Possible look for proposed new building in Roslindale.
Developers today showed off a proposal to replace a ramshackle commercial building at Belgrade Avenue and McCraw Street with a new four-story structure with first-floor retail space and 21 apartments above that.
The plans show more apartments than developers John Morrissey and Michael Forde originally proposed to nearby residents; they said they needed extra units to make up the cost of adding the extra parking residents had asked for in an earlier meeting.
They've proposed increasing the parking by using the existing building's basement for 24 parking spaces - double what they originally planned - and said that could prove expensive because they'll probably have to pay to clean up all the chemicals left behind by a former dry cleaner on the site. The earlier plan showed 12 above-ground spaces.
At a meeting at the E-5 police station, residents generally favored the proposal, but some said they were concerned that that 21 apartments was too dense and that the 24 spaces still not enough, because tenants would probably have two cars per unit and they'd wind up parking on nearby streets already overburdened by commuter-rail users trying to cheap out and not pay for parking. One resident asked if Forde and Morrissey would only be willing to rent to people with no more than 1 car per unit.
Forde, Morrissey and their architect said they doubted the building would prove a neighborhood parking menace, because it's right next to a commuter-rail station, several bus lines go down Belgrade, and the sort of people who'd want to live there might not even want a car at all.
Morrissey and Forde said the bulk of the units in the building would be 950-square-foot two bedrooms, with three 780-square-foot one bedrooms. All would be market rate - which they estimated at $2,600 to $2,700 a month for two bedrooms - except for three affordable units.
The building is next to the old catering concern that Exodus Bagels recently agreed to rent for a bagel bakery and, possibly, a full fledged diner - which would have no parking at all. Morrissey said it might be cool to talk to Exodus owner Adam Hirsh about opening a bagel-oriented coffee shop in one of the retail spaces in his building.
The developers have yet to file formal plans with the BRA; they said they wanted to meet with residents first. In addition to the BRA, the proposal would also need zoning-board approval because it is denser and taller than allowed by the current zoning for the site. It is slightly shorter than another mixed-use building a couple doors closer to West Roxbury Parkway.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Nothing you said gives a
By anon
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 2:17am
Nothing you said gives a valid reason why zoning that locals created shouldn't be adhered to. New residents that simply want more affordable real estate isn't an actual argument for getting rid of that zoning. Yes, often there's more demand than there is housing stock, and that means some locations are less affordable. No, not all of this new demand needs to have new construction.
Yes, often there's more
By eherot
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 10:29am
Yes, often there's more demand than there is housing stock, and that means some locations are less affordable.
It also means that some people are going to be homeless, and many more are not going to be able to live where they can find work, which creates a huge drag on our economy. Both of these things are more serious problems than neighbors' desires to preserve the "feel" of the neighborhood and are excellent reasons why local zoning should not be adhered to.
We have what people need
By HV08
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 11:13am
People need a place to live, unless you're going to suggest shutting down immigration and reproduction. Roslindale has infrastructure and businesses. I'd much rather see development that adds density to an existing resourced area than pushing it out to farmland, forests and otherwise undeveloped open or rural areas.
Only one of those things is
By anon
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 2:26am
Only one of those things is the main increase of growth in this area, so reducing demand is relatively simple over the long term.
That is how you reduce expansion in farmland and less dense areas. They will just build there anyway.
Basically you are saying "it doesn't matter what the locals did, just build because some people want cheaper rents". That's just entitlement. Move to a cheaper location, and it's not exactly an extremely wealthy area at the moment anyway.
You are making an argument out of entitlement saying that zoning doesn't apply just because you feel people should have more housing where you want. By that argument, any zoning doesn't apply anywhere. Obviously, that's not true.
Who's entitled?
By HV08
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 10:51am
So, you're suggesting shutting down immigration - and you call me entitled? I've lived here 35 years, around the corner from this building's location, so I'm as local as anyone else (and lower rents have no bearing on me as my house is fully paid for). I'm pro-zoning, but I also think zoning has to be flexible enough to accommodate population changes and some growth. For important environmental reasons, we need density development in areas that already have roads, schools, stores, public transportation, sewers and other infrastructure. What's entitled is thinking that only your wants matter.
No, not completely shutting
By anon
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 4:49pm
No, not completely shutting down, that's a strawman. You can take in a number without endlessly growing at the same time. It's not at all an all or nothing proposition. Currently, the growth is much larger than providing a stable number of the long term. If you only want "some growth" then the numbers currently are going to be a lot more than that and would require adjustment.
Your thinking is simplistic and naive, and you seem completely unaware of longer term trends. It's not entitled to suggest that endless growth isn't a viable long term solution.
