The BRA board today approved a development off Old Colony Avenue and Dorchester Street that would transform a nearly 5-acre collection of small industrial buildings into 656 condo and rental units in buildings ranging up to 24 stories tall.
Some 110 units - 25 more than required - would be marketed as affordable.
The Washington Village development would also include 99,000 square feet of retail space - including a supermarket - as well as lots of trees and almost an acre of open space, much in a new park similar in layout to the Post Office Square park downtown. Several public streets will cross the property, creating an urban-village feel.
State Sen. Linda Dorcena-Forry, state Rep. Nick Collins and city councilors Bill Linehan and Michael Flaherty all strongly supported the proposal. Several residents also spoke in favor.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Near the MBTA Red Line
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 6:33pm
People take public transportation so there will be no need for parking.
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 7:28pm
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Translation
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 8:39pm
"I want other taxpayers to pay for all of their own personal parking while I get to monopolize the "free" parking that all the other taxpayers provide for ME and MY exclusive use for as many vehicles as I want. I will whine about this incessantly because I think that being here now means that I get special rights over other taxpayers, property owners, and renters. Then I'll bitch and moan about housing prices".
Right?
There are many people who
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 9:05pm
There are many people who live near transit yet continue to use a car. Not all jobs or shopping would be near the T even for people that live there.
Zip Car is your friend
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 9:19am
So is paying for your parking.
Large chunks of personal property should not get a free ride. You have to pay for a storage unit in the cold storage place. Pay to store your personal vehicle.
Simple.
That's expensive and unrealistic for most
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 4:32pm
They don't always build enough parking. Most housing isn't near transit.
Many people already do pay.
Don't overbuild an area without also adding the other things that are needed.
Simple.
You can't pay if they don't build enough parking to pay for
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 4:33pm
This project aside, they don't often even build enough parking.
Don't expect the city to just build whatever housing you want just because you think it should.
How do you decide what is
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 1:59am
How do you decide what is "enough?" Right now we're giving it away on the street for free. At that price it's basically impossible to build enough of it so that everyone will always be able to get a space.
If you consider that people will pay 5 times as much for a square foot of housing as they would a square foot of parking, it's hard to argue that parking is really what we should be building more of. If people want more places to park their car, they can pay for it. But guess what: Most people, if you tell them it's going to cost them $300-400/month to keep their car int he city (what it would cost if people were paying full construction cost for a garage space), just choose to go without.
No. The post was talking
By anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 4:30pm
No. The post was talking about including parking with the development.
If you don't include parking, then people will park on the street, adding even more congestion.
People don't go without cars just because you say so. Clearly, many people are bringing cars anyway.
And why is that a problem? Oh
By eherot
Sun, 08/14/2016 - 12:26am
And why is that a problem? Oh, right, because of the people who already park there for free and believe that it is their god-given right to be able to do so.
No. It's because they need
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:51pm
No. It's because they need to use a car to get to a job or other needs that aren't located near public transit. If they don't include enough parking with each building for these people, then they will have less parking on the street.
Right, and why can't those
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:44pm
Right, and why can't those people that need a car to get to work also pay for their parking, too?
They do pay for their parking
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:25pm
They do pay for their parking, when they include the units with the building.
I'm talking about the people
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 6:38pm
I'm talking about the people who already live here and park on the street for free. Why can't they pay?
The last point is, while
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 9:06pm
The last point is, while public transit offers many good things, it's not just realistic at all to not include parking in new construction because there isn't enough there, even if it makes housing more expensive. People don't have to only live in a single location or community.
If they incluide parking, then you are paying for it
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 4:40pm
A parking location attached to a new housing building is basically included in the price, either in the rent, or as part of the purchase price.
Many new housing units do not include designated parking, and that would make the most sense.
Car services like you mention are not located near all housing, and are not practical on a daily basis.
If they include parking with the building, then people who live there would have a place to park and pay for it.
Simple.
If you force developers to
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 1:54am
If you force developers to build more parking than they would otherwise deem necessary, then you are asking those residents who choose not to own a car to subsidize the parking of:
- Those in the building that do choose to own a car and choose to park it in the building and
- Those in the surrounding neighborhood who are able to find spaces on the street for free because the car-owning residents of the building are not parking in them.
It's simple: If you force people to build parking that they would not otherwise build, you are indirectly subsidizing car ownership.
No one is asking anyone to
By anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 4:32pm
No one is asking anyone to subsidize anything, because it's a choice on if they actually move there. If they don't want to move to a building with parking, then they don't have to.
It's simply, if you don't build enough parking, people will still bring their cars and it creates a lack of parking space.
