Hey, there! Log in / Register

Brighton housing proposal going nowhere until St. E's says what it will do with 500 cars its employees now park on the site, BPDA says

The Boston Zoning Commission could vote next week to allow the effective elimination of zoning on the old St. Gabriel's Monastery site off Washington Street, so that a developer and the BPDA can handcraft a "planned development area" to allow more than 650 housing units there.

Developers and the BPDA often use PDAs for large projects, such as the New Balance complex along Guest Street.

But even if the BPDA, which proposed the move, wins the vote, BPDA Director of Planning Review Jonathan Greeley said today nothing will happen with the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes proposal until after St. Elizabeth's Medical Center files a detailed plan on where it will put the 500 cars its employees now park there. St. Elizabeth's, which used to own the land, had included it in its "institutional master plan" filed years ago with the BPDA; its sale of the land to a developer came as a surprise to both the city and residents.

The zoning commission, which oversees major changes in Boston zoning, was scheduled to vote today on the BPDA proposal to first change much of the St Gabriel's zoning from "institutional" to "conservation protection" and then to let it propose a PDA that would override all of that district's development limits. But not enough commission members showed up for a quorum, so Chairman Bob Fondren postponed the vote for a new meeting, tentatively set for next Wednesday.

Greeley and fellow BPDA planner Jeff Hampton said the 6.2-acre PDA proposal would help ensure the preservation of the monastery, an old church and a swath of open space up the hill from Washington Street, by allowing greater density of buildings on the rest of the site. Residents have made that preservation part of their requests during a year of discussions on the proposal.

With a PDA, Greeley and Hampton said, residents will still be able to have detailed input into the proposal.

Actual residents at the hearing, however, were having none of it. They said that while they might still come out in favor of the proposed development, giving the company - and developer AvalonBay, which owns a neighboring parcel - the right to file for a PDA before the negotiations are complete was unfair.

Joanne D'Alcomo said the potential zoning change at this point "really cuts us off at the knees," by removing the zoning constraints that could otherwise be a bargaining point between the developer and the community.

"Zoning should not be entirely developer driven," she said. "It makes a mockery of the process."

Commission member Jill Hatton, however, countered that the commission, which, along with the BPDA would have to approve any PDA, deeply values community input and said that Allston/Brighton in particular is widely known for the way the community has changed developments for the better.

Resident Anthony D'Isidoro retorted that he's sat through too many development and construction projects - going back to the way the turnpike was rammed through the neighborhood - where residents were, in fact, ignored.

Brighton-Allston Improvement Association board member Athena Laines said the BPDA shouldn't even be talking about rezoning until after the St. E's issue is settled first. "It sets a bad precedent" by letting developers just propose things willy-nilly, she said, adding it was not exactly prudent on the hospital's part to effectively rewrite its own master plan by selling off a large chunk of land without notifying the city or residents first.

Hatton retorted, again, that residents would still have "a huge amount of input," and added that she spent a long time in China and that she's glad to be back in a country where a landowner can sell land without government interference.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

They can ride bikes to work instead.

up
Voting closed 0

Aren't a viable mod of transportation. Maybe you can try biking 20 mi in February after a 12 hr night shift. And you have to be back to work in 10 hrs for another shift. But ya let me waste time biking instead of sleeping, its not like people's lives are in my hands.

So sick of the holier than tho bikers. You're not cool nor are you better than anyone. So please pipe down.

up
Voting closed 0

And some others with mobility restrictions, living far from work or those living surrounded by car-centric infrastructure. Those of use that commute by bike do so accepting the different concessions and negative aspects, just like those who commute by car, walk or public transit.

Bikes are certainly a viable option for transportation, its just not for everyone. But to suggest that housing should only be built around cars is just asinine. Please try to see the bigger picture.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe you should buy one of these new units so that you're not biking 20 miles a day.

up
Voting closed 0

If every doctor and nurse employed in the city of Boston lived in the city of Boston they'd probably price out a lot of people including your economically superiors ass.

up
Voting closed 0

at most hospitals. But there is a huge number of shift employees that don't enjoy the perks. It would be nice if this development created housing that working class people can afford.

up
Voting closed 0

- Bikes ARE a viable mode of transportation.

