leaving, and move back to the suburbs.
Please do keep trying to paint it as anything more a trend that is than just a bunch of condos. It's becoming less like a neighborhood because the newer people are less likely to stay long term.
Developers are slobering all
Developers are slobering all over Dot Ave, because it's close to the South End. The other neighborhood where everyone wants to live, besides the Seaport, that is.
"Inner Southie" I remember
"Inner Southie" I remember the days when the Seaport District was "The Waterfront", filled with mud lots and a lovely little chapel with a short mass. How far we've come!
Have
You ever been to Southie?
No Room for Families
Where are the families supposed to go? They're charging $2600 a month for a one bedroom. How is a working family supposed to afford anything? This was all set up to drive families out of the neighborhoods and line the real estate peoples' pockets. Politicians were corrupted. Great middle-class neighborhoods destroyed by city hall. I thought it might be different when Menino left. It got worse.
so
Are you advocating for socialist giveaways? For select people only, of course.
Because you are demanding that people build special housing and offer it at a steep discount to select people just because they are special!
And where, pray tell, are all these multi-kid families going to come from? Will they want to live in the city in a high rise? Living in the city isn't the discount rate housing that it used to be.
If you think that it is possible to build such things, knock yourself out.
BTW, you seem to have no sense of scale for wages, mortgage payments, or rents. I take it that you haven't had to find anything of the sort in a long, long, long time.
In the Andrew Square area, 1
In the Andrew Square area, 1 bedrooms are going for about $1700. 2 bedrooms go for about $2700. $2600 1 beds haven't reached Andrew yet.
I feel for the families displaced
Who are currently living in the "vacant Chuck and Ann's sub shop, a billboard, and a mini West Marine."
Oh, wait. What if we built more housing so that 30-somethings weren't tripling up in floors three-deckers for $2500 per month and those three-bedrooms had a bit less demand and prices fell. Oh, right, economics doesn't apply to the housing market, I forgot. Silly me.
Keep waiting for falling
Keep waiting for falling prices buddy..
Not building won't solve anything either
What's your solution? Because the typical tone deaf replies involve not building or somehow preventing people from moving here.
The first will only make prices worse, and the second is laughable.
Not enough room to build
Not enough room to build enough housing to lower prices. Many places have already tried that, as well as here. There's to many unrestricted investors and growth. You are just piling in more people, not lowering prices.
Sorry, it's not 1875 anymore
We have these things called "elevators" now. You might want to look into them. You can build 50-story buildings where appropriate (downtown, say) without needing a whole lot of land. Thanks, Mr. Otis!
There's not enough room as in
There's not enough room as in there's not enough transit for everyone do that.
Oh wait
Perhaps you haven't noticed all the new buildings all over the city and yet the prices keep going up. So your theory is incorrect.
And perhaps you haven't noticed
That developers are starting to build condos again because so many apartments have come online that prices are beginning to, if not yet plummet, at least not rise as ridiculously as before.
It's unrealistic to think
It's unrealistic to think that plan can be continued long term. There's many other factors out there than can contribute to temporary slowing in price increases. There's also not much practical difference between condos and apartments besides how they are paid for.
It's housing.
If prices are going down, you're in a recession and you have more to worry about than housing, such as jobs being destroyed.
You don't want housing prices to go down. You want to keep wages outpacing the raise in rents and mortgages, and/or keep housing legged under inflation.
Uniformed comment
It doesn't apply in the way you seem to think it does, meaning that it will lower prices in any practical sense. The amount you would have to build to lower prices is immense and unrealistic. With the amount of buyers out there, building so much isn't likely to lower prices. It just adds more people.
So?
More people is good. Cities thrive on density. Well, cities that claim to be world class, at any rate. Boston used to have 800,000 people - there's room for more.
When that was the population,
When that was the population, the population of the state was far less meaning there were fewer people coming and and out of the area on a daily basis. Also, you had significantly fewer cars, and more people sharing rooms.
The reason
a lot of developers stop at 2 bedrooms is because neighborhoods start complaining about 3+ bedroom apartments filling with roommates instead of families.
Encroachment
We didn't have all these high-rise buildings until corrupt politicians got cash in hand to approve all this development that doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. In South Boston, it was resigned for additional height from Andrew Square up DORCHESTER Street. Guess where the expanded height regulations stopped- a block before the home of the BRA guy in charge of the rezoning. It's ok to redone the whole neighborhood but not in the area of the corrupt officials. Regulations should have been put in place to prevent wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, but the ones who should have made the regulations are the ones who got paid off to go the other way. Now they want to raise your taxes with Question 5 and Walsh wants to jack it up to revamp the T to bring more carpetbaggers in.
Holy crap
Wow thats some class A chemtrail stuff you're smoking. This area is the perfect location for this height and density. They could add 3 more floors and it would still be in keeping with the growing skyline of the Broadway Station area.
What, exactly, is it that you don't like about this building? The affordability? The housing of service and health care and retail workers in the city and on public transportation?
Give me a break. What do you think it's going to look like when Gillette moves its manufacturing to the burbs? More rowhomes?
Ahahaha I missed
Ahahaha I missed carpetbaggers through my apoplexy. What a maroon.
What affordability?
What affordability?
Workforce housing
Workforce housing = subsidized rent for people making below a certain threshold.
Subsidized by
Everyone else paying higher rent.
Where do I get my rent subsidized?
All these years of paying other people's rent, indirectly, is about to force me out of the area. I literally can't afford housing here myself anymore.
How much do you make?
"Affordable" housing means units aimed at people who make up to some percentage of the "area median income," which is higher than you might think.
Exactly
You said it- The growing skyline. Something that Boston was promised wouldn't happen with the "We won't Manhattenize" comment from the BRA.
Eight story buildings
Not a skyline.
Geesh you are an old bag!
Follow the Money, Carmen
The Justice Department should have been investigating this pay to play development a long time ago. Politicians have allowed blue-collar neighborhood's to be overrun by the big money. Did they do it for the good of the families that were already living there? No. They got bum rushed out of town and condo buildings got approved to go in their place.
Receipts old man
Show em
Approval process
If this is an as-of-right project, then he is well within his rights to purchase a piece of land and develop it. Just because he isn't doing what you want does not make the project bad. Get real.
Great
More subsidized housing for the select few, built on our dime. Developer and politicians stuff their pockets, their friends and relatives get cheap housing, everyone else gets shafted. They could instead just charge market rate rent that would have still been semi-affordable had it not been artificially jacked to offset the "affordable" units, but that's not how things get done around here.
Boston is a city that thrives
Boston is a city that thrives on the productivity of new graduates. I was one of those 20 years ago. I came here on a scholarship, loved the city and worked 3 jobs to afford to keep a decent apartment here with a roommate in Somerville until, 3 years later, I got my first permanent decent job. Sometimes it takes 2-3 years for someone with a degree to break into the business they were trained for. Others who opt to bartend/wait tables and cut hair for life are also a big part of what makes the city go, so why not give some folks a chance to live near downtown until they get established in their own business, a stable business, paired up and moved out to a suburb, etc.?
This kind of housing for singletons is just as important as family housing in the city.
It's a combination of the
It's a combination of the newer people and more local residents who also made the place great for such a long time. Housing is needed for both.
The problem with too much housing for people who will eventually leave is that it make it harder to sustain established neighborhoods.