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
Still a bogus supposition
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 7:51pm
I pay interest on my mortgage, and I pay taxes based on the value of my property, which includes my driveway.
When I bought my property makes no freaking difference whatsoever. I wanted off street parking, I pay for off street parking. Any statement that I don't pay for my property is both false and patently stupid.
But I'm beginning to see why this is an issue for you - you have no freaking clue how any of this stuff works and you keep doubling down on the ignorance. People like you who don't have even the most fundamental concept of mortgages, financing property, etc. are the ones who get ripped off by lenders - there's another born every minute. I guess that is what happens when you grow up in a state where they don't require Personal Finance in high school.
First of all, you are talking
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 8:32pm
First of all, you are talking to a different anon. Second, this state has the best public education, and that means better than whatever state you moved from.
You are far to quick to arrogantly respond to basic points.
The point I was making is that it's not all about money, and that still matters.
Nobody in this thread has
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 11:32am
Nobody in this thread has claimed they must be provided with unlimited FREE parking except your imaginary strawman. I think most people who drive in the city understand that in busy areas, you're expected to pay for parking. The unit is being built without parking period, which considering there's a supermarket there, seems a little counterintuitive.
Sorry, just to be clear here:
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 2:04am
Sorry, just to be clear here: What is it that people are worried will happen if a supermarket does not build enough parking?
Oh, right, they're worried that the customers of that supermarket will park on the street. And why do the neighbors care about that? Could it be because those neighbors believe that their right to park on that street is important? And how much does that street parking cost again? Ah, yes: Nothing.
Or it's just that they would
By anon
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 4:34pm
Or it's just that they would like for there to be enough parking.
Enough for what? So that
By eherot
Sun, 08/14/2016 - 12:38am
Enough for what? So that everyone can have two spaces for free? And who will pay for all of this parking? And how will we get all of these cars in and out of the area?
No, they include them with
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 1:53pm
No, they include them with the buildings. People pay for them when they rent or buy the condo. That way you avoid the street parking issues.
You keep changing the terms of the argument, no one said two free spaces for everyone.
"You keep changing the terms
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 7:36pm
"You keep changing the terms of the argument, no one said two free spaces for everyone."
That is what the current zoning code dictates. Or maybe you were just thinking it should be "two free spaces for anyone who already lives here in the existing housing."
I am mainly hung up on the fact that you seem to think that anyone who already lives in the neighborhood should be entitled to park on the street for free, and anyone new who moves into the neighborhood should have to pay for a parking space in an off-street garage (whether or not they actually own a car). This two tier system that strongly favors incumbents (and substantially drives up the price of housing because of all that parking that needs to be built) seems grotesquely undemocratic to me.
"That is what the current
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 8:49pm
"That is what the current zoning code dictates. Or maybe you were just thinking it should be "two free spaces for anyone who already lives here in the existing housing."
Wrong. They are not free. They are included in the rent, purchase price, or fees.
"I am mainly hung up on the fact that you seem to think that anyone who already lives in the neighborhood should be entitled to park on the street for free,"
That wasn't even said in my posts. You are just making up strawmans because you can argue the preexisting point.
Why??
By SoBo-Yuppie
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 10:27am
"Everyone should have a space living there if they want one."
I want an ice cream cone. Can the government provide me one?
Stop with the free government hand-me-outs!! If you want to park, pay for it. Every resident parking permit should cost the market rate.
Can't afford it? Oh well, welcome to American capitalism.
..and you don't need a car when you have:
1. Zip Car
2. Uber
3. Taxis
4. Your feet
5. Hubway
6. Your Bike
7. MBTA Bus
8. MBTA Subway.
- The Original SoBo Yuppie
You forgot
By ElizaLeila
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 2:55pm
All the time in the world to be inconvenienced by the fickleness of the T, the Uber/Taxi driver, your health, the weather (and if in winter the city provided sidewalk has been taken care of private property owners) ...
Right
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 3:30pm
Because traffic is so very predictable when everyone wants their precious individual car.
It has been for me
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 7:53am
I live in the city and I drive. To and from work. My commute is 20-30 minutes in the morning compared to 60 minutes via T. The afternoons depend upon whether there is a Sox game, and even then it is predictable.
So yes, it is predictable for me.
But this is now anon-said, ABBQ-said. No one can prove the other's story incorrect.
It also gets steadily worse
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 11:36am
It also gets steadily worse as more people move into the city unless vast quantities of money are spent to widen roads and intersections.
For your commute
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:00pm
I may have found a sweet spot in where I live and where I commute to in the last 12 years (covers 3 different employment locations): I haven't noticed an appreciable change. But this is my situation, I can't speak to others's.
Give it time. The traffic you
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:41pm
Give it time. The traffic you experience WILL increase unless we can convince new residents not to drive everwhere.
Boy
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 5:25pm
You like having the last word, don't you?
Making roads larger just
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:50pm
Making roads larger just induces demand. The solution is not not overbuild, despite what some think about the need to endlessly build housing as if that's going to make it cheaper without causing these other problems. Not all housing that can be built needs to be built just because some believe there should be more.
