Developer proposes condos on Notre Dame Street in Egleston Square

By adamg on Wed, 08/02/2023 - 11:26am

Rendering of proposed 24-34 Notre Dame St. building

Rendering by KDI.

A developer has filed plans with the BPDA to replace a "dilapidated house " and some vacant land at 24-34 Notre St. in Roxbury with a five-story, 26-unit condo building.

Plans submitted by Taba Moses of Jamaica Plain show 15 parking spaces at the site, a short walk to Columbus Avenue. Four of the units will be sold as affordable.

The main façade along Notre Dame Street is broken up using a rhythmic series of bays which provide visual interest and a nod toward classic New England window bays. An emphasis has been placed on using colors and hues that are blended with the visual fabric of the existing buildings, which range in size, material, and age. Predominantly clad in brick, the façade has a familiar appearance to those of the four‐ and five‐ story masonry buildings behind it. The proposed mix of grey and black bricks is a contemporary take on the traditional material. Cedar is used at the punched windows and balconies to provide warmth and contrast to the masonry.

24-34 Notre Dame St. filings and meeting schedule.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

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

Comments

Looks like a pleasing facade and reasonable height.

By Lee on Wed, 08/02/2023 - 12:24pm.

Needs to be more than just 4 affordable units, though.

That's 15% of the Units

By John Costello on Wed, 08/02/2023 - 1:37pm.

So, if you have more affordable, and less market units, how will the developer make a dime on this?

There's an old adage which says "Things Cost Money".

The developer is following city guidelines for affordable unit construction and has costs for land, materials, labor, and marketing.

Let me know where you work for free and we can give you a good boy medal. The rest of us have bills to pay.

You refrained from a Pee Wee remark.

By Lee on Wed, 08/02/2023 - 1:41pm.

Good to know that even when deep in the swamp of bitterness that you frequently comment from you still have some sense of restraint.

Someone has to pay for the affordability

By Jason on Thu, 08/03/2023 - 10:27am.

Affordable units are subsidized. They’re sold or rented for below the cost of production. That subsidy has to come from somewhere. Our current setup presumes that development is so massively profitable that a developer can lose money on 15% or more of the units and still make enough money to make the project worthwhile.

That limits the overall number of units that get built. This keeps prices high on the market rate units. The subsidies come from the pockets of the market rate homebuyers or renters. So we end up with a dysfunctional 2 tiered system of the wealthiest people who can afford to pay market rates in a market with severely constrained supply and high demand, and lottery winning low income people who have lucked into a subsidized unit. It helps the handful of people who succeed in getting a low income unit but nobody else.

I’m all for subsidizing housing, but this is a lousy way to do it. I’m also fine with placing reasonable limits on developer profits, but again this is a lousy way to do it. Better to have a rational tax system for windfall profits or large capital gains. And I say this as a person who owns rental properties and works in real estate.

As for this project, glad to see it happening but I wish we’d build bigger. Make it 2 stories taller, we have a housing crisis to address. I live about 1/2 mile away and pass this spot regularly, btw.

Good, Build It

By Nick Riley on Wed, 08/02/2023 - 1:27pm.

More housing and condos? Build it!