Architect Dartagnan Brown points out one of the proposed buildings.
Immediate neighbors of a 19-unit, two-building condo proposal for land behind the Roslindale Square municipal parking lot raised issues of setback, privacy and loss of sun at a BRA meeting at the Roslindale Community Center tonight. Once the developer and his architect agreed to work on those, the talk turned, as it usually does, to parking - and the issue of increasing the housing stock in a neighborhood that has been largely been unaffected by the building boom hitting other parts of the city.
Some residents of Taft Hill Terrace, on which the proposed project would sit, said the 19 proposed spaces just were not enough and predicted that some residents of the new buildings would end up trying to park on their street, which they said already has parking issues, in part due to its proximity to the commuter-rail parking lot, where spaces go for $4 a day, and the municipal lot, where parking is limited to two hours a day.
"I live on Taft Hill Terrace and it's not working," one resident said of the current parking situation.
Beyond the immediate neighborhood, though, residents agreed the project, when coupled with other recent apartment and condo buildings in and near Roslindale Square, is the vanguard of more development - but differed on whether that's good or not. Some residents worried about parking and overcrowding; others said first-time homeowners just aren't buying as many cars as their parents, that Roslindale needs more units to bring in new residents and keep existing ones from being priced out of the neighborhood and that Roslindale Square in particular needs more residents who would walk to local shops, many of which don't see enough foot traffic to sustain themselves.
One of those was Sarah Lee, who said that people in their 20s and 30s are increasingly more likely to have just one car, in part because cars are just too expensive for them, what with housing prices, student loans and the costs of raising kids. She said she supported the proposal because Roslindale needs more people who would rather take the train, ride a bike or use ZipCar or Uber to get around.
The Taft Hill proposal calls for spaces for 19 bicycles and developer Parkhead Development has pledged $2,000 car-sharing or ride-sharing credits to initial buyers.
But Timothy Sheehan said the new residents are going to bring their cars no matter what and they're going to park on the street if they have to, and that could have dire consequences if replicated across Roslindale, a neighborhood known as a suburb in the city, where ample on-street parking is a major draw, because the neighborhood would become just like South Boston, with "competitive street parking" and "people taking a hammer to your car because you're in their spot." He said thinking people will stick to to just one car per household is "a utopian dream" that will fail because you can't "reverse the laws of human nature."
Residents with comments have 30 days to file comments with the BRA. If the BRA board approves the $4-million proposal, it will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for height, setback and overall size of the buildings when compared to the size of the lot.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
That link is almost entirely
By anon
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 8:25pm
That link is almost entirely talking about NJ. The figures vary greatly state to state. If you are going to dump a link into a discussion, it's helpful if you read it first.
The article
By Not logged
Sat, 10/24/2015 - 12:28pm
is written about NJ. The study it talks about is a US study.
From the summary
"The time has come for policy-makers
to recognize something that has been true
for years, but is especially true today: we
all pay for America’s roads."
It doesn't say just NJ.
Maybe next time you should read the info before commenting.
It'll take quite awhile...
By SC from JP
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 9:25am
Because the same people who complain about the scarcity of street parking at these meetings will go ballistic at the idea of paying even a nominal fee for it. The ability to hold both of these positions at once is remarkably widespread.
It blows my mind Boston doesn
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 9:36am
It blows my mind Boston doesn't do this already. Somerville charges a fee for their resident parking and it seems to work fine.
I hope at first there would be....
By ImmodestyBlaise
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 10:47am
...ways to target/fine the "residents" with their out-of-state license plates who haven't changed over their registration in 30 days. And who knows, maybe making it painful enough for New Jerseyites and students to bring their cars to town and park them for six months straight might mean fewer space savers this winter.
Space adjustment...
By anonon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 3:06pm
Not price adjustment. Measure out spaces on the streets, and line them. I'd be willing to bet that there'd be more spaces. And anyone not in the lines gets a ticket. More spaces, more revenue.
1:1 Ratio is Plenty
By Roslindaler
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 8:21am
A one to one ratio of car to unit is plenty. There are many people with and without kids (myself included) who have only one car because they rely on the train for work. Granted, some people will have two cars and will park on the street but that is life. If the standard is that there should be no more cars in a neighborhood than there are now because it will make street parking harder then we might as well put a moritorium on any new development, but we all know that would be silly and would just perpetuate the supply problem we have that is making it unaffordable for anyone without a six figure income to live here.