There's a fundamental
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:39pm
There's a fundamental difference between induced demand for roads and housing: There is a nearly endless ability to keep adding housing capacity as long as we are willing to build taller buildings, but roads can really only get so wide before no one wants to live near them anymore. This is also why induced demand is rarely cited as a reason not to expand mass transit.
You said widen the roads.
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 1:56pm
You said widen the roads. That's the example you gave, and the response explained why it was wrong. You are changing the argument.
Then you changed it a second time by talking about transit instead of roads.
No, you don't need to keep adding housing capacity if you encourage other places to grow or recognize that endless expansion doesn't need to be a goal. Not everyone needs to live in every desirable location.
It also is possible to induce demand in housing, especially in desirable areas where building more encourages more speculation and doesn't lower prices.
"You said widen the roads.
By eherot
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 6:31pm
"You said widen the roads. That's the example you gave, and the response explained why it was wrong. You are changing the argument."
I think you're somewhat misunderstanding how "induced demand" actually works. It is definitely possible to increase the capacity of a road by widening it, it's just that in most suburban neighborhoods, the *main* constraint on the number of cars attempting to use the road is the amount of time people are willing to sit in traffic.
Southie is different because there are other constraints on the number of cars that can enter and leave a neighborhood. One of those constraints is the number of available parking spaces. In the "induced demand" scenario, it is assumed that developers will just keep building new parking spaces until the road is once again saturated with cars, but in the case of Southie it is completely plausible that the number of parking spaces (and therefore cars) in the neighborhood may not increase (at least by much) if we play our cards right.
"No, you don't need to keep adding housing capacity if you encourage other places to grow or recognize that endless expansion doesn't need to be a goal. Not everyone needs to live in every desirable location."
Tell that to the person who had to move from Ohio to Boston to find a job. And what other places would you be talking about exactly? The suburbs? Now you're back in the boat of having to expand road capacity again.
"It also is possible to induce demand in housing, especially in desirable areas where building more encourages more speculation and doesn't lower prices."
I would love for you to explain to me, in economic terms, exactly how you think this works. Double points if you can provide some examples of it actually happening.
As for examples of it
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 8:50pm
As for examples of it actually happening, a lot of the new housing is not occupied and used as investment. The more of that gets built and sold, the more of it is encouraged by the market. That is what has occurred in other locations in other regions as well.
Maybe if some of that money
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 2:05am
Maybe if some of that money we're spending building parking garages were spent on our transit system instead...
different pots of money
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 7:49am
Private monies (primarily).
Public monies.
Yes, that's right. We wouldn
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 9:17am
Yes, that's right. We wouldn't exactly be the first city to allow developers to pay a transit tax in lieu of building parking.
That transit tax doesn't seem
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 1:00pm
That transit tax doesn't seem like it would raise nearly enough money for the kind of expense that would be needed to bring transit to areas that don't have it. There only new development if there's room for it.
Consider that a parking space
By eherot
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 4:43pm
Consider that a parking space can add anywhere from $30-120k to the construction price of a unit (not to mention lost opportunity cost of units that can't be built) I think you could raise more than enough money from such a tax. Plus the fact that if you choose to build parking instead, you still have to build all of the road infrastructure to accommodate those cars, so you would be saving money there that could also be spent on transit.
No, you couldn't, because
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:34pm
No, you couldn't, because construction is eventually finished on a particular project and is not something that you can continually get taxes from for regular maintenance. The costs of other transit projects are well documented.
That some people want cheaper housing in certain locations does not mean that there isn't a need for parking even if it makes housing more expensive when it's included.
And delivery!
By Felicity
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 5:43pm
Delivery comes in handy too. Love ordering cases of TP and other staples. Free Shipping at Target with $25 order.
Yes - people should have a parking space if they want one
By Nancy
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 11:35am
The two best options I know that guarantee you a parking spot in an urban environment are
1) Rent a parking spot from a local garage or business
2) Each apartment comes with a deeded spots under the building or next to it
As for free parking? Get a permit and ride around the block a zillion times until you give up and down near Pleasure Bay.
Many new buildings do not
By anon
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 4:36pm
Many new buildings do not have deeded parking spots for each unit of housing. There are also not always paid parking spots in every location.
Virtually every neighborhood
By eherot
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 2:08am
Virtually every neighborhood in Boston (save perhaps the North End, Beacon Hill or Back Bay) has a copious supply of unused private spots. It's just a question of how much you're willing to pay. One thing is for sure: The price per square foot is well below what you'd pay for a similar unit of housing.
Many of those units are not
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:31pm
Many of those units are not available for people that do not live there. Including parking with housing is a zoning requirement for many places because they recognize not everyone can use transit.
I am really excited by this.
By bostonbob235
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 8:11pm
I am really excited by this. Literally 95% of the buildings that they will be replacing are currently vacant. This is nothing but good news for this area.
There still won't be much
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 9:06pm
There still won't be much else there. New housing is welcome, but not too much in one location.