You can take in a number
By eherot
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:55pm
When you try to constrain growth by limiting the supply of housing, what you actually get is ridiculously high rents, and that means evictions and homelessness.
What's more, because new construction is subjected ADA requirements, minimum lot size requirements, setback requirements, and minimum parking ratios, the design of the proposed development is just what's required to maintain the current density level, not raise it, as you seem to be suggesting it would do.
Translation
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 4:30pm
I GOT MINE F@#& YOU!
It's better than the shithole
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 10:05am
It's better than the shithole that is there now. Hopefully this will help clean up the other empty, deteriorating store fronts along Belgrade.
I am a tad worried about parking as well BUT if the streets start to get too congested (b/c of the other 5 story place they want to put up at the empty gas station) the we can always try for permit parking on the side streets, They also may be asking for 4 stories in hopes of getting 3.
As for the T - the Needham line has been better this spring/summer. Before that I agree it was crap and it wasn't on time 90% of the time. Fingers crossed it will continue to show up:)We also have the 35, 36, 37 and 38 (ppl forget about the Wren) that can get you to FH. You can walk to the Square in about 12-15 minutes.
Build it
By gradontripp
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 10:10am
I was at the meeting last night, and the main criticisms were parking, it's too tall/too dense, cost, and traffic.
Contrary to popular thinking, car ownership in Boston is on the decline. Not every renter will need space for two cars, and by only making one space available, you may be self-selecting your pool of potential renters to folks who need one or fewer spaces. People that need more space can rent from somewhere with sufficient on- or off-street parking -- there are a lot of options in Roslindale.
Another person there said that commuters already take up any available on-street parking on and near Belgrade -- "We're all parked up!" If a resident at the new development parks their car on the street and leaves it there during the day, that spot won't be available for that commuter. That's good! Also, the liaison from Mayor Walsh's office said if out-of-neighborhood commuters are an issue, he'd work with the community to add neighborhood-only parking around the area -- but that's not a problem for this building to solve.
The next complaint was that it's too tall or too dense. The architect put up a rendering that showed the proposed building on a Google Earth map. The top of new building up Belgrade (the one with the yoga studio, law office, and chiropractor) is clearly higher than the proposed building, and the triple deckers down Belgrade are only 7-8' shorter. It fits in well with the surrounding area. The same can't necessarily be said about another proposed development in the neighborhood.
[img=640x480]https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14359174_10...
As for density, it's taking up exactly the same footprint as the old, single-story building it wants to replace. The number of units a.) need to make up for the increase in construction cost to make up for the additional parking, and b.) would be way more expensive if there were fewer units built.
Rental cost is partially derived from how much it costs to develop the building. By conceding to earlier community demands for more parking than the 12 they initially offered (smart in my book), they have to go down into the basement, which, as Adam said, means cleaning up whatever chemicals the old dry cleaner left behind. The developers said that could be anywhere from $500k-$1m, all before the foundation is poured. That will bump the rental price up.
Rental cost is also largely a function of supply and demand. There aren't enough units, so every available unit is more expensive. 21 apartments won't solve that problem, but it will help.
Traffic. Traffic! 24 cars will not make traffic discernibly worse. Not making our roads more suitable to pedestrians and bikes, or not running a reliable public transit system so that people feel the only option is to drive, is what makes traffic worse. That's not something this development will solve.
"We're all parked up!"
By Rob Not Verified
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 10:21am
A quick walk down Belgrade Ave, South St, or adjoining side streets mid-day on any weekday will show how incorrect that statement is. Yes, you will not always find a spot directly in front of your home so if that's your gripe, well..... But otherwise, there is ample day-time parking even with the Bellevue commuter rail station - most people walk to that station anyway. Same thing with the Roslindale Village commuter rail parking lot, it's maybe 2/3 full at most on any given day. People consistently say they want this stretch of Belgrade Ave improved but God forbid someone come in and actually, ya know, seek to improve it.
That ownership is on the
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 2:01pm
That ownership is on the decline as a percentage is offset by ever more people in the city. You can have a lower percentage, but more owners because there's more in total.
Going to the meeting doesn't make developers points more or less credible, their merits or negatives can be just objectively either way.
That they need to add more units to make up for construction costs is irrelevant. It's well known that zoning exists when they buy a property.
Developers underestimate things all the time so their presentations look better.
No one is saying a single project makes traffic noticeably worse. When you have many projects like this adding more cars than it adds up. That is why careful consideration is needed for each project.
Oh right, that's why it's called planning.