What about the people that
By kvn
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 11:34am
What about the people that dont work places reachable by the MBTA , or work hours that dont match up with the MBTA's hours of service? What about the people that come after the original purchasers and need cars. What about the handicapped or elderly that cant ride bikes? This drama about parking spots to me is bullshit social engineering.The gas station on Centre street , the factory beside Blanchard's liquor store , sheesh! If you dont want clutter and congestion , dont build anything and live elsewhere. Then maybe when you have to commute from the old apple orchards or cranberry bogs that have been converted to nice big houses with nice ample driveways , you will appreciate the autocar. Carry on,
Simple
By itchy
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 12:09pm
They can pay for the use of their choice of transportation.
Pushing more spaces into a development subsidizes driving. Why should people who don't have cars pay for people who do have cars to use their cars?
Amazing how "necessary" turns into "discretionary" when people purchase those spaces separately.
Exactly this. There are
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 3:04pm
Exactly this. There are plenty of people who move from closer to the city center to neighborhoods like Roslindale which are more affordable so they can start a family -- which sorry to say it, does for many 2 parent working households, require both parents to have a car. It's not because they are lazy or do not care about the environment. The simple fact is this: you cannot do everything on a bike or via public transportation. You cannot put two little kids on a bike in the middle of winter to bring them to daycare. Both parents can't work 50 hrs per week, plus bring their kids everywhere little kids need to go with bikes and public transportation. There are not enough hours in the day and schedules are extremely tight these days. Maybe you have a 9-5 job which doesn't require you to work late, work on the weekends, work overtime unexpectedly -- and that's great for you, but that's not the case for everyone. I keep reading comments that it's just the older folks who want cars. This is incorrect. It's working families who need cars! Maybe the anti-car folks only work part-time, maybe you don't have kids, maybe you don't have a spouse who works full-time, maybe you don't have busy schedules, maybe you don' t have family obligation outside of the city, I really don't know, but that's the simpler lifestyle you have had the luxury of choosing. Not everyone has the luxury to have their schedule revolve around bicycling and a half-assed publilc trasnportation system.
Fail
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 8:22pm
Your comment is fail. Look above - see that people function in this area with families and a single car. It isn't unusual at all.
Also note: nobody is forcing people to buy here. If they can't get the deeded parking they need, they can buy somewhere else.
Why do all you car culture freaks go all Kim Davis on anyone who makes different choices and demand that everyone live as you do?
"The common above said
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 8:39pm
"The common above said something different so fail."
Some people need two cars per household, some don't. Don't be naive.
Yes ... and ...
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 10:16pm
There are homes that come with two car parking, and others who prefer not to pay for others to have two car parking.
Simple.
There is no need to build places with parking for two vehicles for unit. There is, however, a need to keep housing affordable. Choose two cars, or don't, but don't force your neighbors to subsidize your choices or whine that everything wasn't built for you.
Kim Davis "logic", indeed.
Drivers pay the gas tax which
By anon
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 11:07am
Drivers pay the gas tax which goes towards maintaining the roads that you ride on with your bikes. Insisting that you are subsidizing drivers in any substantial way does not make it so, but it probably helps your rationalize your unrealistic argument. Adding a little extra housing per project, at the expense of parking for people to drive to their jobs to keep the economy going, is not going to make housing reasonably affordable.
You are doing exactly what you deride. No one owes you an affordable biking lifestyle in Boston at the expense of families with two jobs, one or both of which may be away from public transit. If the city is too expensive for you, go take the train in from from somewhere and bike around out in the suburbs.
Blah blah GAS TAX blah blah
By itchy
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 11:29am
You need to try a little harder.
Gas tax doesn't even come close to covering the expenses of maintaining roads.
All tax payers - including those with cars and bikes - make up the shortfall. Ever hear of income tax? How about property tax? We pay those, too, dear.
>40% comes from these general revenues. Google Tax Foundation and ... oh ... wait ... you don't want to know the truth that cyclists subsidize drivers, do you?
Wrong, try again. 60% comes
By anon
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 1:24pm
Wrong, try again. 60% comes from user related fees and a sizable percentage of that is the gas tax. Only a very tiny percentage of the 40% comes from people who exclusively use bikes. If you did a little more research on this topic yourself, which you clearly need to do, you would have known this. Sorry, but the truth is you are wrong.
Sorry but
By Sally
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 5:56pm
You're not using your noggin. Can we get some figures on the numbers who "exclusively ride bikes?" Because I suspect that many people who ride bikes regularly to work also own cars--they just don't drive them to work everyday. Secondly, yes--we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else. Third--by your logic maybe you should also bring those deadbeat pedestrians into the loop. There they are, cluttering up those pesky crosswalks, demanding amenities like sidewalks and they don't pay one thin dime!! I mean--what gives??