Except it's not being built in a vacuum
By adamg
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 9:10pm
There are proposals all up and down Dorchester Avenue even before the BRA finishes its zoning upgrade that would make it easier to build housing along the street.
But there's little planning
By anon
Thu, 08/11/2016 - 11:43pm
But there's little planning for the entire area, but instead just a bunch of individual projects getting approved.
Poppycock
By MattyC
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 9:00am
The BRA is planning and developing 100 acres (yes, 100 actual acres) between Dot Ave and the train tracks. You think each portion of that is designed and built in a vacuum?
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planning/planning-initiatives/fort-point-district-planning-(100-acres)
edit: Adam, a little help? Those morons put parentheses in their URL (and should be shot out of a cannon for same) and I can't get the link to form properly through the parser.
edit2: Thats the wrong parcel anyway. Still looking for the Dot Ave master plan.
edit3: Here's the Globe talking about it, anyway.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/12/01/so...
And here is the BRA project
By MattyC
Fri, 08/12/2016 - 9:08am
And here is the BRA project site.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/planni...
Excellent
By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 08/13/2016 - 7:31am
What a good proposal. Thanks for bringing some facts into the discussion.
I know, right?
By ElizaLeila
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 7:55am
How dare he. ;-)
As if all these meetings
By anon
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 12:47pm
As if all these meetings resulted in good well planned neighborhoods in other parts of the region. There are many cases where that wasn't true.
Facts, please.
By MattyC
Mon, 08/15/2016 - 2:39pm
Facts, please.
The West End.
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 12:45pm
The West End.
More knowledge of the history of the area please. Just saying "facts please" isn't an argument.
Oh give me a break. You're
By MattyC
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 3:04pm
Oh give me a break. You're applying the result of a failed 1950's revitalization experiment to the development of unoccupied land. I know plenty about the history of the area, thankyouverymuch. What I don't know is how the West End backs up what I assume is your (anon, not verified) argument that :
[quote]As if all these meetings resulted in good well planned neighborhoods in other parts of the region. There are many cases where that wasn't true.[/quote]
We're not talking about razing a neighborhood here. In fact, it's the exact opposite: building a neighborhood where there is none.
Care to lob another softball? I'm not the one making unsubstantiated assertions.
It's not entirely empty space
By anon
Tue, 08/16/2016 - 4:36pm
It's not entirely empty space there. Your own facts aren't even correct.
You can also look at plenty of other well known and commonly talk about areas that were well planned. If you are as well informed as you say, then you should know what they area.
The areas of South Boston were mostly empty and underdeveloped, those weren't well planned, and that was much more recent.
Even if it is empty space, that doesn't mean the finished result doesn't deserve study.
You can also look at plenty
By MattyC
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 9:15am
[quote]
You can also look at plenty of other well known and commonly talk about areas that were well planned. If you are as well informed as you say, then you should know what they area.
[/quote]
Show me one.
[quote]Even if it is empty space, that doesn't mean the finished result doesn't deserve study.[/quote]
The first correct thing you've said. And if you look at my link to the BRA above, you can see all of the project planning and studies that they've published. Do you have an actual issue with their plan? Did you even read the link? What are you arguing about?
"Show me one."
By anon
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 11:50pm
"Show me one."
You ignored the one that was already mentioned, the south boston formerly empty areas, despite having many meetings and plans involved.
Post should have said "not" well planned.
"Did you even read the link? What are you arguing about?"
You posted a link as if it was all the evidence that was needed. Good to see you disagree.
Also, I glaringly omitted a
By MattyC
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 10:05am
Also, I glaringly omitted a response to your "empty space" comments. Here it is: so what if there are some businesses there? No one* lives there, nobody is getting displaced for this, and if the businesses owned that land, this project would be a non-starter in the first place. Developers own those parcels and developers gonna develop.
There are some great business there that are going to have to find new digs, no doubt. Grand Ten, the Welch Gym, and others. But the bulk of that land is 1) empty; 2) D&D Towing, and honestly those shady bastards can take a hike; 3) Marr Cranes; 4) a giant warehouse; and 5) a lot for parked tractor trailers.
Are you honestly telling me that that use, listed above, is a better use of that land than a new freaking neighborhood with thousands of housing units, not to mention untold numbers of new retail and commercial spaces? Really?
*There is one block of housing (bounded by Humboldt Place, Dorchester St, Dexter St and Elery St), on land that the tenants do not own. There may also be 2-3 more apartment buildings, again, on land that they do not own. It's hard to tell from the satellite view which buildings are commercial and which are residential. For the purposes of my argument, 100 or so residents simply do not make critical mass.
"Here it is: so what if there
By anon
Wed, 08/17/2016 - 11:57pm
"Here it is: so what if there are some businesses there?"
Shifting the argument. You said it was basically completely unoccupied. It isn't.
"is a better use of that land than a new freaking neighborhood with thousands of housing units, not to mention untold numbers of new retail and commercial spaces?"
Strawman. No one said it wasn't. There always a debate about how much should be built given parking and traffic.
Pages