- Biking 20 miles after a 12 hour shift ISN'T a great idea.

- Bike-commuting is not a waste of time. Sitting in a car IS a waste of time.

- As the group who is fighting for better access to the roads, it is not in our best interest to "pipe down".

- Can't we all just get along?

up
Voting closed 0

As someone who was hit riding my bike to work by someone who ran a stop sign, sometimes bike-commuting is a waste of time.

Cycling in the city is not safe. Don't get me wrong, I love it. It doesn't get much better than knocking out your cardio and commute at the same time. But it requires lots of quick decision making, attention to a constantly changing landscape, and a certain level of body awareness and physical fitness/ability. Add to that congested 1-lane roads, pothole ridden bike lanes, and poor visibility, and you've got an activity that the majority of people should not be attempting.

Biking in Boston will never be "safe," at least without a major infrastructure overhaul. Wonderful, exciting, convenient for those who are able to, but certainly not safe.

up
Voting closed 0

Sitting in a car.

The hazards of cycling are seriously outweighed by the hazards of a sedentary lifestyle.

Let's just say that "just go to the gym" isn't an option for someone with kids + commute + not a lot of spare money. Active transport saves time, provides exercise, and is cheaper than a T pass.

up
Voting closed 0

Then there are the mental benefits of exercise. Part of the reason drivers are such an angry and unreasonable group is that they are sitting on their ass all day in traffic. They see pedestrians and cyclists going faster than them while burning calories and not handing over their paycheck to Exxon Mobil and they get mad.

up
Voting closed 0

No, it's because everybody else is an idiot who can't follow the (expletive) rules. Just yesterday, I saw a student driver car waiting to turn right directly at a no right turn sign, and I almost t-boned some dumb (expletive) who fancied it a good idea to cut across two lanes of traffic heading east into West Newton to the right of the Pike onramp to avoid getting on the Pike or pull into a driveway.

And I didn't even get into the dolts on the outbound Pike in the morning who I've seen sitting honest to God 15 car lengths behind the next vehicle in the middle lane.

up
Voting closed 0

Wait, I thought you cycled? Must need a bit more time on your bicycle to reap those benefits.

up
Voting closed 0

pretty sure THE VAST MAJORITY of cyclists don't expect YOU to bicycle 20 miles to work in winter and sacrifice your well-being. If you do know a cyclist wishing you to engage in such behavior, they must have special motives.

Cyclists aren't "holier than thou"-- we are however under fire from bad drivers who range from the psychotic to the criminally negligent, and from an antiquated polluting and oil-dependent car culture, and WE are better for the planet. FACTS.

up
Voting closed 0

Biking is the opposite of a waste of time. Studies have shown it is the fastest way to get around a city. Google "rush hour challenge" and you will see cars are the slowest way to get around cities. That is why my office gets deliveries from bike messengers on a daily basis.

Cities shouldn't be designed around the desires of people who work 20 miles away from them. People don't come to your town and tell you how to live your life. And how many people who are treated in hospitals are there because of car drivers? Hundreds of thousands per year. If you truly cared about saving lives you would respect bike riders, but you obviously don't.

up
Voting closed 0

I will never not be impressed with how judgmental you are.

up
Voting closed 0

St. E's is responsible for providing adequate parking for its employees. 500 employee spaces can't just disappear. A hospital is round the clock shift work, and that is why more of their employees drive to work than other types of employees.

I actually agree that driving is dumb, unheathy and expensive.

I commute 5 miles by bicycle and it takes about 35 minutes. This is either the same or faster then public transportation. And driving is only faster if I pay for garage parking. If you include finding a meter (not free either) then it is generally at least a half hour. So driving doesn't save any time.

Sitting around is bad for health and so is the pollution generated by cars, obviously. But people don't pay much attention to the waste of money. It is shocking to me the people that live in neighborhoods with great public transportation that insist on borrowing money to have a car, instead of saving for a home or retirement.