"Because I suspect that many
By anon
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 8:29pm
"Because I suspect that many people who ride bikes regularly to work also own cars--they just don't drive them to work everyday. Secondly, yes--we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else."
This supports the fact that developments are going to need parking.
"we also pay property and other taxes, just like everyone else."
Drivers, pay property and other taxes, in addition to user fees.
Good meeting
By Rob Not Verified
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 8:44am
I was at the meeting and it was refreshing to hear a civil discussion of reasonable urban planning for this neighborhood. The project to me looks reasonable and well-sized for the commercial district and that was the consensus in the room. Roslindale Square needs more foot traffic for the businesses and this will help along with the substation. To those constantly concerned about on-street parking, the numbers are clear that car ownership in Boston is on the decline. Over a third of households now own no vehicles at all and it's not just downtown dwellers or students. One off-street space per unit here is fair and reasonable to reflect this; the units will not attract families with multiple vehicles because they won't want to live there - it's simple economics. The city is moving away from the idea that free on-street parking must be available at all times 24/7/365 because it actually hurts the vibrancy of the very areas we're trying to enhance and adds to overall vehicular traffic which we all hate. I know that's a sea change for a lot of people, including many people I deeply respect, so it will take time but the change is clear and happening. If people want to read more, this is a good start: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy...
Economics!
By gradontripp
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 2:36pm
Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who saw the "What if someone with two cars buys a place?" argument as blind to the fact there are countless other homes available with sufficient parking.
OLX
By Schorschico
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 9:41am
If only the Orange Line was extended to (at the very least) Roslindale Village, this discussion about families owning only 1 car being unrealistic would stop. Plus, we could start getting bigger density, supporting a much stronger and vibrant commercial scene.
One can dream.
Agreed to the nth degree!
By omaja
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 10:38am
We're talking about less than 1.5 miles from station to station on an existing rail right of way. We need a Rozzie for OLX advocacy group asap.
Main Streets should be
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 11:53am
Main Streets should be advocating for this, talk about a shot in the arm for local businesses.
n+1
By Schorschico
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 11:55am
When I moved here, I was very surprised to find out there wasn't one going on. With 9 bus lines doing RV to FH, the RoW and the parking lots around the CR station, it blows my mind there is no more talk about it. You get at a minimum 5 bus lines that get shorter and more efficient, Washington St. could become less of a disaster and we could open a whole new area close to the T for new development.
T2Rozzie is coming!
Sigh
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 1:54pm
(I won't become a broken record.)
Where's the billion lying around for your 1 mile, 1 station extension?
(not that it's a bad dream, but sometimes I become the face of reality.)
yup
By cybah
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 3:09pm
Yup. This is my stand point with any and all new transit projects or proposals.. "show me the money"
Ideas are just ideas.. need funds to make them happen.
1 Bilion?
By Schorschico
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 4:07pm
There is a problem when people make generalizations about public transport extensions:
Not every move regarding the T needs a billion. Not every extension was created equal. There are very few extensions with a RoW + No tunnel needed, and the OLX to RV is one of those few. Plus, the bus situation in Washington st. makes it even more logical. In a ratio of gain vs cost, I don't see a single modification to the current map that is better.
Just saying "1 billion" every time a T extension is proposed doesn't make you the face of reality, just the face of despair. It doesn't add anything.
Not to go into details, but archboston had numbers an order of magnitude lower than what you suggest (around 100-200 M). Interestingly, the main problem for the extension was where to park the trains.
The main problem is
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 5:50pm
A big problem.
Yes, I pulled my figure out of my rectum, but my guess that whoever said $200 million as a high point got their number from a similar source.
I did find a site that discussed costs for light rail. $200 million a mile to lay track in Portland. $250 million to extend tracks in the Bay Area. Then, you'll need a station, with fare gate, elevators, and enough space for 3 tracks and a platform, so you're buying the Citizens' Bank. For the heck of it, let's put it at $60 million, roughly what Assembly cost, even though the busway you propose will probably add another $10 million. Then you need a small train yard somewhere. Where?
So, I will revise my estimate to $300 million. To transport people who already take trains and buses, meaning no federal money (they require data that will show created demand.) And since the Commonwealth and MBTA in particular are overflowing in money, all will be well.
Of course, if people were slightly more realistic, the proposal from the get go would be to extend the Orange Line to VFW Parkway, build a 800 car garage where Savers is, thus eliminating more commuters from points southwest taking their cars through the streets of Roslindale and West Roxbury. Take care of the people in Needham with a spur to the Riverside Line and a lot more people are happy (except for the Needham folk bound for Northeastern and the LMA, but they can use the 800 car garage.) But yeah, $300 million to clear a few buses from a mile stretch of Washington Street is a close second, I guess.
