Hey, there! Log in / Register

Developer wants to triple approved number of parking spaces at West Roxbury condo project; says nobody wants to live there without dedicated parking

Rendering of proposed Grove Street building

Rendering by McKay Architects.

A developer who won approval in August for a 30-unit condo project with 11 parking spaces on Grove Street at Washington Street in West Roxbury yesterday asked the Boston Planning Department to let him put in 30 parking spaces instead.

In a project-change request, an attorney for Derrick Fitzgerald's S & F Development said denial of the request could lead to the project's financial demise before ground is even broken because there just aren't enough people ready for the car-less lifestyle at an intersection only directly served by a bus route - and that without the extra parking, he could also lose the 17-unit condo building he recently completed next door, on Washington Street at Grove, where the Lee Myles transmission place used to be:

As you are aware, the developer also completed the adjacent 5205 Washington Street building and has been marketing those units for approximately eight months. In that time, he has only sold seven of the seventeen units and most of the interested buyers are requesting two parking spaces. When his brokers explain the parking situation, they are told by the interested buyers that this part of the city is not transit friendly, and the potential buyers move on to other buildings. It is a near certainty he will encounter the same issue when marketing units for 231-245 Grove Street with its current parking ratio. He understands the city's position on parking, however, if he cannot add additional parking to the building, he believes he could lose these buildings to the bank.

In summary, he is facing the realization that prospective buyers will not purchase home ownership units without the promise of a dedicated parking space in this part of the city.

Under the requested change, Fitzgerald would supplement his originally requested and approved ten-space ground-floor garage with a 20-space underground garage. Also changed: A reduction in the number of proposed ground-floor retail spaces from four to three.

Although city zoning codes still generally call for at least one space per unit, especially in the city's less dense neighborhoods, in recent years, the planning department and its predecessors have worked with developers in recent years to reduce the amount of provided parking. Officials have long held that more people are turning to public transit supplemented by ride-sharing services such as Zipcar and that reducing parking reduces construction costs, theoretically helping to ameliorate the price of units. The Zoning Board of Appeal would then typically grant the variance needed for the reduced amount of parking.

Just this week, two city councilors proposed eliminating parking requirements altogether, saying it would help spur additional housing in a city with some of the nation's highest housing costs.

In his initial filing, which called for 11 parking spaces, Fitzgerald played up the proposed building's transit connections - if not going so far as to call it "transit oriented:"

The Proposed Project is well-served by public transportation provided by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (“MBTA”). The MBTA 34E Bus, both inbound to Forrest Hills and Outbound to Walpole Center, has stops less than 250 feet from the Project Site. The MBTA 34 and 35 Buses also have multiple inbound and outbound stops within 0.3 miles of the Project Site. Additionally, the aforementioned West Roxbury MBTA Commuter Rail station is approximately 1.5 miles from the Project
Site.

The planning department is accepting comments on the proposed change until Feb. 13, after which its board will make a decision.

231-245 Grove St. filings.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

Can't have 30 units with 30 parking spaces

Also, are they planning to cover the building with algae? I see green but no trunks.

up
13

The tree trunks blend in with the browns of the first level in that rendering. Trees are clearly shown in the floor plans.

I can't see where the trunks leave the earth.

Look at the bit of grass in the middle of the rendering, that’s where the tree would be planted

lol!

Ha! Ghost trees hide the chintzy, unsightly non-brick blight of all these (temporary) new builds.

… can actually provide shade to humans, etc and shelter to endangered songbirds.

I'm not in favor of parking but this is the "let the market decide" mentality that's good for housing. Instead of specifically mandating a min/max of spots, let developers chose however many they think is profitable. People will move to units that match their needs and price.

up
44

… let the wealthy decide.

Whether they like it or not, developers have a responsibility to the communities they exploit.
Housing for humans, not machines, is the priority.

up
21

I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that if apartments are prohibited from having parking spots, people will stop driving and/or housing will be cheaper. The past ~60 years have been increasing layers of housing requirements aimed at solving some problem and all that's happened is that housing is progressively more expensive and scarce. The pre-WWII housing that was built with few regulations and is still some of the most suitable.