If *every* new building is
By eherot
Sun, 08/14/2016 - 12:31am
If *every* new building is required to be built with parking, then people looking for housing don't really have a choice, they have to rent a place with parking, even if they do not own car, because every new place will include parking.
It's simple: If people aren't willing to pay for the parking, developers shouldn't build it. We shouldn't *make* developers build expensive, off-street spaces so that the free, on-street spaces won't get used. That's not fair to the people who buy into the new building and don't want to own a car, and it drives up the price of new construction.
There's plenty of housing
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:54pm
There's plenty of housing that doesn't have parking already.
The need for transportation is more important that some people's indignation that their building doesn't have parking spaces.
It's simple: many people are willing to pay for parking, especially if it's already included with the building as part of rent or fees.
The solution is not to limit transportation to jobs just because some people feel housing is too expensive.
If you don't want to pay for a building that doesn't have parking, then move to one of the many that doesn't already.
And again, if there is really
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:48pm
And again, if there is really all of this demand for buildings with parking, why would we need to force the developers to build it? Why can't all of these people who "need" parking (even though they're living right across the street from a train station) also pay the full market rate for their own parking spaces?
The problem here is the street parking is way too cheap. It should cost enough that people who rarely drive have to think twice before storing a car on the street.
There's plenty of demand, as
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:28pm
There's plenty of demand, as shown by all of the full parking lots, places with a lack of street parking.
You would need to force developers to include parking because they don't make as much money on them as they do housing units. A huge number towns, suburbs, and cities do this because they recognize not including parking results in shortages.
If it's too cheap then charge more, or include parking with the buildings, the zoning requirements for many places already requires.
"There's plenty of demand, as
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 7:55pm
"There's plenty of demand, as shown by all of the full parking lots, places with a lack of street parking. "
1) If you look around on Google Earth you will see that about half of all of the visible off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood are unused. And that doesn't even count the garage spaces you can't see.
2) It's hard to accurately judge the demand for something that is heavily subsidized. Ask people to pay for the parking they use and you'll be amazed how many people suddenly decide they don't need it so badly after all.
"You would need to force developers to include parking because they don't make as much money on them as they do housing units. A huge number towns, suburbs, and cities do this because they recognize not including parking results in shortages."
Think about how absurd this argument sounds if applied to something besides parking or housing: Somewhere around 50 million people want to own a huge, luxury SUV with all of the latest safety features, but most people think that $60,000 is too much to pay for a car, so in response, the government mandates that the government build 60 million luxury SUVs (just in case some people want two, or need to lend one to a friend). But here's the problem: Building SUVs is expensive, and there aren't 50 million people who can afford to pay $60,000 for a car (and some people don't even want a big SUV).
So what happens? Two things at the same time: 1) The car manufacturers sell the cars at a huge discount, but they're not willing to discount them THAT much because they're wary of losing money on each one that they sell, and 2) Tons and tons of these luxury SUVs sit on the lot, unsold.
And then of course there's the question of how car manufacturers would be expected to pay to manufacture a car that no one is buying. Now if it's just one manufacturer, that company might actually go out of business (after all, Toyota can't just raise prices for the Corolla as long as Hyundai is still selling cheap cars), but if ALL manufacturers are required to build lots of extra luxury SUVs, then the manufactures are able to defray the cost by charging more for all of the OTHER cars that they build, and because they're all doing it, everyone is going to be raising their prices at the same time.
I know this seems incredibly stupid and irrational but this is EXACTLY what we're doing right now with parking spaces in Boston. We're forcing developers to build a product that not many people want to pay for and a substantial portion of it is going unsold. We rationalize it in the name of protecting the precious on-street parking, but that's a fool's errand because it's impossible for developers to compete with free and as long as the parking is free, there will never, ever be enough of it, no matter how many garages we build.
oh, man
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 8:38am
Google Earth is not an appropriate indicator for parking needs.
It's not ideal (because
By eherot
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 9:41pm
It's not ideal (because presumably most of their pictures are taken during the day when people are more likely to be away at work) but it's better than nothing. Thankfully, it's not the only thing we have to go on. In the few neighborhoods in Boston that have actually conducted parking surveys (Dudley Square for example) usage, even during peak hours, was rarely more than 80%, which would be consistent with the car ownership stats for the neighborhood. I think it's reasonable to assume that in the areas within 1000' of a train station, car ownership rates would be lower.
Holy crap, project much?
By Sgt. Hulka
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 10:39pm
I just read a juvenile but understandable laugh at the city and the developers plans
Have no frigging idea how you projected all the nonsense in your post.
Lighten up, Francis.
Good grief.
That must be why there's
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 7:41pm
That must be why there's hardly any cars even though there's a bunch of condos near parking then. People still bring cars. You also assume only people who work and shop along the red line would live there. That's not necessarily true either.