Orange Line
By cw in boston
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 6:28pm
extended to VFW Parkway with a garage at Savers. I love that idea. Brilliant.
OLX
By Schorschico
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 7:52pm
So, your more realistic alternative is to take my 1 stop-minor-extension and make it go even further?!
Hey, you had me at hello.
PS I thought this was going to end as many online conversations do: Wasted, but your $ analysis and your proposal was definitely food-for-thought. Thanks!
Not a new idea
By Waquiot
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 9:50am
The Metropolitan Transit Recess Committee came out with these plans in the 1940s. I think the plans would make any transit lover salivate. A point I saw recently in their report is that there was a lot of potential in Hyde Park for what we would call today transit oriented development. Just think of what Cleary Square would be like today if the Orange Line stopped there.
But here's one to drive some people nuts. Back in the 1980s, it wasn't a given that the Needham Line was even going to be restored. I remember reading in the Transcript as a child plans to turn the line into a busway. Now that would end up taking a lot of buses off of Washington Street and would cost less than trains, but let's just be glad that it never happened.
The bottom line has to be the fiscal realities. GLX is stalled and 50% over budget. The Blue Line needs to get to Lynn first, then we can talk Orange Line. But Orange Line to Roslindale Square, which would theoretically benefit me personally, would be too short sighted.
OLX
By Schorschico
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 10:31am
Could it be done as a modular project? 1 station at a time.
Maybe some trains would have to stop before RV to avoid the need of "parking" space until you reach West Roxbury station and then you built it.
ROW issues
By Waquiot
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 2:29pm
I didn't bring it up before, but someday walk over the railroad bridges at Walworth or West Roxbury Parkway. While you are looking down, imagine trying to get 2 more sets of tracks under there. One track is doable, but 2 tracks is impossible. Therefore, the cleanest thing is to nix the trains for the subway cars.
Of course, they could just tunnel under the existing track, but then my $1 billion estimate starts to look closer to the truth.
Eventually that's going to
By anon
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 8:00am
Eventually that's going to have to happen anyway, because Amtrak services and increases on the rail demands at South Station and certain crossings further into the city are going to choke off the ability to run the Needham line, and then those neighborhoods will sue for lack of transit. It's a shame the state would rather waste the lawsuit money sometime in the future than start laying the foundations to just do the extension work now.
There is no inevitability
By Waquiot
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 9:43am
I think this is why I am heading into almost troll mode with this issue.
The MBTA owns South Station. Yes, expanded Amtrak service would be great, just like it would be between New York Penn Station and points south, which is a situation where capacity has been reacted. In the latter case, it's not like NJTransit is deciding to cut rail lines to satisfy the big guy, and so it would be with the T. Beyond issues at South Station, there is nothing to prevent Amtrak from running more trains on the NEC in Massachusetts. Again, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey are other stumbling blocks, but the Needham Line is not what is keeping expansion from happening.
Amtrak v MBTA
By HenryAlan
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 11:17am
It doesn't really matter which agency uses expanded South Station capacity. Whether it's the T or Amtrak, such an expansion means more trains vying to run the trench north of Forest Hills. There are operational complexities to that which are significantly eased by removing the Needham Line from the equation. Whether the trains are blue or purple, expanded service is going to be on the other branches. A branch that gets in the way and could easily be replaced by rapid transit is likely to be replaced by rapid transit. It's just a question of when.
When working well
By Waquiot
Fri, 10/23/2015 - 2:33pm
The trench works well. The problem is when one train runs late.
The best way to clear space in the trench is to run all Franklin trains over the Fairmont Line. That was the original route of the Midland Line. Of course, all the Franklin riders who work in the Back Bay would be upset, but still.
‘Party Train’ will make
By kvn
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 4:57pm
‘Party Train’ will make Fairmount commuter rail shine
''When passengers board a train Friday at one of four stations along the Fairmount commuter rail line, they won’t be met by conductors roaming the aisles and checking tickets as passengers stare silently at their smartphones. This train will be one big party.
A five-car train traveling between the Fairmount and Uphams Corner stops will feature displays of artworks and performances by musicians, all as part of the Boston Foundation’s centennial celebration.''
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/22/party-...
Where's the Mayor's Voice on Parking/Neighborhoods?