That all being said, a hospital can't stay in business without adequate parking. Expecting the neighborhood to absorb 500 spaces is not possible

up
Voting closed 0

Set aside a portion of the lot for a multi-story car park, say 2/5th at 5 stories or something. Then you can put apartments on the other 3/5ths, 1/3rd of which can have deeded parking in said garage.

up
Voting closed 0

Why can't you live your life in accord with my obsession?

up
Voting closed 0

It isn't viable? That must be why I have bike commuted for over 25 years now.

My youngest child is 22.

Round trip distance has varied from 12 to 30 miles.

Must also be why I'm the only person in my extended family who weighs less than 200 lbs.

Because it isn't viable.

Okay. If you say so.

up
Voting closed 0

Thank you for your service

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

If a place can't support 650 units, how will it support 650+ cars on the street?

Questions about integration into the neighborhood are fair, but adding parking quite often is worse to the neighborhood without a transportation plan.

up
Voting closed 0

Has there been any analysis regarding the expected number of autos the residents of this building will own? It won't be zero, but will it be 1 or more per unit?

up
Voting closed 0

I think if the new residents are caught buying cars they will be scourged and expelled.

up
Voting closed 0

The issue is that St. E's is right next to it and using it for parking for the hospital. I live right down the street from this (though I haven't been that closely following the proposed development) but there is a lot of space that, if planned correctly, can support new cars.

The monastery is a beautiful building and I hope it is preserved.

up
Voting closed 0

A city of Boston Landmark. It has the highest level of protection possible for a building. So we can be prerry sire its hanging around.

up
Voting closed 0

but that won't help the hospital employee situation. Besides the new residents will choose whether to have cars or not. It is completely different to take parking away from current employees that drive to work.

up
Voting closed 0

So while we hijack this into a bike discussion I wonder why st Elizabeth is selling land and all the other hospitals are buying land. I wonder if this means it's Elizabeth will close.

up
Voting closed 0

Are any of the other hospitals in the same chain expanding? Or is it something that the likes of Partners and BMC are doing to make themselves look better? There is a feeling amongst critics of the current health care system in the US that larger hospitals, who are theoretically "non-profit" work around what to do with the oodles of cash they take in every year in excess of expenses by building shiny new buildings. Steward Health Care, on the other hand, is a for profit venture, so they can take the profit and return it to investors.

I've never heard of issues with the future of St. Elizabeth's, especially compared to the Carney, which seems perpetually on the verge of closing, but then again, I'm not in health care.

up
Voting closed 0

that is growing? Is Steward providing the best service to its customers or its investors?

up
Voting closed 0

Is Partners providing the best service to its customers or is it trying to corner the market by building shiny new buildings?

I'm not in the service area for St. E's, but my mom's doctor is across the street. If people go there and think the treatment is good, they will survive. If the service is poor, they'll go somewhere else. I've been going to the Roslindale Health Center since it was in the municipal building, basically where the Registry is. The new building is nice, but service is key, and they did (and do) what I need to get done.

up
Voting closed 0

St. E's is part of the for-profit Steward Healthcare System, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity fund. They are taking advantage of the real estate boom and cashing in their real estate holdings.

And yes, it is so tiresome how cycling jihadi's hijack one thread after another. They are Zak's on wheels when it comes to commenting.

up
Voting closed 0

That anon comment started it off.

up
Voting closed 0

We do not need more housing and plaster board condos. This city can not handle more people. With all the projects being developed from the #1 Everett St Apartments to the horrendous giant eye sore Condos on Braintree St. and the gigantic condos on Cambridge St. also the enormous buildings blocking the skyline being constructed by Jim Davis of New Balance. Shopping Centers and over priced restaurants that cater to the super wealthy.The list goes on and on. Developers from out of state making contributions to get there foot in the door and take the revenue back home with them. Wake up people we do not need all this garbage in a small town with limited parking spaces and already congested living. Go develop some where else there is a limited amount of room. Leave the town alone enough is enough!!!

up
Voting closed 0

Not a student of history. The maximum population of Boston Was in the 50s I think it was 800,000. So you're certainly wrong about her not being any more room for more people clearly there's room for more people. It's about whether we Handle it well.

up
Voting closed 0