And you're assuming that just
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 2:00am
And you're assuming that just because you see cars, that's how everyone gets around, but there are actually quite a few more transit commuters than you seem to realize.
They bring cars and a lot of
By anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 4:33pm
They bring cars and a lot of people use them.
Yes, and also a lot of of
By eherot
Sun, 08/14/2016 - 12:34am
Yes, and also a lot of of people don't use them. In some neighborhoods 75 percent of people don't drive, but you will still see cars on every street. What's your point?
You will see cars on every
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:56pm
You will see cars on every street because sometimes they do use them. If they don't use the spots, then they can make a decision on if its worth the cost. It's not realistic to expect everyone to use public transit all the time since it's not located near everyone.
"it's not located near
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:40pm
"it's not located near everyone"
This is a moot point because we are discussing development that is near transit.
However
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 5:23pm
You keep talking about forcing EVERY developer, not just developers who are proposing construction near transit.
The goal posts, they keep moving.
Yes. Also, there's plenty of
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:29pm
Yes. Also, there's plenty of people who live near transit and still use cars.
Yes, and those people should
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 7:56pm
Yes, and those people should be paying full-freight for the privilege, even if they live in an old building with no driveway and park on the street.
...because they are
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 7:56pm
...because they are displacing people like myself who need to live near transit because we don't want to or cannot afford to own a car.
The market already makes
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 8:54pm
The market already makes those units more expensive, so it's not a clear financial advantage.
You not wanting a car does
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 8:56pm
You not wanting a car does not mean parking shouldn't be included with units near transit. Housing is already more expensive near transit anyway, so you wouldn't necessarily save money.
You insisting on living in an
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 9:03pm
You insisting on living in an expensive desirable location, as you say, near transit is irrelevant to the transit needs of the region. Currently, that includes parking spaces with new construction. You could save money by moving to a slightly different location, it's your choice not to move. If you move to a less expensive location, you could still afford a car, or afford rents in a place that has transit. You not owning a car is a choice, and while there are benefits to using transit, it's not an option for everyone all the team, even if they live near it. There are many places that include transit. Not all places near transit are as expensive as the most desirable areas anyways including other towns. Housing is expensive for a variety of reasons.
Transit needs?
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 6:03am
I don't think you can include subsidized parking spaces in "transit needs of the region." Subsidizing cars in thickly settled areas is inimical to the transit needs of the region. It imposes an artificial tax on people whose lifestyle choices otherwise help the transit needs of the region, making a transit-positive choice more expensive.
Builders within walking distance of transit hubs should be allowed to sell all the parking spaces they build separately from the units, floated on the market. Let the people choose.
Yes! Very well put. AND they
By eherot
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 9:33am
Yes! Very well put. AND they shouldn't be made to build any more than they want to.
Are you nuts?
By Bugs Bunny
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 10:07pm
Is EVERYTHING on the Subway line? Maybe I'd like to go golfing or go to Walmart. Everyone should have a space living there if they want one.
Then pay for parking
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 8:33am
Everybody pay for parking. Public parking too. Scarce resources need to cost money
Pay for your driveway
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 9:39am
Or STFU.
I do pay for my driveway
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 3:37pm
It is on my property, which I pay for.
People who rent pay for parking in driveways in their leases.
Wow. Anon IQ levels are dropping ... And I won't STFU.
No you don't
By Anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 10:42am
Your mortgage on that house you bought in the 90s is lower than what people are paying for a parking spot nowadays. So once again, either pony up an additional $500 or so a month like you're telling others to do and we'll listen to you or STFU.
Um, this is how buying
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 5:16pm
Um, this is how buying property works: You assume a certain amount of risk by plunking down a few hundred thousand dollars of your own money on something that MAY LOSE VALUE and in return, the cost to you of being able to use that thing is relatively fixed. No one is stopping you from doing the same, and benefiting when parking spaces are worth $1000/month in a few years.
Not quite
By Anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 10:26pm
This is the usual do as I say bullshit - I got my car and my parking space that cost me next to nothing, but I don't want you to have a car so I can have open roads for my preciousness bicycle.
You're not thinking this
By eherot
Sun, 08/14/2016 - 12:37am
You're not thinking this through. Even if SwirlyGrrl owns a space outright and has paid off her mortgage, by not renting it out for $500 a month (or whatever) she is still giving up that money in exchange for having a place to park her car. This is called the "opportunity cost" and it is every bit as valid a form of expense as it would be for her to pay someone else $500 to store her car on their property.
Except that "opportunity cost
By not the same anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:58pm
Except that "opportunity cost" isn't the only factor people consider when renting out their space. Not everything is about money.
Pages