Basically, your entire post is just an apology for developers that want to squeeze more money out, it's almost as if you work for them or something.
Thanks, Anon.
By gradontripp
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 2:58pm
The anonymity of the Internet sure helps you feel smarter than everyone.
Except You Just Did
By Rob Not Verified
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 3:05pm
Shot:
Chaser:
That ownership is on the
By eherot
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 8:48pm
This means very little for the development of an individual building. If only 80% of households across the whole city own cars, but you build enough parking spaces in your transit-accessible building to accommodate every single unit, then assuming your building is similar to the rest of the city, those extra spaces are going to go to waste, it doesn't really matter what the overall car-owning population of Boston is.
People complain when you
By anon
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 2:35am
People complain when you include even enough parking for each unit. They are debating if this is enough parking assuming residents bring more than one car per new apartment.
Perhaps I should be more
By eherot
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:36pm
Perhaps I should be more clear about the car ownership statistic. What it says is that the average household in Boston owns 0.8 cars. So yes, some own 2, and others own none, but on average, there are 4 cars for every 5 households. This means that if you require developers to build 21 parking spaces for 21 units, some of those parking spaces (4.2, on average) will go unused.
retail glut
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 10:13am
I am all in favor of this kind of development, especially on Belgrade.
I am interested to see if we end up with a retail space glut which drives down rents for businesses. Already maybe 1/2 the spaces across the street from Seven Star Bistro are empty, plus this whole block. Now of course this was empty because they wanted to sell the building to a developer (which is what happened) but there are clearly more retail spaces in town than are 'needed' currently.
I am..
By Manny
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 10:53am
Right up the street from this and am in full support of this project. As has been stated, anything is better than what is currently there. This project looks to me to be the right size and design.
Is there a way I can get on a list of some sort to find out when the next meeting would be ?
Mayor's liaison
By adamg
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 11:36am
Contact Daniel Murphy. I don't have his contact info handy right now (am in a humorous series of licensing board hearings right now), but you should be able to find it on www.boston.gov (if not, and nobody else here has it, let me know and I'll look it up).
Dan Murphy - Holla at you liasion
By Kristen H
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 12:25pm
[email protected]
617-635-3307
That's an interesting way to
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 2:19pm
That's an interesting way to spend your time, effectively making sure developers get their extra profits. A building that is too large is not better than anything that's there before.
Anyway, this at least does not have a strange architectural style, but the number of units is debatable.
I'd certainly prefer he do
By eherot
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 8:50pm
I'd certainly prefer he do that rather than fight to keep the housing supply in Roslindale scarce.
Yeah, that's just entitlement
By anon
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 2:21am
Yeah, that's just entitlement on your part, basically you are saying the residents of no location should be allowed to set a certain density. A desire for more housing in only the most desirable locations doesn't mean zoning just gets ignored everywhere.
More density- less parking
By Fred
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 12:45pm
I think this is a great addition to the neighborhood. Being right at the train stop its perfect for commuters. Let's face it, More people are using public transportation than ever...and with gridlocked city streets, it's about time we start promoting higher density buildings adjacent to train stations.
Because there's already so
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 2:09pm
Because there's already so much extra capacity. Of course not. There's no way force people to not use cars.
Sure their is
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 4:12pm
Make people pay market rate for using public streets as private vehicle storage.
Or just provide enough
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 5:25pm
Or just provide enough parking with each new building and don't assume there's going to be enough transit later.
What about your building?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 6:48pm
If you don't have as much parking as you demand of new buildings, shouldn't you be required to install it or procure it?
The public streets are the commons. The commons belong to all. If you want special parking, then you will have to pay for it. If there is not enough public parking, then there will be a need for those in previously built buildings to bring their parking availability up to zoning requirements of new buildings at their own expense.
You want free parking and you also want others to not have free parking, and yet it is public parking. That's ridiculous, undemocratic, and unfair.
A strawman
By anon
Wed, 09/14/2016 - 7:35pm
Nowhere did the post you responded to say anything about a specific parking arrangement. It was speaking about a general trend.
Not being able to refute that, you decided to run with your baseless strawman to state that everyone thing must done entirely the same.
Your entire post is premised on a baseless assumption (not having private parking), then fabricating a red herring from that.
That barely even qualifies as an argument, it's more like fiction writing
Where is the green roof?
By Karen Weber
Thu, 09/15/2016 - 6:47am
Why are we constructing yet another building in our neighborhood and no green roof is part of the plan. Given the importance of stormwater and energy efficiency, the green roof would help to solve both issues and bring LEED points to the project. Please reconsider these plans. Thank you!
Pages
Add comment