For the same reason I think they should drop the requirement to have ground-level retail. Wouldn't ~6 more apartments be preferable to the 3 or 4 empty storefronts that are going to be created from this project?

up
22

… retail. For the disabled, which is a growing segment of the population due to aging and other factors, having easy access to street level without needing an elevator is especially nice.
Families with young children and dog owners appreciate this too.

People want cars.

Just relax dude

up
12

It’s amazing how a majority Democrat state (pseudo-Democrats!) so frequently champions the laissez-faire philosophy! Housing, gambling, homelessness, drugs….

We need a healthy, functional and effective Democratic Party that sticks to the basics of being the yin to the conservative yang and we will never do that by thinking we can have our cake and eat it too by being both the Democratic Party and the Bernie Sanders Democratic-Socialist Party (Ultimately Socialist.) The unnatural expansion of the Democrat’s tent by the appeasement of those who are naturally part of an entirely different ideology and philosophy has neutered our Party and made the agenda of the minority we patronize socialist Sanders - and other forces far, far worse) - the controlling force of policy and politicking. It’s almost like the Progressives are the tool undermining the powerful Democratic Party we once knew. The current illusion of Democrats’ power is by virtue of the good we do for the wealthy and elite we serve by the patronizing, inane and ultimately empty, feel-good posturing, virtue-signaling and hand-waving.

Parking restrictions (bans for some) age-/health-/circumstance-/class-/ and ideologically-selective housing/zoning such as this are creating - and will create where they don’t yet exist- structural determinants of inequality.

relax, it's a story about parking spaces

Sometimes a parking space is not just a parking space.

Glitch.

Speaking to my previous comment about the floor plans. I'm surprised there is not "back entrance" to the retail spaces. That seems short sighted (although, yes, these are supposedly early stage drawings). Secondly - there is a "dog run" on the site which is laughable and no one will use it. It looks to be about 6' wide by 45' long. Who will use that for their dog? Honestly.

up
10

For the dog that's often a house guest, that would be perfect. All she wants to do is run after a thrown ball and that would be ideal dimensions.

Although I am skeptical of the long term upkeep of these urban dog areas.

up
13

…. for dog toilet. Probably will be filled with cheap gravel that irritates dog paws and will waft dog urine odors into nearby units in hot humid weather.
Probably intended to placate neighbors who worry about dog owners who don’t scoop the poop.

up
18

This sounds reasonable. The developer asked for less, the market responded and he increased the number.

It should also be a wake up call for the car-free crowd that even when a developer seems amiable to going down that road it is not ideal if you do not back it up with robust transit and local store options. A developer would gladly not pay for parking spaces built into a structure as they get expensive to build. So for a developer to want to put in garage parking they have to overcome that additional expense by increasing the asking price.

up
15

err, use bike lanes.

"In summary, he is facing the realization that prospective buyers will not purchase home ownership units without the promise of a dedicated parking space in this part of the city."

Maybe just cut the price to sell them?

up
16

Strategy #2: price it right and it will sell, even without off-street parking.

It's actually a great way to keep housing more affordable without subsidy. That's how it works in the rest of the city. A much preferable way than, say, high crime or undesirable schools.
.

up
15

only 3 units of the 17 unit completed building are left (as per Zillow). They only started selling last Aug. That's roughly 3 units a month. No idea if that is considered a fast or slow selling rate.

Plus throw in that the holiday season is usually very slow for sales and rentals.

Are his agents well explaining the public transportation options to potential buyers? The bus stop is right outside the building(s). easy 34/34e buses to Forest Hills and easy 35 to the West Roxbury commuter rail stop (I take it to Traders Joe's in Needham & the WR stop has Zipcars). The downhill bike to the WR stop is super easy. For me the uphill bike back requires some walking, but it's a beautiful street. Easy 34/34e to the Dedham Mall and Stop and Shop.

But as a (small, owner-occupied) landlord in West Roxbury, applicants always ask about parking. I've been renting out for 30 yrs now and I have yet to have one applicant without a car. And if two adults move in, they both have cars. People without a car seem to prefer being more central with more convenient, pedestrian shopping (e.g downtown, back bay, seaport, Rozzie, JP). Living in WR without a car requires having a lot of time to commute and just run errands. WR does need better public transportation