By bostonbria
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 1:25pm
Others have already commented that what makes a vibrant neighborhood is people living/walking in the neighborhood. We need housing development that is in context to support Rozzie Square. We are all better off if Rozzie Square is vibrant without empty storefronts. However, one of the key issues is always parking. When oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children - feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years, it makes for a very tough sell that we may have to give up their cherished entrenched behaviors for a better Rozzie that does benefit all to have and promotes a strengthened quality of life. This prevailing attitude is not just in So Boston. This is something for the mayor to tackle and I have yet to see any key messages related to this coming from his office - in fact, it seems like a lot of quiet. If I am wrong on this, I take it back. But the parking savers are going to be coming up very fast once again. Neighborhood Services is nice, but it is also outdated at this point in time and not keeping up with new challenges and opportunities.
''However, one of the key
By kvn
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 2:27pm
''However, one of the key issues is always parking. When oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children - feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years, it makes for a very tough sell that we may have to give up their cherished entrenched behaviors for a better Rozzie that does benefit all to have and promotes a strengthened quality of life''
Dont understand what you mean? The old geyser wants to have his own parking spot in front of Lodgen's Market in the Square.? Some people have already given up their cherished entrenched behaviors, like being able to walk to the neighborhood school, how did that work out? If you want to buy a place in the development, buy it ' if you don't , then dont. Moaning about the available parking and trying to posture it out of the deal only excludes people that feel and need different from you.It seems to me this drama anti car anti parking is trying to stack the deck with like minded social engineers. If you are against the concept of parking, buy somewhere else, or put up your dough and build your own housing complex. You are just trying to exclude the car driving public and obfuscating your argument with ''hooray for me, flux you '' reasoning.
Your argument has me confused
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 3:10pm
You say
So, are you with the people who think there should be more parking (or less units) in this proposed development? That kind of puts you in the camp of "oldtimers - whether in their senior years or THEIR children"
I mean, if you think a development like this is okay since the goal should be a walkable Square rather than a place to drive to, you could probably get by with people who "feel they have a right to park in their same places that they have been parking in for 30-40 years" since newer people wouldn't need to park, anyway.
Or you decided to interject the whole oldtimer/newcomer argument needlessly into this debate, in which case this oldtimer wishes you would suck an egg. I mean, there are legitimate issues on both sides, and people with all length of tenure hold a spectrum of views. We don't need any more piling on.
Your logic has me confused
By bostonbria
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 4:12pm
Waquiot glad you respect opinions on the spectrum. You had me guessing there in your last paragraph. This development is but one of numerous developments that will be happening across Roslindale. My intent, which may not have been as clearly stated, is that this is not a 'micro' one development issue; but is a macro issue, that affects differing neighborhoods across Roslindale. I support a walkable square and walkable Roslindale. And I am not anti-car. Until the T is extended and/or buses are reliable from 6a to at least 10 or 11pm, cars will often be a necessity. However, I don't believe people 'own' spots 'forever'. People may not explicitly state that this is their intent, but when you talk with people after meetings, the thought of walking one block to your home, or god forbid, any further, is not considered a feasible option.
I got ya
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 5:52pm
I mean, I was truly confused.
I get where you are coming from now.
Instead of (or in addition to) pledging ride sharing credits
By mg
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 2:24pm
They should pledge to arrange with Zipcar to keep 2-3 Zipcars there in dedicated spaces, so residents can be assured that they'll have a car available when they need one. Many people would find it much cheaper to use Zipcar than pay for insurance, repairs, etc. for a car - especially a 2nd car.
There's 3-4 dedicated zipcar
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 2:47pm
There's 3-4 dedicated zipcar spots in the Commuter Rail lot?
Off-street parking
By anon
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 4:32pm
Off-street parking requirements keep housing unaffordable. Period.
But if you can't get to your job in the burbs
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 5:53pm
You won't be able to afford to live most anywhere.
Commuting To The Living Room
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 6:50pm
Well maybe it's work that is the problem. Despite many advancements in connectivity there are still too few businesses allowing people to remote most or all of the time. Businesses locate themselves in remote office parks because downtown real estate is too expensive. But what if they only needed a small office big enough to be a mailing address and server room?
Yes you loose a certain amount of face time with employees, and there will be people who abuse the freedom. But you also get people who are willing to work longer hours because they're not spending 2+ hours commuting every day.
I dunno
By Waquiot
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 7:49pm
You might want to talk to the Patent Office about that. (I was going to go with this article, but it might cost you.
As for myself, if I telecommuted, who knows what might distract me.
But how do you email 44,000 #
By kvn
Thu, 10/22/2015 - 8:32pm
But how do you email 44,000 # of freight.? There are people that still work in the 3 dimensional world. You want heating oil , you got to take a tanker to the pier where the boat comes and fill er up. Not everyone can work in a spiffy hi tech building that has climate control and running water and bathrooms and such. Are these people any less worthy of inclusion into the new world order?
Pages